Wrongfulness as a Necessary Cause of the Losses - Removing an Alleged Difference between Strict Liability and Negligence

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In several Law and Economics publications in the area of tort law, emphasis is being placed on an alleged difference between strict liability and negligence. Under strict liability, an injurer is liable for the losses of the victim, irrespective of his level of care. Under negligence, the injurer is not liable if he took at least the legally required care level. According to the mainstream Law and Economics literature, this feature of negligence causes a discontinuity in the expected private costs of the injurer. In this paper, I argue that this discontinuity does not exist in reality, because courts, when applying the negligence rule, require that the negligence was a necessary cause of the accident. After all, if the model adopted in economic analyses of tort law does not reflect the essence of this body of law, it will not be able to yield correct predictions or valuable policy recommendations.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)188-203
Number of pages16
JournalEconomic Analysis of Law Review
Volume2
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Wrongfulness as a Necessary Cause of the Losses - Removing an Alleged Difference between Strict Liability and Negligence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this