Skip to main content

Litigation Expenditures Under Alternative Liability Rules

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Law and Economics
  • 5 Accesses

Abstract

For a long time there was a widespread consensus in the literature that a comparative negligence standard imposes higher administrative costs than a simple negligence standard and a contributory negligence standard. However, in a setting where the parties can choose their level of litigation expenditures and the litigation expenditures influence the outcome of the case, it can be shown that none of the negligence rules unambiguously leads to higher expenditures. Which rule creates larger expenditures strongly depends on the quality of the case (taking into account both the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s negligence).

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 819.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,099.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Artigot i Golobardes M, Pomar FG (2009) Contributory and comparative negligence in the law and economics literature. In: Faure M (ed) Tort law and economics / In: De Geest G (ed) Encyclopedia of law and economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 46–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Gill O, Ben-Shahar O (2001) Does uncertainty call for comparative negligence? vol 346, Discussion paper series. Harvard Law School, John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics and Business, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Gill O, Ben-Shahar O (2003) The uneasy case for comparative negligence. Am Law Econ Rev 5:433–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Mot J (2013) Comparative versus contributory negligence: a comparison of the litigation expenditures. Int Rev Law Econ 33:54–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes WM, Posner RA (1987) The economic structure of tort law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p 330

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchirico C (2007) The Economics of Evidence, Procedure and Litigation, Vol. 1. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavell S (1987) Economic analysis of accident law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p 312

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White MJ (1989) An empirical test of the comparative and contributory negligence rules in accident law. Rand J Econ 20:308–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jef De Mot .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

De Mot, J. (2019). Litigation Expenditures Under Alternative Liability Rules. In: Marciano, A., Ramello, G.B. (eds) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_542

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics