Class Notes (922,111)
CA (542,723)
UTSG (45,887)
ECO (1,646)
ECO320H1 (30)
Lecture

Textbook Notes - Chapter 8 An Economic Theory of Tort

7 Pages
97 Views

Department
Economics
Course Code
ECO320H1
Professor
Robert Barber

This preview shows pages 1-2. Sign up to view the full 7 pages of the document.
Chapter 8: An Economic Theory of Tort Law (Textbook Notes)
- Economic essence of Tort Law: use of liability to internalize externalities created by high
transact costs
- Recovery:
o 1. Harm Suffered
o îXµ}(,uA(vv[l(]}
o 3. Breach of Duty (by defendant)
HARM:
- Liability laws =/= compensate for EXPOSURE to risk (e.g. outrage); only REALIZATION of risk
- }ÁvÁZ](]vs/d/D[lW>Ed/&&[µ]o]ǵÀ
- W(}uv]}vµvÀ]]u[](]}v}}]P]voµ]o]ǵÀ~h0)
o E.g. restores back to (Wo t W1) to compensate for lost wealth & restores sum equal to
cost of providing (Ho t H1) units of health
- /(]}µuPVÀ]]uv[}}v}uo,oÀoUhv}Ç]v]vP
W levels (IF VICTIM SEES A TRADEOFF BETWEEN W & H)
TANGIBLE LOSSES: e.g. medication costs, lost income etc.
/EdE'/>>K^^^WXPXu}]}voZuU]U^]vµ((]vP_
- Implementation of PERFECT COMPENSATION = difficult b/c hard to observe/measure valuation
of intangible loss
- LIABILITY DISPARITY t same court awards diff amounts of compensation to victims who suffered
the identical injury (causes: confusion over intangible damages)
o Across countries
o Reduction = increased fairness and efficiency
CAUSE:
- Even though there is a WRONG and DAMAGE, without CAUSE, no liability
- Differentiates tort from morality (e.g. 2 hunters firing, but only one killing t both are MORALLY
wrong, but only the one who actually CAUSED the harm is liable)
^h^-IN-&d_t measured by the ^µ-for-_ (if no, YES CAUSE; if yes, NO CAUSE)
Problems with the BFT:
- e.g. multiple harms t useless and misleading (too many factors)
- e.g. when applied to SEQUENCE of events that precede and injury t allows distant causes to
have the same weight as proximate causes t does not discriminate between proximate cause
and remote cause (e.g. being born)
www.notesolution.com
[Multiple causes can be measured by regression analysis (all variables with positive coefficients =
causes, the largest coefficient = most substantial cause)]
PROXIMATE CAUSE t u}(PV^,}Áo}uµZ}vv]}v(}]µoµ}
Z}Æ]u[µM_V]u]
[Page331 t ]u]µÀX}v}u]^v]}v_t Production and utility functions]
BREACH OF DUTY:
- sometimes harm and proximate cause enough = STRICT LIABILITY
- ^vPo]Pvµo_t rule of liability requiring plaintiff to prove harm, causation, and fault
(permits defense that accident occurred despite fact that injurer satisfied all of the applicable
standards of care)
- Fault = binary OR continuous (legal standard of care/precaution applies to a CONTINUOUS
variable)
o X=legal standard of precaution
x<X @ fault
x>X not @ fault
- Determination of fault: government regulations (e.g. reckless driving), duty of REASONABLE
CARE (too little guidance to people, too much discretion to judges)
o ^µ}(]PZ_
o Paterfamilias t person is obligated to treat some other people like a father treats his
family
o ^]}vo]Ç_t choosing effective means to legal ends
Minimizing Costs/PRECAUTION: (GRAPH t Figure 8.3)
- High transact costs Æ private agreement Æ tort liability induces injurers to internalize costs
imposed on other people
- 2 costs of tort law: 1) cost of harm 2) cost of avoiding harm
- Increase precaution = decrease probability of harm
o X t degree of precaution
o w t cost of precaution ($)
o WX t total amt spent on precaution - COST
o P t probability of harm (p=p(x) Æ decreasing function of x)
o A t monetary value of harm
o A*P(x) t expected harm in dollars t COST (also a decreasing function of x)
o X Æ loss of money, time, convenience
[simple model: assumes there are only the 2 costs t no other social costs]
Ö EXPECTED SOCIAL COSTS OF ACCIDENTS THEREFORE = SC = wx + p(x)A (U-Shaped curve)
o Lowest point on the SC curve = x* = socially efficient level of precaution
www.notesolution.com

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
Chapter 8: An Economic Theory of Tort Law (Textbook Notes) - Economic essence of Tort Law: use of liability to internalize externalities created by high transact costs - Recovery: o 1. Harm Suffered o : Z},K)LL[Z l]o} o 3. Breach of Duty (by defendant) HARM: - Liability laws == compensate for EXPOSURE to risk (e.g. outrage); only REALIZATION of risk - }LZZ]]LI @,[Zl9>[email protected][Z]o] - 9 }KLZ]}LLZ] ]K[ZZ]Z ]}L}}]2]Lo]o] ~D0) o E.g. restores back to (W J W ) to compensate for lost wealth & restores sum equal to o 1 cost of providing (HoJ H1) units of health - Z]}ZK2Z8] ]K L[Z}}L}Ko,oo7D LZ}]L Z]L2 W levels (IF VICTIM SEES A TRADEOFF BETWEEN W & H) TANGIBLE LOSSES: e.g. medication costs, lost income etc. [email protected] >>K^^^9:2:K}]}LoZK7]ZZZ7^]LZ]L2_ - Implementation of PERFECT COMPENSATION = difficult bc hard to observemeasure valuation of intangible loss - LIABILITY DISPARITY J same court awards diff amounts of compensation to victims who suffered the identical injury (causes: confusion over intangible damages) o Across countries o Reduction = increased fairness and efficiency CAUSE: - Even though there is a WRONG and DAMAGE, without CAUSE, no liability - Differentiates tort from morality (e.g. 2 hunters firing, but only one killing J both are MORALLY wrong, but only the one who actually CAUSED the harm is liable) ^ D^-IN- @_J measured by the ^-for-Z_ (if no, YES CAUSE; if yes, NO CAUSE) Problems with the BFT: - e.g. multiple harms J useless and misleading (too many factors) - e.g. when applied to SEQUENCE of events that precede and injury J allows distant causes to have the same weight as proximate causes J does not discriminate between proximate cause and remote cause (e.g. being born) www.notesolution.com
More Less
Unlock Document


Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit