Advanced search

Judgment proofness under four different precaution technologies

Author
Organization
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.

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

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.
@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},
}

Web of Science
Times cited: