Advertisement

Public authority liability and the cost of disasters

  • Jef De MotEmail author
  • Michael Faure
Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

We examine the influence of introducing public authority liability in the context of disasters. In an ideal setting a rule of comparative negligence would incentivise the government to take an optimal amount of care. The citizen, being the residual bearer of the loss, would consequently also take optimal care. However, in the specific context of disasters, public authority liability may backfire and lead to more losses than without such liability. We argue that under some circumstances perverse incentives of citizens may increase with liability. We focus inter alia on (1) the difficulties that may exist to incentivise public authorities through liability rules, (2) the specific characteristics of comparative negligence that may make public authorities liable for the lion’s share of the damages, (3) the problem of negative expected value suits and (4) the fact that public authorities may be much more inclined to intervene ex post when damages exceed a threshold.

Keywords

Public authority liability Disaster insurance Comparative negligence Negative expected value suits 

Notes

References

  1. Bier, V. 2006. Hurricane Katrina as a bureaucratic nightmare. In On risk and disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina, ed. R.J. Daniels, D.F. Kettl, and H. Kunreuther, 243–254. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bruggeman, V. 2010. Compensating catastrophe victims. A comparative law and economics approach. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Bruggeman, V., M.G. Faure, and M. Haritz. 2011. Remodelling reparation. Changes in the compensation of victims of natural catastrophes in Belgium and the Netherlands. Disasters 35 (4): 766–788.Google Scholar
  4. Bruggeman, V., M. Faure, and T. Heldt. 2012. Insurance against catastrophe: Government stimulation of insurance markets for catastrophic events. Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 23 (1): 185–241.Google Scholar
  5. Cannarsa, M., F. Lafay, and O. Moréteau. 2006. France. In Financial compensation for victims of catastrophe. A comparative legal approach, ed. M. Faure and T. Hartlief, 81–118. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Coate, S. 1995. Altruism, the Samaritan’s dilemma, and the government transfer policy. The American Economic Review 85 (1): 46–57.Google Scholar
  7. Dari-Mattiacci, G., and M.G. Faure. 2015. The economics of disaster relief. Law & Policy 37 (3): 180–208.Google Scholar
  8. Dari-Mattiacci, G., N. Garoupa, and F. Gomez-Pomar. 2010. State liability. European Review of Private Law 18: 773–811.Google Scholar
  9. De Geest, G. 2012. Who should be immune from tort liability? Journal of Legal Studies 41 (2): 291–319.Google Scholar
  10. De Mot, J., and M. Faure. 2014. Public authority liability and the chilling effect. Tort Law Review 22: 120–133.Google Scholar
  11. De Mot, J., B. Depoorter, and M.G. Faure. 2016. The multiplication effect of legal insurance. New York University Journal of Law and Business 13 (1): 1–31.Google Scholar
  12. Depoorter, B. 2006. Horizontal political externalities: The supply and demand of disaster management. Duke Law Journal 56: 101–125.Google Scholar
  13. Durant, I.C. 2006. Belgium. In Financial compensation for victims of catastrophes. A comparative legal approach, ed. M. Faure and T. Hartlief, 37–79. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Emery, R., and I.M. Maazel. 2000. Why civil rights lawsuits do not deter police misconduct: The conundrum of indemnification and a proposed solution. Fordham Urban Law Journal 28: 587–600.Google Scholar
  15. Epstein, R.A. 1996. Catastrophic responses to catastrophic risks. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 12 (2–3): 287–308.Google Scholar
  16. Faure, M.G. 2007. Financial compensation for victims of catastrophes: A law and economics perspective. Law & Policy 29 (3): 339–367.Google Scholar
  17. Faure, M.G. 2013. Towards effective compensation for victims of natural catastrophes in developing countries. In Regulating disasters, climate change and environmental harm. Lessons from the Indonesian experience, ed. M.G. Faure and A. Wibisana, 243–276. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  18. Faure, M.G. 2016. In the aftermath of the disaster: Liability and compensation mechanisms as tools to reduce disaster risks. Stanford Journal of International Law 52 (1): 95–178.Google Scholar
  19. Faure, M.G., and T. Hartlief (eds.). 2006. Financial compensation for victims of catastrophes: A comparative legal approach. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Faure, M.G., F. Fernhout, and N. Philipsen. 2010. No cure, no pay and contingency fees. In New trends in financing civil litigation in Europe. A legal empirical and economic analysis, ed. M. Tuil and L. Visscher, 33–56. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  21. Fougere, J.J. 2010. Paying for prisoner suits: How the source of damages impacts state correctional agencies’ behavior. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 43 (3): 283–332.Google Scholar
  22. Garrett, T., and R.S. Sobel. 2003. The political economy of FEMA disaster payments. Economic Inquiry 41 (3): 496–509.Google Scholar
  23. Giesen, I., and A.L.M. Keirse. 2011. The Netherlands. In European tort law 2010, ed. H. Koziol and B.C. Steininger, 403–437. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Goudkamp, J., and D. Nolan. 2016. Contributory negligence in the twenty-first century: An empirical study of first instance decisions. The Modern Law Review 79 (4): 575–622.Google Scholar
  25. Kaplow, L. 1991. Incentives and government relief for risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4 (2): 167–175.Google Scholar
  26. Katz, A.W., and C.W. Sanchirico. 2011. Fee shifting. In Edward Elgar encyclopedia of law and economics. Procedural law and economics, vol. 10, ed. C. Sanchirico. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  27. Kramer, L., and A.O. Sykes. 1987. Municipal liability under § 1983: A legal and economic analysis. The Supreme Court 1987: 249–301.Google Scholar
  28. Kunreuther, H. 1968. The case for comprehensive disaster insurance. The Journal of Law and Economics 11 (1): 133–163.Google Scholar
  29. Kunreuther, H.C. 2006. Has the time come for comprehensive natural disaster insurance? In On risk and disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina, ed. R.J. Daniels, D.F. Kettl, and H. Kunreuther, 172–202. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  30. Leonard, H.B., and A.M. Howitt. 2010. Acting in time against disasters: A comprehensive risk-management framework. In Learning from catastrophes: Strategies for reaction and response, ed. H. Kunreuther and M. Useem, 18–41. Pearson Prentice Hall: Saddle River.Google Scholar
  31. Levinson, D.L. 2000. Making government pay: Markets, politics and the allocation of constitutional costs. The University of Chicago Law Review 67 (2): 345–420.Google Scholar
  32. Levitt, J.I., and M.C. Whitaker. 2009. Hurricane Katrina: America’s unnatural disaster. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  33. MacCoun, R. 1993. Is there a “deep-pocket” bias in the tort system? RAND Institute for Civil Justice. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/issue_papers/2006/IP130.pdf.
  34. Magnus, U. 2006. Germany. In Financial compensation for victims of catastrophes. A comparative legal approach, ed. M. Faure and T. Hartlief, 119–144. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Markesinis, B.S., J.B. Auby, D. Coester-Waltjen, and S. Deakin. 1999. The tortious liability of statutory bodies. A comparative and economic analysis of five cases. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  36. Monti, A., and F.A. Chiaves. 2006. Italy. In Financial compensation for victims of catastrophes. A comparative legal approach, ed. M. Faure and T. Hartlief, 145–194. Vienna: Springer/ECTIL.Google Scholar
  37. Niskanen Jr., W.A. 1971. Bureaucracy and representative government. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. O’Keefe, P., K. Westgate, and B. Wisner. 1976. Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature 260 (5552): 566–567.Google Scholar
  39. Posner, E., and A. Sykes. 2007. An economic analysis of state and individual responsibility under international law. American Law and Economics Review 9 (1): 72–134.Google Scholar
  40. Priest, G.L. 1996. The government, the market and the problem of catastrophic loss. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 12: 219–237.Google Scholar
  41. Raschky, P.A., and H. Weck-Hannemann. 2007. Charity hazard—a real hazard to natural disaster insurance. Environmental Hazards 7 (4): 321–329.Google Scholar
  42. Schäfer, H.-B. 2012. Can member state liability for the infringement of European law deter national legislators? In Research handbook on the economics of European Union Law, ed. T. Eger and H.-B. Schäfer, 82–94. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  43. Schleifstein, M. 2013. ‘Federal judge dismisses most of remaining Katrina damage lawsuits’ NOLA.com (Dec. 27, 2013, 5:03 PM), https://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/12/federal_judge_dismisses_most_o.html.
  44. Shavell, S. 1987. Economic analysis of accident law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schuck, P.H. 1983. Suing government: Citizen remedies for official wrongs. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Shughart II, W.F. 2006. Katrinanomics: The politics and economics of disaster relief. Public Choice 127 (1–2): 31–53.Google Scholar
  47. Spitzer, M.L. 1977. An economic analysis of sovereign immunity in tort. Southern California Law Review 50: 515–548.Google Scholar
  48. Suggerman, S.D. 2007. Roles of government in compensating disaster victims. Issues in Legal Scholarship 6 (3): 1–33.Google Scholar
  49. The Associated Press. 2013. ‘Judge Ends Katrina Flooding Lawsuits Against Feds’, USA Today (Dec. 28, 2013, 5:57 PM), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/28/judge-ends-katrina-flooding-lawsuits-against-feds/4233217/.
  50. Townsend, F.F. 2006. The federal response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons learned.Google Scholar
  51. Van den Bergh, R. 2010. Francovich and its aftermath: Member state liability for breaches of European law from an economic perspective. In The past and future of EU law. The classics of EU law revisited on the 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaty, ed. L.M. Poiares Pessoa Maduro and L. Azoulai, 423–430. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Van den Bergh, R. and H.-B. Schäfer. 1998. Liability of member states for infringement of the EC treaty: Economic arguments in favor of a rule of obvious negligence. European Law Review, 552–567.Google Scholar
  53. Van den Bergh, R., and H.-B. Schäfer. 2000. Member states liability for infringement of the free movement of goods in the EC: An economic analysis. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) 156 (2): 382–403.Google Scholar
  54. Van Nuffel, E. 1995. Financiële tegemoetkoming van de staat bij natuurrampen (algemene rampen) in België. In Natuurrampen en verzekering, ed. H. Cousy and H. Claassens, 47. Maklu: Antwerp.Google Scholar
  55. Walters, J., and D.F. Kettl. 2006. The Katrina breakdown. In On risk and disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina, ed. R.J. Daniels, D.F. Kettl, and H. Kunreuther, 255–261. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  56. Zeckhauser, R. 1996. The economics of catastrophes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 12 (2–3): 113–140.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Geneva Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hasselt UniversityHasseltBelgium
  2. 2.Maastricht University and Erasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations