Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Tort Damages

  • Louis VisscherEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_543

Definition

The amount of monetary compensation a tortfeasor has to pay to the plaintiff(s) in a tort case when he is found liable.

Introduction

Liability rules in tort law determine when a tortfeasor is liable. The rules of tort damages determine the amount the liable tortfeasor subsequently has to pay. Together these two bodies of law therefore determine in which situations the tortfeasor has to pay how many damages to the plaintiff(s). Therefore, the behavioral incentives provided by tort law depend on both sets of rules. In this entry, the most important insights from the economic analysis of tort damages are presented. The limited space does not allow a full discussion of all possible complications (see Visscher 2009for a more complete overview), but where relevant such complications are briefly indicated. It is also not possible to include a full discussion of the liability rules themselves, but in the remainder of this introduction, a very brief account of this topic is...

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

References

  1. Adams M (1989) Warum kein Ersatz von Nichtvermögensschäden? In: Ott C, Schäfer HB (eds) Allokationseffizienz in der Rechtsordnung. Springer, Berlin, pp 210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arlen J (ed) (2013) Research handbook on the economics of Torts. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop W (1982) Economic loss in Tort. Oxford J Legal Stud 2:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen TH, Harbacek K (2011) Punitive damage awards in state courts, 2005. US Department of Justice Special Report March 2011Google Scholar
  5. Cooter RD (1989) Punitive damages for deterrence: when and how much? Ala Law Rev 40:1143–1196Google Scholar
  6. Cooter RD, Ulen TS (2012) Law and economics, 6th edn. Addison Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. Croley SP, Hanson JD (1995) The nonpecuniary costs of accidents: pain and suffering damages in Tort law. Harv Law Rev 108:1785–1917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dari-Mattiacci G, Schäfer HB (2007) The core of pure economic loss. Int Rev Law Econ 27:8–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedman DD (2000) Law’s order. What economics has to do with law and why it matters. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Geistfeld M (1995) Placing a price on pain and suffering: a method for helping juries determine Tort damages for nonmonetary injuries. Calif Law Rev 83:773–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gómez F, Ruiz JA (2004) The plural – and misleading – notion of economic loss in Tort: a law and economics perspective. Z Eur Priv 12:908–931Google Scholar
  12. Kaplow L, Shavell S (1996) Accuracy in the assessment of damages. J Law Econ 39:191–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karapanou V, Visscher LT (2010) Towards a better assessment of pain and suffering damages. J Eur Tort Law 1:48–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller TR (2000) Valuing nonfatal quality of life losses with quality-adjusted life years: the health economist’s meow. J Forensic Econ 13:145–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Polinsky AM (1997) Are punitive damages really insignificant, predictable and rational? A comment on Eisenberg et al. J Legal Stud 26:663–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Polinsky AM, Shavell S (1994) Should liability be based on the harm to the victim or the gain to the injurer? J Law Econ Organ 10:427–437Google Scholar
  17. Polinsky AM, Shavell S (1998) Punitive damages: an economic analysis. Harv Law Rev 111:869–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Polinsky AM, Shavell S (2014) Costly litigation and optimal damages. Int Rev Law Econ 37:86–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Posner RA (2003) Economic analysis of law, 6th edn. Aspen Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Posner EA, Sunstein CR (2005) Dollars and death. Univ Chic Law Rev 72:537–589Google Scholar
  21. Pryor ES (1993) The Tort law debate, efficiency, and the kingdom of ill: a critique of the insurance theory of compensation. Virg Law Rev 79:91–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rea S (1981) Lump sum versus periodic damage awards. J Legal Stud 10:131–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rizzo MJ (1982) The economic loss problem: a comment on bishop. Oxf J Legal Stud 2:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schäfer HB, Ott C (2005) Lehrbuch der ökonomischen Analyse des Zivilrechts, 4th edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Shavell S (2004) Foundations of economic analysis of law. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Sunstein CR (2004) Lives, life-years, and willingness to pay. Columbia Law Rev 104:205–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Wijck P, Winters JK (2001) The principle of full compensation in Tort law. Eur J Law Econ 11:319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vidmar N, Wolfe MW (2009) Punitive damages. Ann Rev Law Soc Sci 5:179–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Viscusi WK, Aldy JE (2003) The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertain 27:5–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Visscher LT (2009) Tort damages. In: Faure MG (ed) Tort law and economics, vol I, 2nd edn, Encyclopedia of law and economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 153–200Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics (RILE)Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands