Advertisement

European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 133–148 | Cite as

Environmental liability under uncertain causation

  • Eberhard Feess
  • Gerd MuehlheusserEmail author
  • Ansgar Wohlschlegel
Article

Abstract

Recently, the European Commission has issued the “Directive 2004/35/CE on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental liability”. The Directive extends liability that usually refers to personal injuries and private property to harm where private property does not exist (e.g. biodiversity and endangered species). In these cases, problems with multiple causation and uncertain causation tend to be even more severe than for cases where solely private property is affected. Nevertheless, the otherwise very ambitious Directive remains silent about how to deal with these problems. We focus on uncertain causation and analyze second best optimal standards of proof in a model where benefits of risky activities are private information, and where the firm’s care level chosen to avoid the damage is only imperfectly observable. We derive three results: first, we characterize the factors determining the second best standards. Second, and conversely to the previous literature, high standards of proof such as proof beyond reasonable doubt can be second best optimal even though they lead to inefficiently low care levels. Third, legislators should leave discretionary power to courts which allows them to choose the standard of proof conditional on factors such as the degree of uncertainty over causation or the information quality about care levels as taken by injurers.

Keywords

Environmental liability Uncertainty over causation Standard of proof Threshold probabilities 

JEL Classification

Q50 K13 K32 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to an anonymous referee for his valuable suggestions. Moreover, we thank Fernando Gomez, Ariel Porat, Hans-Bernd Schäfer, Urs Schweizer, Kathy Zeiler and participants of the 2006 Meeting of the American Law and Economics Association in Berkeley for helpful comments. G. Muehlheusser gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation as well as the hospitality of the Management & Strategy Department at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, where part of the paper was written.

References

  1. Alberini, A., & Austin, D. (1999). Strict liability as a deterrent in toxic waste management: Empirical evidence from accident and spill data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 38(1), 20–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arlen, J. (1992). Should defendants’ wealth matter? Journal of Legal Studies, 21(2), 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balkenborg, D. (2001). How liable should a lender be? The case of judgment-proof firms and environmental risk: Comment. American Economic Review, 91(3), 731–738.Google Scholar
  4. Barr, C. (1993). Countryside Survey 1990: Main Report. Department of the Environment, London.Google Scholar
  5. Bartsch, E. (1997). Legal claims for environmental damages under uncertain causality and asymmetric information. Finanzarchiv, 54(1), 68–88.Google Scholar
  6. Bernardo, A., Talley, E., & Welch, I. (2000). A theory of legal presumptions. Journal of Law Economics & Organization, 16(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd, J., & Ingberman, D. (2003). Fly by night or face the music? Premature dissolution and the desirability of extended liability. American Law and Economics Review, 5(1), 189.Google Scholar
  8. Boyer, M., & Porrini, D. (2004). Modelling the choice between regulation and liability in terms of social welfare. Canadian Journal of Economics, 37(3), 590–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clanton, B. (1992). Fleeting security: CERCLA liability for secured creditors. Emory Law Journal, 41, 167–221.Google Scholar
  10. Craswell, R., & Calfee, J. E. (1986). Deterrence and uncertain legal standards. Journal of Law Economics & Organization, 2(2), 279–303.Google Scholar
  11. Demougin, D., & Fluet, C. (2005). Preponderance of the evidence. European Economic Review, 50(2), 963–976.Google Scholar
  12. Diamond, P. (1974). Single activity accidents. Journal of Legal Studies, 3, 107–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Endres, A., & Bertram, R. (2006). The development of care technology under liability law. International Review of Law and Economics, 26(4), 503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Endres, A., Bertram R., & Rundshagen, B. (2007). Environmental liability law and induced technical change—the role of discounting. Environmental and Resource Economics, 36(3), 341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission. (1995). Study of civil liability systems for remedying environmental damage.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2004). Questions and Answers Environmental Liability Directive, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/04/78.
  17. Ewert, R. (1999). Auditor liability and the precision of auditing standards. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 155, 181–206.Google Scholar
  18. Feess, E., & Hege, U. (1999). The role of insurance in the adjudication of multiparty accidents. International Review of Law and Economics, 19(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feess, E. & Hege, U. (2003). Safety monitoring, capital structure and financial responsibility. International Review of Law and Economics, 23, 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feess, E., Prätorius, G., & Steger, U. (1990). Umwelthaftungsrecht. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  21. Hiriart, Y., Martimort, D., & Pouyet, J. (2004). On the optimal use of ex ante regulation and ex post liability. Economics Letters, 84(2), 231–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hutchinson, E., & Van’t Veld, K. (2005). Extended liability for environmental accidents: What you see is what you get. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 49(1), 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolstad, C. D., Ulen, T. S., & Johnson, G. V. (1990). Ex post liability for harm vs. ex ante safety regulation: Substitutes or complements. American Economic Review, 80(4), 888–901.Google Scholar
  24. Kornhauser, L., & Revesz, R. (1994). Multidefendant settlements under joint and several liability: The problem of insolvency. The Journal of Legal Studies, 23(1), 517–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, T. & Sappington, D. (2001). How liable should a lender be? The case of judgment-proof firms and environmental risk: comment. American Economic Review, 91(3), 724–730.Google Scholar
  26. Miceli, T. J. (1991). Optimal criminal procedure: Fairness and deterrence. International Review of Law and Economics, 11(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pitchford, R. (2001). How liable should a lender be? The case of judgment-proof firms and environmental risk: Reply. American Economic Review, 91(3), 739–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rubinfeld, D., & Sappington, D. (1987). Efficient awards and standards of proof in judicial proceedings. RAND Journal of Economics, 18(Summer), 308–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sanchirico, C. W. (1997). The burden of proof in civil litigation: A simple model of mechanism design. International Review of Law and Economics, 17, 431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmitt, A., & Spaeter, S. (2005). Improving the prevention of environmental risks with convertible bonds. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50(3), 637–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwartz, R. (1998). Auditors’ liability, vague due care and auditing standards. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 11, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schweizer, U. (2006). Legal damages at uncertain causation. Bonn, Germany: University of Bonn. (mimeo).Google Scholar
  33. Shavell, S. (1985). Uncertainty over causation and the determination of civil liability. Journal of Law and Economics, 28, 587–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shavell, S. (2004). Foundations of economic analysis of law. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ulph, A., & Valentini, L. (2004). Environmental liability and the capital structure of firms. Southampton, England: Dept of Economics, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
  36. Van Gerven, W. (Ed.) (2004). IUS commune casebooks for the common law of Europe, http://www.casebooks.eu/index.php.
  37. Wirl, F., & Huber, C. (2005). Entitling the pollutee: Liability versus standard under private information. Environmental & Resource Economics, 30(3), 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eberhard Feess
    • 1
  • Gerd Muehlheusser
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ansgar Wohlschlegel
    • 3
  1. 1.Frankfurt School of Finance & ManagementFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.Department of Sports Science, IZAUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations