Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Litigation Expenditures Under Alternative Liability Rules

  • Jef De MotEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_542

Abstract

For a long time there was a widespread consensus in the literature that a comparative negligence standard imposes higher administrative costs than a simple negligence standard and a contributory negligence standard. However, in a setting where the parties can choose their level of litigation expenditures and the litigation expenditures influence the outcome of the case, it can be shown that none of the negligence rules unambiguously leads to higher expenditures. Which rule creates larger expenditures strongly depends on the quality of the case (taking into account both the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s negligence).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Artigot i Golobardes M, Pomar FG (2009) Contributory and comparative negligence in the law and economics literature. In: Faure M (ed) Tort law and economics / In: De Geest G (ed) Encyclopedia of law and economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 46–79Google Scholar
  2. Bar-Gill O, Ben-Shahar O (2001) Does uncertainty call for comparative negligence? vol 346, Discussion paper series. Harvard Law School, John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics and Business, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar-Gill O, Ben-Shahar O (2003) The uneasy case for comparative negligence. Am Law Econ Rev 5:433–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Mot J (2013) Comparative versus contributory negligence: a comparison of the litigation expenditures. Int Rev Law Econ 33:54–61Google Scholar
  5. Landes WM, Posner RA (1987) The economic structure of tort law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p 330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sanchirico C (2007) The Economics of Evidence, Procedure and Litigation, Vol. 1. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Shavell S (1987) Economic analysis of accident law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p 312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. White MJ (1989) An empirical test of the comparative and contributory negligence rules in accident law. Rand J Econ 20:308–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Postdoctoral Researcher FWO, Faculty of LawUniversity of GhentGhentBelgium