Please cite to the original publication
We analyze liability rules in a setting where injurers are potentially insolvent and where negligence standards may deviate from the socially optimal level. We show that proportional liability, which sets the measure of damages equal to the harm multiplied by the probability that it was caused by an injurer’s negligence, is preferable to other existing negligence-based rules. Moreover, proportional liability outperforms strict liability if the standard of due care is not set too low. Our analysis also suggests that courts should rely on statistical evidence and bar individualized causal claims that link the harm suffered by a plaintiff to the actions of the defendant. Finally, we provide a result which might be useful to regulators when calculating minimum capital requirements or minimum mandatory insurance for different industries.
Date of Authorship for this Version
judgment proof problem, uncertain causation, court error and misperception, proportional liability, disgorgement.
Administrative Law Commons, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, Commercial Law Commons, Courts Commons, Insurance Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons