Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

Living Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Multiple Tortfeasors

  • Samuel FereyEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_634-1

Definition

Multiple tortfeasor issues cover cases where the loss is jointly caused by several people acting in a common purpose or not. A lot of examples illustrate these situations including accident law, environmental damage, product liability, etc. The law and economics literature has devoted much attention on these situations in order to understand the properties of different liability rules. Two levels of discussion should be distinguished: first, the negligence/strict liability debate, and second, the joint or no-joint liability rules meaning that the victim may get compensation back by any of the tortfeasors. The article surveys the most important results in law and economics and insists on the fact that multiple tortfeasor cases lead to paradoxes which challenge the very basis of the tort law and the economic rationality.

From One Defender to Several

At the very beginning, tort law has been one of the most promising fields in law and economics: Coase, Calabresi, and Posner were...

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

References

  1. Aivazian VA, Callen JL (1981) The Coase theorem and the empty core. J Law Econ 24:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Law Institute (2012) Restatement (Third) of the law of torts: liability for physical and emotional harm. Executive Office, American Law Institute, Saint PaulGoogle Scholar
  3. Calabresi G (1970) The costs of accidents. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  4. Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. European Group on Tort Law (2005) Principles of European tort law. Text and commentary. Springer, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  6. Faure M (2016) Attribution of liability: an economic analysis of various cases. Chic-Kent Law Rev 91:603–636Google Scholar
  7. Ferey S, Dehez P (2016a) Multiple causation, apportionment and the Shapley value. J Leg Stud 45:143–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferey S, Dehez P (2016b) Overdetermined Causation, Contribution and the Shapley Value. Chic-Kent Law Rev 91:637–658Google Scholar
  9. Hart HLA, Honoré T (1985) Causation in the law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kornhauser LA, Revesz RL (1989) Sharing damages among several tortfeasors. Yale Law J 98:831–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Landes WM, Posner RA (1980) Joint and multiple tortfeasors: an economic analysis. J Leg Stud 9:517–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Landes WM, Posner RA (1983) Causation in tort law: An economic approach. J Leg Stud 12:109–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miceli TJ (1997) Economics of the law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Miceli TJ, Segerson K (1991) Joint liability in torts: marginal and infra-marginal efficiency. Int Rev Law Econ 11:235–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Parisi F, Singh R (2010) The efficiency of comparative causation. Rev Law Econ 6:219–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Porat A, Posner EA (2012) Aggregation and law. Yale Law J 122:2–69Google Scholar
  17. Porat A, Posner EA (2014) Offsetting benefits. Va Law Rev 100:1165–1209Google Scholar
  18. Posner RA (1973) Economic analysis of law. Little Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  19. Shavell S (2004) Foundations of economic analysis of law. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Shavell S (2007) Liability for accidents. In: Shavell S, Polinsky M (eds) Handbook of law and economics, vol 1. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 142–182Google Scholar
  21. Stapleton J (2013) Unnecessary causes. Law Quart Rev 129:39–65Google Scholar
  22. Wright RW (1985) Causation in tort law. Calif Law Rev 73:1735–1828CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS, BETAUniversity of LorraineNancyFrance