Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Judgment proofness under four different precaution technologies

G. Dari-Mattiacci and Gerrit De Geest UGent (2005) JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL AND THEORETICAL ECONOMICS - ZEITSCHRIFT FUR DIE GESAMTE STAATSWISSENSCHAFT. 161(1). p.38-56
abstract
This study shows that the effects of judgment proofness on precaution depend on whether the injurer can reduce the probability of the accident, the magnitude of the harm, or both. Different legal solutions to the problem are examined: punitive damages, average compensation, undercompensation, accurate compensation, and negligence. We find that when the injurer can only reduce the probability of the accident, negligence with average compensation is the best solution, but negligence with perfectly compensatory damages is the desirable solution if the injurer can only or also affect the magnitude of the harm.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
journal title
JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL AND THEORETICAL ECONOMICS - ZEITSCHRIFT FUR DIE GESAMTE STAATSWISSENSCHAFT
J. Inst. Theor. Econ. - Z. Gesamte Staatswiss.
volume
161
issue
1
pages
38-56 pages
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000228757700003
JCR category
ECONOMICS
JCR impact factor
0.195 (2005)
JCR rank
162/175 (2005)
JCR quartile
4 (2005)
ISSN
0932-4569
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
id
332092
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-332092
date created
2006-04-21 11:50:00
date last changed
2016-12-19 15:44:10
@article{332092,
  abstract     = {This study shows that the effects of judgment proofness on precaution depend on whether the injurer can reduce the probability of the accident, the magnitude of the harm, or both. Different legal solutions to the problem are examined: punitive damages, average compensation, undercompensation, accurate compensation, and negligence. We find that when the injurer can only reduce the probability of the accident, negligence with average compensation is the best solution, but negligence with perfectly compensatory damages is the desirable solution if the injurer can only or also affect the magnitude of the harm.},
  author       = {Dari-Mattiacci, G. and De Geest, Gerrit},
  issn         = {0932-4569},
  journal      = {JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL AND THEORETICAL ECONOMICS - ZEITSCHRIFT FUR DIE GESAMTE STAATSWISSENSCHAFT},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {38--56},
  title        = {Judgment proofness under four different precaution technologies},
  volume       = {161},
  year         = {2005},
}

Chicago
Dari-Mattiacci, G., and Gerrit De Geest. 2005. “Judgment Proofness Under Four Different Precaution Technologies.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics - Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft 161 (1): 38–56.
APA
Dari-Mattiacci, G., & De Geest, G. (2005). Judgment proofness under four different precaution technologies. JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL AND THEORETICAL ECONOMICS - ZEITSCHRIFT FUR DIE GESAMTE STAATSWISSENSCHAFT, 161(1), 38–56.
Vancouver
1.
Dari-Mattiacci G, De Geest G. Judgment proofness under four different precaution technologies. JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL AND THEORETICAL ECONOMICS - ZEITSCHRIFT FUR DIE GESAMTE STAATSWISSENSCHAFT. 2005;161(1):38–56.
MLA
Dari-Mattiacci, G., and Gerrit De Geest. “Judgment Proofness Under Four Different Precaution Technologies.” JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL AND THEORETICAL ECONOMICS - ZEITSCHRIFT FUR DIE GESAMTE STAATSWISSENSCHAFT 161.1 (2005): 38–56. Print.