Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1942/31202
Title: | Comparing All-or-Nothing and Proportionate Damages: A Rent-Seeking Approach | Authors: | DE MOT, Jef Miceli, Thomas |
Issue Date: | 2015 | Publisher: | WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH | Source: | Review of law & economics (Print), 11 (1) , p. 1 -17 | Abstract: | This paper compares the all-or-nothing and proportionate damage rules for allocating damages in tort cases under evidentiary uncertainty. The focus is on how the two rules affect litigation expenditures by plaintiffs and defendants. The results of simulation experiments show that the expected judgment at trial is higher under the all-or-nothing rule for cases where the defendant did not take adequate care, but the judgment is higher under the proportionate rule when the defendant took more than adequate care. As for litigation expenditures, assuming equal costs of litigation, overall expenditures are higher under the all-or-nothing rule, except for very weak and very strong cases. | Keywords: | All-or-nothing rule;proportionate damages;litigation costs;rentseeking | Document URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/1942/31202 | ISSN: | 2194-6000 | e-ISSN: | 1555-5879 | DOI: | 10.1515/rle-2014-0058 | ISI #: | WOS:000443433200001 | Category: | A1 | Type: | Journal Contribution |
Appears in Collections: | Research publications |
Show full item record
SCOPUSTM
Citations
2
checked on Sep 5, 2020
Page view(s)
22
checked on Aug 1, 2023
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.