Advanced search
1 file | 393.51 KB Add to list

Talking points

Jef De Mot (UGent) and Alex Stein
Author
Organization
Abstract
Our civil liability system affords numerous defenses against every single violation of the law. Against every single claim raised by the plaintiff the defendant can assert two or more defenses, each of which gives her an opportunity to win the case. As a result, when a court erroneously strikes out a meritorious defense, it might still keep the defendant out of harm's way by granting her another defense. Rightful plaintiffs, on the other hand, must convince the court to deny each and every defense asserted by the defendant. Any rate of adjudicative errors random and completely unbiased consequently increases the prospect of losing the case for meritorious plaintiffs while decreasing it for defendants. This prodefendant bias forces plaintiffs to settle suits below their expected value. Worse yet, defendants can unilaterally reduce the suit's expected value and extort a cheap settlement from the plaintiff through a strategic addition of defenses. We uncover and analyze this problem and its distortionary effect on settlements and primary behavior. Subsequently, we develop three alternative solutions to the problem and evaluate their pros and cons.
Keywords
DEFENSE, COURTS, Defenses, damage multipliers, APPEALS, settlement of litigation, comparative fault, Judicial Error, TRIAL, Litigation, Bias in the Law, LAW

Downloads

  • TALKING POINTS.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 393.51 KB

Citation

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

MLA
De Mot, Jef, and Alex Stein. “Talking Points.” UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW, no. 3, 2015, pp. 1259–86.
APA
De Mot, J., & Stein, A. (2015). Talking points. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW, (3), 1259–1286.
Chicago author-date
De Mot, Jef, and Alex Stein. 2015. “Talking Points.” UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW, no. 3: 1259–86.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
De Mot, Jef, and Alex Stein. 2015. “Talking Points.” UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW (3): 1259–1286.
Vancouver
1.
De Mot J, Stein A. Talking points. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW. 2015;(3):1259–86.
IEEE
[1]
J. De Mot and A. Stein, “Talking points,” UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW, no. 3, pp. 1259–1286, 2015.
@article{4328085,
  abstract     = {{Our civil liability system affords numerous defenses against every single violation of the law. Against every single claim raised by the plaintiff the defendant can assert two or more defenses, each of which gives her an opportunity to win the case. As a result, when a court erroneously strikes out a meritorious defense, it might still keep the defendant out of harm's way by granting her another defense. Rightful plaintiffs, on the other hand, must convince the court to deny each and every defense asserted by the defendant. Any rate of adjudicative errors random and completely unbiased consequently increases the prospect of losing the case for meritorious plaintiffs while decreasing it for defendants. This prodefendant bias forces plaintiffs to settle suits below their expected value. Worse yet, defendants can unilaterally reduce the suit's expected value and extort a cheap settlement from the plaintiff through a strategic addition of defenses. We uncover and analyze this problem and its distortionary effect on settlements and primary behavior. Subsequently, we develop three alternative solutions to the problem and evaluate their pros and cons.}},
  author       = {{De Mot, Jef and Stein, Alex}},
  issn         = {{0276-9948}},
  journal      = {{UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW}},
  keywords     = {{DEFENSE,COURTS,Defenses,damage multipliers,APPEALS,settlement of litigation,comparative fault,Judicial Error,TRIAL,Litigation,Bias in the Law,LAW}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{1259--1286}},
  title        = {{Talking points}},
  year         = {{2015}},
}

Web of Science
Times cited: