TY - JOUR
T1 - Judgment proofness under four different precaution technologies
AU - Dari-Mattiacci, Giuseppe
AU - De Geest, Gerrit
PY - 2005/3
Y1 - 2005/3
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/17044401849
U2 - 10.1628/0932456054254470
DO - 10.1628/0932456054254470
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:17044401849
SN - 0932-4569
VL - 161
SP - 38
EP - 56
JO - Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics
JF - Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics
IS - 1
ER -