Program
Subjects
Works
Book Types
Back to issue
Cover of: Judgment Proofness under Four Different Precaution Technologies
Gerrit De Geest, Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci

Judgment Proofness under Four Different Precaution Technologies

Section: Articles
Volume 161 (2005) / Issue 1, pp. 38-56 (19)
Published 09.07.2018
DOI 10.1628/0932456054254470
  • article PDF
  • available
  • 10.1628/0932456054254470
Due to a system change, access problems and other issues may occur. We are working with urgency on a solution. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Summary
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.