Reference no: EM131348723

BILATERAL PRECAUTION

Consider the following setting of bilateral precaution.  Bicyclists who ride at night can reduce the risk of getting hit by a car by wearing reflective vests.  Drivers can reduce the risk of hitting a bicyclist by installing HID (High Intensity Discharge) headlights, which are brighter than normal headlights.  Imagine there's only one driver and one bicyclist, and the likelihood of an accident is as follows:

		Injurer Precaution
		Normal Headlights	HID Headlights
Victim Precaution	No Vest	8%	3%
	Vest	5%	1%

The damage done by an accident is $1,000, and compensation is perfect.  Reflective vests cost $15, and HID bulbs cost $30.  There is no insurance - drivers bear their own liability costs.

a. What is the efficient level of precaution by both sides?  (No calculus needed, just compute the total social cost - expected cost of accidents plus precaution - under the four possible combinations.)

b. What levels of precaution by both parties will a rule of no liability lead to?

c. What levels of precaution will a rule of strict liability lead to?

d. Show that, regardless of what the bicyclist does, it's efficient for the driver to use HID bulbs; and regardless of what the driver does, it's efficient for the bicyclist to wear a vest.

e. What levels of precaution would a rule of simple negligence lead to?

f. What levels of precaution would a rule of strict liability with a defense of contributory negligence lead to?

g. Who bears the residual risk of accidents (pays the cost of those accidents that still occur) under simple negligence?  What about under strict liability with a defense of contributory negligence?

h. What can you say about the levels of driver and bicyclist activity under these two rules?

QUESTION 2 - EGGSHELL SKULLS

Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case.  Putney, age 11, kicked Vosburg, age 14, in the leg during school.  The kick was not very hard - the jury found that "defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot, did not intend to do him any harm."  However, Vosburg was recovering from an earlier sledding injury to the same spot, and the light kick somehow caused Vosburg to permanently lose the use of his leg.  The court ruled that, even though Putney had no way of knowing Vosburg was so fragile, he (his parents) was liable for the harm done.

This is an example of the "eggshell skull" principle in tort law - even if someone has a skull as fragile as an eggshell, if you tap them on the head and break their skull, you're still liable.  This is also described as the doctrine that "we take our victims as we find them."

a. If we assume that people are aware of their own frailties, how does this compare to the ruling in Hadley v Baxendale?  Do you see a reason for the difference?

b. An alternative rule would be for injurers to be held liable for the harm their actions would have done to a "typical" victim, not the victim they actually injured.  Which rule seems better to you?  Why?

QUESTION 3 - NICE DOCTORS

Studies have shown that even in cases of clear negligence, patients are less likely to sue doctors who they like, that is, doctors who treat them kindly and are apologetic when things go wrong.

a. First, imagine a world where doctors do not have liability insurance.  In order to face correct incentives for precaution, should "nice" doctors be subject to higher punitive damages when they get sued?  Explain.

b. Next, imagine a world where doctors do have liability insurance, and pay their own premiums, which go up each time they are successfully sued.  In this world, explain why you might not want to be treated by a nice doctor.

QUESTION 4 - THE WAR ON DRUGS (modified from final exam, Spring 2009)

Suppose we believe that the use of illegal drugs is a public bad - that is, that one person's drug use imposes a negative externality on the rest of society.  (This could happen, for example, through increased rates of other crime and general lawlessness, or through health consequences that must be paid for through higher taxes.)

Anti-drug enforcement means that both suppliers and buyers face a risk of being caught and punished.  This raises the marginal cost for suppliers, and also raises the effective price of drugs faced by buyers (the cash price plus the expected punishment).

Suppose the street price of drugs is a fixed markup above the dealer's marginal cost.

a. Consider a proposal to focus additional enforcement efforts on suppliers, by increasing Coast Guard patrols to catch a higher fraction of people importing drugs into the country.  What effect will this have on the price of drugs?

b. Consider a proposal to focus additional enforcement efforts on buyers, by hiring more undercover police to sell drugs and arrest the people who buy from them.  What will be the effect on the actual cash price of drugs?  On the effective price faced by buyers?

Drug users tend to fall into two categories: casual (occasional) users and addicts.  Suppose that casual users tend to be wealthier, and therefore attach a much greater financial disutility to jail time.  (For example, a typical casual user might equate one year of jail time to a cost of $100,000, while a typical drug addict might equate it to $20,000.)

c. Would the crackdown on suppliers impact the effective price (cash plus expected punishment) of drugs faced by casual users more, less, or the same as the effective price faced by addicts?

d. Would the crackdown on buyers impact the effective price of drugs faced by casual users more, less, or the same as the effective price faced by addicts?

Casual drug users tend to have very elastic demand - so higher prices lead to lower consumption, reducing the social cost of drug use and the cost of punishing those who are caught.  Drug addicts, on the other hand, have very inelastic demand, so increased prices have little deterrence effect.  In addition, many addicts support their habit through robberies and other crimes, so higher prices lead to more crimes by drug addicts (to support the same level of use at higher prices).

e. Based on these facts, Cooter and Ulen argue that the "ideal" drug policy might be a high price of drugs for casual users, but a low price for addicts.  Which of the two proposals described above - the crackdown on suppliers or the crackdown on buyers - comes closer to achieving this goal?

QUESTION 5 - PRE-TRIAL BARGAINING    (from final exam, Fall 2007)

An accident has occurred, causing $10,000 in harm to the victim.  The amount of harm done is undisputed and easy to prove; punitive damages are not applicable, so any damage award would be for exactly $10,000.

This type of accident is governed by strict liability, so the injurer is legally responsible, but it may be difficult to prove in court that he caused the harm.  The victim can hire a lawyer for $3,000 and go to trial, in which case he would have a 40% chance of winning.  He could also hire an expert witness to testify.  This would ensure victory at trial, but would cost an additional $10,000, for a total of $13,000.  Going to trial costs the defendant (injurer) $5,000, regardless of whether the plaintiff (victim) hires an expert witness.  Assume that neither party pays any legal expenses if an out-of-court settlement is reached.

First, consider the usual American rule where each party pays its own legal fees.

a. If the case goes to trial, will the plaintiff hire an expert witness or not?

b. Given your answer to (a), calculate

 1. each party's threat point during pre-trial negotiations (which is its noncooperative payoff if the case goes to trial)

 2. the gains from cooperation if a pre-trial settlement is reached

 3. the settlement that would occur if the two parties agreed to divide the gains from cooperation evenly

c. In this scenario, would the American rule lead to over-, under-, or efficient precaution on the part of the injurer?

Next, consider the usual British rule where the losing party pays both sides' legal fees (including the cost of the expert witness, if he was hired).

d. If the case goes to trial, will the plaintiff hire an expert witness?

e. Given your answer to (d), answer the same three questions as before: calculate

 1. each party's threat point

 2. the gains from cooperation

 3. the settlement that would occur if gains from cooperation were divided evenly

f. In this scenario, would the British rule lead to over-, under-, or efficient precaution on the part of the injurer?

Finally, consider the following cost-shifting rule, similar in spirit to Federal Rule 68.  If the case goes to trial and no damages are awarded, each side pays its own expenses.  If damages are awarded and are lower than a settlement offer the plaintiff (victim) refused, the plaintiff pays both sides' expenses.  If damages are higher than a settlement offer the defendant (injurer) refused, the defendant pays both sides' expenses.

g. What will happen if the case goes to trial after the defendant offers to settle for $10,001?  Is the plaintiff better off accepting this offer or going to trial?

h. What will happen if the case goes to trial after the plaintiff offers to settle for $9,999?  Is the defendant better off accepting this offer or going to trial?

i. What do you expect to happen in pre-trial negotiations?

j. In this scenario, would this cost-shifting rule lead to over-, under-, or efficient precaution on the part of the injurer?