Should liability be based on the harm to the victim or the gain to the injurer?

by A. Mitchell Polinsky

Publisher: National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, MA

Written in English
Published: Pages: 18 Downloads: 250
Share This

Subjects:

  • Liability (Law) -- United States.

Edition Notes

StatementA. Michael Polinsky, Steven Shavell.
SeriesNBER working paper series -- working paper no. 4586, Working paper series (National Bureau of Economic Research) -- working paper no. 4586.
ContributionsShavell, Steven, 1946-, National Bureau of Economic Research.
The Physical Object
Pagination18 p. ;
Number of Pages18
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL22427514M

Strict liability may also be imposed for injuries or damage caused by extremely hazardous activities and certain other torts. Vicarious Liability. At times, the law imposes responsibility for civil wrongs on people or entities other than those actually engaging in the conduct that led to injury or damage. This is called vicarious liability. At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages. Product liability claims resulting from defective medical devices are based on one of the following: the victims may claim that the manufacturer knew of the danger but deliberately concealed it or delayed taking the product off the market. If the These representatives may be liable if they recommended the medical device that injured you.   Roger Campbell writes in his book Justice Through Restitution, that in each of the biblical cases, the “result was that the victim was restored to a better position than before his loss and the lawbreaker was punished by having to make right his wrongs in a manner that cost more than his potential gain.”.

Tort claims should be distinguished from claims based on breach of promises, claims arising from contract law. Speaking generally, in the latter the victim seeks to hold the injurer to the promise that was privately made, rather than to a socially-created standard (although contemporary.   The IRS views disgorgement as a penalty, and thus not deductible as restitution, but the Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Liu v. SEC undercutting the IRS’s rationale. In light of Liu. which the injured person may recover damages, i.e. monetary compensation. The injured party may sue the wrongdoer (tortfeasor) to recover damages to compensate for the harm or loss incurred. The conduct that is a tort may also be a crime. Some torts require intent before there will be liability and some torts require no intent. In other. A plaintiff proving strict liability in the case of ultrahazardous activity may have to show that the defendant was engaged in an ultrahazardous activity, that the plaintiff was injured, that the plaintiff’s harm could have been anticipated as a result of the ultrahazardous activity, and that the defendant’s activity was a substantial.

process and should have a greater role in determining the outcome of their case. Restorative Justice (RJ) is not a program, but a way of looking at crime. It can be defined as a response to crime that focuses on restoring the losses suffered by victims, holding offenders accountable for the harm they have caused, and building peace within.   as would any decent person, GI. in fact, i don’t like to see *muslims* murdered by muslims; they’re still people, and they’re still being murdered for stupid reasons, usually because a 7th-century psychotic gave orders to kill anybody who isn’t muslim, which *always* includes other muslims who don’t do what the killers believe is true islamic worship. Synonyms for injurer in Free Thesaurus. Antonyms for injurer. 58 synonyms for injure: hurt, wound, harm, break, damage, smash, crush, mar, disable, shatter, bruise.

Should liability be based on the harm to the victim or the gain to the injurer? by A. Mitchell Polinsky Download PDF EPUB FB2

Should the level of liability imposed on an injurer be based on the harm he caused or instead on the gain he obtained from engaging in the harmful act. The main point of this article is that there is a strong reason to favor liability based on harm rather than gain when account is taken of the Cited by: rule: gain-based liability-equal to the observed value of the injurer's gain, g + y-and harm-based liability-equal to the observed value of the victim's harm, h + These measures will be compared first when there are no errors in estimation (when y and r are identically zero), then when there are errors.

Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Shavell, Steven, Should Liability Be Based on the Harm to the Victim or the Gain to the Injurer?.

JOURNAL OF Cited by:   Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Shavell, Steven, Should Liability Be Based on the Harm to the Victim or the Gain to the Injurer. (December ). NBER Working Paper No. wCited by: Get this from a library. Should liability be based on the harm to the victim or the gain to the injurer?.

[A Mitchell Polinsky; Steven Shavell; National Bureau of Economic Research.] -- Abstract: Should the level of liability imposed on an injurer be based on the harm he caused or instead on the gain he obtained from engaging in the harmful act.

Should Liability Be Based on the Harm to the Victim or the Gain to the Injurer. Autores: Steven Shavell, A. Mitchell Polinsky Localización: Journal of law, economics and organization, ISSNVol. 10, Nº 2,págs. Idioma: inglés. A victim of crime did not exist until well into the 17th century.

Why were victims ignored for so long. [1] A victim is an integral part of the system, in fact, some say without a victim there would be no need for the CJ system.

Victims are the people or communities that suffer physical, emotional, or financial harm as a result of a crime. Whatever the form of a negligence rule, the victim has an incentive to take any care that can minimize her residual liability.

But also remember that in the typical circumstance, one doesn't know ex ante whether one is going to be a victim or an injurer in the next accident. The obligation people owe each other not to cause any unreasonable harm or risk of harm is known as _____.

proximate cause B. the reasonable person standard C. duty of care D. res ipsa loquitur E. strict liability. Add tags for "Should liability be based on the harm to the victim or the gain to the injurer?".

Be the first. Yes- liability in a tort situation can sometimes involve many different factors. For example, a tortfeasor may become liable to several different victims if they have injured a group of people. Or, several different tortfeasors can be held liable for the injuries of a single victim, such as when a person is attacked by a group.

considered, strict liability and the negligence rule. Under strict liability, an injurer must always pay for harm due to an accident that he causes. Under the negligence rule, an 1 This chapter is mainly theoretical; for empirical work on liability, see Kessler and Rubinfeld ().

A liability waiver, or release of liability, is a legal document that a company or organization has you sign in order to protect them from being sued in the event that you are injured. Many people, when handed such documents before participating in an activity or using a rideshare service app, hastily sign, not understanding the terms or the.

(5) The plaintiff is commonly a secondary victim 1 51 54 56 57 57 PART V: OPTIONS FOR REFORM 59 (1) Should there no longer be liability for negligently inflicted “pure” psychiatric illness. 59 (2) Should it be a requirement that the psychiatric illness.

When the employer intentionally causes harm through tortious acts, the employee may be able to sue. This may include if the employer battered the employee, assaulted the employee or falsely imprisoned the employee.

Tort claims may be based on physical harm or emotional harm, such as the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Should Liability Be Based on the Harm to the Victim or the Gain to the Injurer?, 10 J.L. CON. & O. (); Louis Kaplow, Optimal Deterrence, Uninformed Individuals, and Acquiring Information about Whether Acts are Subject to Sanctions, 6 J.L.

CON. & O. 93 (). See also. Richard Craswell, “Deterrence and Damages: The. In strict liability torts, by contrast, there may be no fault at all, but tort law will sometimes require a defendant to make up for the victim’s losses even where the defendant was not careless and did not intend to do harm.

Steven Shavell, Should Liability Be Based on the Harm to the Victim or the Gain to the Injurer?, 10 J.L. ECON. & ORG.

(); Louis Kaplow, Optimal Deterrence, Uninformed Individuals, and Acquiring Information about Whether Acts are Subject to Sanctions, 6 J.L.

ECON. & ORG. 93 (). See also Richard Craswell, “Deterrence and. Premises Liability and Crime Victims Although premises liability claims are often based on the negligent actions of a property owner that led to a slip and fall or other injury on the property, premises liability can also apply to cases involving intentionally causing injury to the victim.

Limiting Penalties Based on Harm Mitchell A. Polinsky & Steven Shavell, Should Liability Be Based on the Harm to the Victim or the Gain to the Injurer.

The liability column in Table 1 can be viewed as an after-the-fact determination of the realized level of harm. In effect, the courts will assess the actual harm L, make an assumption about P and then compare PL to B for each case to determine negligence. Therefore, based on the court's determination of how much care ‘should’ have been taken, the court will assess liability for the accident.

Liability systems internalize negative externalities by providing general tort liability rules. According to such rules, those who cause harm to others should pay compensation. In theory, in the presence of positive externalities, negative liability should apply: those who produce benefits should be paid a compensatory award by the gainers.

Bhopal disaster victims may never get compensation following Dow-DuPont merger, fears UN official. Exclusive: Baskut Tuncak is ‘deeply concerned’ about the. Foreseeability of Harm.

Even in what may be considered an accident, a party may be held liability if the harm or injury was foreseeable, or a reasonably possible result. This means that proximate cause can be linked if a reasonable person would have foreseen the harmful consequences, and taken action to prevent them.

unavoidable harm on him, rather than allowing him to impose it on the victi m. Assuming that the harms they would suffer in being killed are broadly comparable in magnitude, and that any bad side effects of the two killings would also be roughly equal, there is a liability-based justification for the victim or a.

In case involving ‘nervous shock’, they said, a clear distinction must be made between primary and secondary victims. For the latter one, certain control mechanisms limit the potential liability for psychiatric harm.

Shock in a person of normal fortitude must be foreseeable. But Mr Page was a primary victim of the defendant negligence act.

Assault is the threat of offensive physical contact that is intended to and does cause apprehension that the victim will suffer a battery.

You can file an assault and battery claim against bar security personnel, even if you're not the target of the fight, and even if you don't know exactly who injured.

Did the Injured Person Know the Risk of Injury. A dog owner might be able to avoid liability by proving that the injured person knew there was a risk of injury from the dog but voluntarily took that risk anyway. For instance, an owner might not be responsible if the victim ignored a.

from the victim to the injurer. Corrective justice requires that the in-jurer give half of the imbalance as a payment to the victim. This pay-ment restores the status quo ante: the just distributive equilibrium is re-instated by eliminating loss to the victim and the corresponding gain to the injurer.

While victim fault defenses have occasionally sparked public outcry and scholars have proposed that they be changed, these defenses hold sway in most states. Accordingly, victims and advocates should consider tort cases as one viable option for victims but must examine the advisability of suit in light of a number of contextual factors.

Located in Portland, OR, Olivia Pennelle (Liv) is an experienced writer, journalist, and coach. She is the founder of the popular site Liv’s Recovery Kitchen, a site dedicated to helping people flourish in their recovery.

Liv is passionate about challenging limiting mentalities and empowering others to direct their own lives, health, and recovery.Premises liability is a legal concept that requires organizations to take measures to prevent workplace crime, injury, illness, and any other forms of harm.

This applies to everyone in the workplace including employees, customers, visitors, vendors and solicitors. Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Steven Shavell,“Should Liability Be Based on the Harm to the Victim or the Gain to the Injurer?” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, – Posner, Richard A.,“A Theory of Negligence”, Journal of Legal Studies, 1: 29–