Upload
amber-anthony
View
212
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Econ 522Economics of Law
Dan Quint
Fall 2009
Lecture 15
2
HW2 due Tuesday (11 a.m. sharp)
Second midterm next Thursday (Nov 5)
Logistics
3
On the topic of illegal contracts…
4
Let’s recap ourstory so far…
5
Efficiency Maximizing total surplus realized by everyone in society Scarce resources are owned by whoever values them most Actions are taken if social benefit exceeds social cost
Design a legal system that leads to efficient outcomes Once we set up the rules, we don’t expect people to act based on
what’s efficient We expect people to do whatever’s in their own best interest So the goal is set up the rules such that people acting in their
own best interest will naturally lead to efficiency
Our story so far
6
Coase gives us one way to do that As long as property rights are clearly defined and tradeable, and there
are no transaction costs, people have incentive to trade until each resource is efficiently owned
So initial allocation of rights doesn’t matter for efficiency But if there are transaction costs, we may not get efficiency this way
Led us to two normative views of the legal system: 1. Minimize transaction costs (“lubricate” private exchange) 2. Allocate rights as efficiently as possible
Tradeoff between injunctive relief and damages
Our story so far
7
Property law works well for simultaneous trade
Contracts allow for non-simultaneous trade
Contract law can… Enable cooperation Encourage efficient disclosure of information Secure optimal commitment to performance Secure efficient reliance Supply efficient default rules and regulations Foster enduring relationships
Our story so far
8
Property law works well when transaction costs are low enough to get voluntary trade
Contract law works well when transaction costs are low enough that we can agree to a contract, but high enough that we may not want to renegotiate the contract later
What about when transaction costs are too high to agree to anything in advance?
This is tort law
Our story so far
9
Tort law
10
Tort, noun. from French word meaning injury
Contract law: situations where someone harms you by breaking a promise they had made
Tort law: situations where someone harms you without having made any promises
“If someone shoots you, you call a cop. If he runs his car into yours, you call a lawyer.”
Tort law
11
Question: how to structure the law to get people to behave in a way that leads to efficient outcomes?
Deliberate harms: make punishment severe (criminal law)
Accidental harms: trickier Goal isn’t “no accidents”; goal is “efficient number of accidents”
Tort law
12
Question: how to structure the law to get people to behave in a way that leads to efficient outcomes?
Deliberate harms: make punishment severe (criminal law)
Accidental harms: trickier Goal isn’t “no accidents”; goal is “efficient number of accidents”
Unlike nuisance law, injunctive relief is not an option
Unlike contract law, no agreement ahead of time
Cooter and Ulen: essence of tort law is “the attempt to make injurers internalize the externalities they cause, in situations where transaction costs are too high to do this through property or contract rights”
Tort law
13
Plaintiff – person who brings a lawsuit
Defendant – person who is being sued
In a nuisance case, the defendant caused a nuisance, plaintiff was bothered by it, might be asking for injunction or damages
In a contract case, defendant breached a contract or violated its terms
In a tort case, defendant caused some harm to plaintiff, plaintiff is asking for damages
Plaintiff is the victim; defendant is the injurer
Cast of characters
14
Harm
Causation
Breach of Duty
“Classic” legal theory of torts
15
For a tort to exist, the plaintiff needs to have been harmed
“Without harm, there is no tort” Gas company sold gas with a defective additive
Dangerous for cars with turbocharged carburetors You have a car with normal carburetors You might be angry; but you weren’t harmed, so you can’t sue
Similarly, no compensation for exposure to risk Manufacturer exposed workers to some chemical Exposure will cause 15% of them to develop cancer later in life Can’t sue now – have to wait, see who gets cancer, then they can sue
Element 1: Harm
16
Element 1: Harm
Money
Health
Perfect compensation restores victim to original level of well-being generally done through money damages
17
Perfect Compensation
• Emotional harm• Pain and suffering• Loss of companionship
• Medical costs• Lost income• Damaged property
Intangible harmsTangible harms
Historically, courts less willing to compensate for intangible or hard-to-measure losses
Over time, American courts have started compensating for more intangible harms Pro: closer liability is to actual harm done, better incentives for avoidance of
these harms Con: disparity in award sizes, unpredictability
18
Harm
Causation
Breach of Duty
“Classic” legal theory of torts
19
For a tort to exist, the defendant needs to have caused the harm to the plaintiff
Cause-in-fact “But for the defendant’s actions, would the harm have occurred?”
Element 2: Causation
20
For a tort to exist, the defendant needs to have caused the harm to the plaintiff
Cause-in-fact “But for the defendant’s actions, would the harm have occurred?”
Proximate cause Immediate cause – defendant’s action can’t be too distant from the harm Palsgraf v Long Island Railway (NY Ct Appeals, 1928):
Guard pushed a passenger to help him onto train, passenger dropped fireworks he was carrying, they went off, explosion knocked down scales at the other end of the platform, which fell on Mrs. Palsgraf
Guard’s actions were not the proximate cause
Element 2: Causation
21
“A tree fell on a moving trolly, injuring passengers. One of them sued.
He succeeded in demonstrating that in order for the trolly to be where it was when the tree fell on it the driver had to have driven faster than the speed limit at some point during the trip.
Breaking the law is per se negligence, so the driver was legally negligent whether or not his driving was actually unsafe.
If he had not driven over the speed limit, the trolly would not have been under the tree when it fell, so, the plaintiff argued, the driver’s negligence caused the injury.”
Court ruled driver’s negligence “had not caused the accident in the legally relevant sense”
Element 2: Causation
22
Harm
Causation
Breach of Duty
“Classic” legal theory of torts
23
Element 3: Breach of Duty
• Harm• Causation• Breach of duty (fault)
• Harm• Causation
NegligenceStrict Liability
When someone breaches a duty he owes to the defendant, and this leads to the harm, the injurer is at fault, or negligent Under a negligence rule, even if I caused you harm, I’m not liable if I
had taken the required standard of care and the accident happened anyway
(Sometimes required, sometimes not)
24
“A tree fell on a moving trolly, injuring passengers. One of them sued.
He succeeded in demonstrating that in order for the trolly to be where it was when the tree fell on it the driver had to have driven faster than the speed limit at some point during the trip.
Breaking the law is per se negligence, so the driver was legally negligent whether or not his driving was actually unsafe.
If he had not driven over the speed limit, the trolly would not have been under the tree when it fell, so, the plaintiff argued,the driver’s negligence caused the injury.”
Hence the language in the trolly example
25
If I breach my duty of due care and injure you, I am liable
If I exercise the appropriate level of care but still injure you, I’m not liable
How is the standard of care determined? That is, how careful do I have to be to avoid liability, and who
decides? Is it negligent to drive 40 MPH on a particular road at a particular
time of day? What about 41 MPH? 42?
So under a negligence rule…
26
Some settings: government imposes safety regulations that set standard for negligence Speed limits for highway driving Requirement that bicycles have brakes Workplace regulations
Some standards are left vague “Reckless driving” may depend on road, time of day, weather… Common law focuses on duty of reasonable care Level of care a reasonable person would have taken (Civil law relies less on “reasonableness” tests, tries to spell out what
level of care is required)
How is the standard of care determined?
27
Strict liability rule: plaintiff must prove harm and causation
Negligence rule: must prove harm, causation, and negligence
A little history Early Europe: strict liability was usual rule By early 1900s, negligence became usual rule Second half of 1900s, strict liability became more common again,
especially for manufacturer liability in American consumer products U.S. manufacturers now held liable for harms caused by defective
products, whether or not they were at fault
Strict liability versus negligence
28
Harm
Causation
Breach of Duty
“Classic” legal theory of torts
29
The law as a setof incentives
30
Something to remember
distributionbut not
efficiency
efficiency
31
A physician comes upon an auto accident, stops, and treats an unconscious and badly bleeding victim. A week later the victim receives a bill for services rendered. Must he pay it?
Under current U.S. law the answer is yes.
Consider the following alternatives:
i. The victim need not pay anything
ii. The victim must pay only the value of whatever materials were used up in treating him (bandages, etc.)
iii. The victim must pay the going market rate for comparable medical services
iv. The victim must pay whatever the doctor demands
Which of these do you expect to lead to the most efficient outcomes? Why?
The law as incentives – HW2 Q3(from old midterm)
32
If we think about payoffs after the fact(after accident, after treatment)…
Suppose value of treatment is $100,000, cost of materials $50, value of doctor’s time $450, market rate $1,000
After the fact, all remedies are equally efficient So this can’t be the right way to think about the problem!
99,50099,50099,50099,500Combined Payoffs
999,500500-450-500Doctor’s Payoff
-$900,000$99,000$99,950$100,000Patient’s Payoff
Whatever Doc Asks
MarketRate
Cost of Materials
PayNothing
33
Need to think about incentive each rule creates, therefore the behavior it will lead to
Patient pays nothing
Patient pays for materials
Patient pays market rate
Patient pays whatever doctor asks
So what is the right way to think about the problem?