Efficiency, Fairness, and the Economic Analysis of Tort Law

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511575488.015

13 - Efficiency, Fairness, and the Economic Analysis of Tort Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 July 2009

Mark A. Geistfeld

Edited by

Mark D. White

Show author details

Mark D. White: Affiliation:
City University of New York

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Throughout its history, the economic analysis of tort law has been largely limited to one question: How should tort rules be formulated so as to minimize the social cost of accidents? Throughout its history, the economic analysis of tort law has also been controversial. The two phenomena are related. It is highly controversial whether tort law should minimize accident costs to the exclusion of fairness concerns, which in turn has fostered the belief that the economic analysis of tort law is controversial.

The controversy associated with the economic analysis of tort law was initially stirred up by the provocative work of Richard Posner. Although he was not the first to apply economic analysis to tort law, Posner strongly influenced the newly developing field by forcefully propounding the claim that tort law should maximize wealth by minimizing accident costs. The approach ultimately foundered as scholars, including Posner, recognized that cost–benefit analysis cannot determine initial entitlements, the basic architecture of any legal rule. The specification of initial entitlements, and thus the substantive content of any legal rule, depends on normative justification and not economic analysis.

This limitation of economic analysis was subsequently addressed by Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell, who have constructed a proof showing that a “fair” tort rule can violate the Pareto principle by preventing the adoption of a welfare-maximizing, “unfair” tort rule.

Type: Chapter
Information: Theoretical Foundations of Law and Economics , pp. 234 - 252

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575488.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Coleman, Jules L., 2003, “The Grounds of Welfare,” Yale Law Journal, 112, pp. 1511–1544CrossRef Google Scholar

Posner, Richard A., 1981, The Economics of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A., 1987, The Economic Structure of Tort Law, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kornhauser, Lewis A., 1998, “Wealth Maximization,” in Newman, Peter, ed., The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, New York: Stockton Press, vol. 3, pp. 679–683Google Scholar

Posner, Richard A., 1995, “Wealth Maximization and Tort Law: A Philosophical Inquiry,” in Owen, David G., ed., Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 99–111.Google Scholar

Kaplow, Louis and Shavell, Steven, 1999, “The Conflict between Notions of Fairness and the Pareto Principle,” American Law and Economics Review, 1, pp. 63–77CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaplow, Louis and Shavell, Steven, 2001, “Any Non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle,” Journal of Political Economy, 109, pp. 281–286CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaplow, Louis and Shavell, Steven, 2002, Fairness versus Welfare, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Weinrib, Ernest, 1995, The Idea of Private Law, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 132.Google Scholar

Cooter, Robert, 1987, “Torts as the Union of Liberty and Efficiency: An Essay on Causation,” Chicago-Kent Law Review, 63, pp. 523–552Google Scholar

Geistfeld, Mark, 2001, “Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law,” in Postema, Gerald, ed., Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 250–275CrossRef Google Scholar

Schwartz, Gary T., 1997, “Mixed Theories of Tort Law: Affirming Both Deterrence and Corrective Justice,” Texas Law Review, 75, pp. 1801–1834Google Scholar

,American Law Institute (1965), Restatement (Second) of Torts, St. Paul: American Law Institute Publishers, § 77Google Scholar

Keeton, W. Page et al., 1984, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th ed., St. Paul: West Publishing, § 3, pp. 16–17Google Scholar

Perry, Stephen, 2003, “Harm, History, and Counterfactuals,” San Diego Law Review, 40, pp. 1283–1314Google Scholar

Arlen, Jennifer H., 1990, “Reconsidering Efficient Tort Rules for Personal Injury: The Case of Single Activity Accidents,” William & Mary Law Review, 32, p. 43Google Scholar

Perry, Stephen R., 2000, “On the Relationship between Corrective Justice and Distributive Justice,” in Horder, Jeremy, ed., Oxford Essays on Jurisprudence, Fourth Series, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 237–263.Google Scholar

Keating, Gregory C., 2001, “A Social Contract Conception of the Law of Accidents,” in Postema, Philosophy and the Law of Torts, p. 34Google Scholar

Wright, Richard W., 2002, “Justice and Reasonable Care in Negligence Law,” American Journal of Jurisprudence, 47, p. 145.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chang, Howard, 2000, “A Liberal Theory of Social Welfare: Fairness, Utility, and the Pareto Principle,” Yale Law Journal, 110, pp. 173–235.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaplow, Louis and Shavell, Steven, 2000, “Notions of Fairness versus the Pareto Principle: On the Role of Logical Consistency,” Yale Law Journal, 110, p. 243.CrossRef Google Scholar

Katz, Leo, 2006, “Choice, Consent, and Cycling: The Hidden Limitations of Consent,” Michigan Law Review, 104, p. 666.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Ronald, 1984, “Rights as Trumps,” in Waldron, Jeremy, ed., Theories of Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 153–168.Google Scholar

Waldron, Jeremy, 2004, “Pildes on Dworkin's Theory of Rights,” Journal of Legal Studies, 29, pp. 301–308CrossRef Google Scholar

Geistfeld, Mark A., 2008, Tort Law: The Essentials, New York: Aspen PublishersGoogle Scholar

2006, Principles of Products Liability, New York: Foundation Press; 2003

Coase, Ronald H., 1960, “The Problem of Social Cost,” Journal of Law and Economics, 3, pp. 1–44.CrossRef Google Scholar

,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 90.Google Scholar

Gibbard, Allan, 1974, “A Pareto-Consistent Libertarian Claim,” Journal of Economic Theory, 7, pp. 388–410CrossRef Google Scholar

,American Law Institute, 2000, Restatement of the Law, Torts: Apportionment of Liability, St. Paul: American Law Institute Publishers, § 2.Google Scholar

Sen, Amartya, 1982, “On Weights and Measures: Informational Constraints in Social Welfare Analysis,” in Choice, Welfare, and Measurement, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 248–251Google Scholar

Posner, Richard A., 1980, “The Ethical and Political Basis of the Efficiency Norm in Common Law Adjudication,” Hofstra Law Review, 8, pp. 487–508Google Scholar

Hurd, Heidi M., 1996, “The Moral Magic of Consent,” Legal Theory, 2, pp. 121–146CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaplow, Louis and Shavell, Steven, 2000, “Should Legal Rules Favor the Poor? Clarifying the Role of Legal Rules and the Income Tax in Redistributing Income,” Journal of Legal Studies, 29, pp. 821–835.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nagel, Thomas, 1991, Equality and Partiality, New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Dworkin, Ronald, 1981, “What Is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, p. 311.Google Scholar

Kymlicka, Will, 1990, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction, Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 75.Google Scholar

Coleman, Jules L. and Ripstein, Arthur, 1995, “Mischief and Misfortune,” McGill Law Review, 41, pp. 91–130Google Scholar

Christman, John, 2003, “Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy,” in Zalta, Edward N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyGoogle Scholar

Boadway, Robin and Bruce, Neil, 1984, Welfare Economics, New York: Basil Blackwell, p. 2.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Ronald, 1980, “Is Wealth a Value?,” Journal of Legal Studies, 9, pp. 191–226CrossRef Google Scholar

Weinrib, Ernest J., 2001, “Correlativity, Personality, and the Emerging Consensus on Corrective Justice,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law (online ed.), 2, at http://www.bepress.com/til/default/Vol2/iss1/art4Weinrib, p. 14.CrossRef Google Scholar

Geistfeld, Mark A., 2008, “Punitive Damages, Retribution, and Due Process,” Southern California Law Review, 81, pp. 263–309.Google Scholar

Geistfeld, Mark A., 2006, “Due Process and the Determination of Pain and Suffering Tort Damages,” DePaul Law Review, 55, pp. 331–358.Google Scholar