Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1574926
 


 



Traditional Versus Economic Analysis: Evidence from Cardozo and Posner Torts Opinions


Lawrence A. Cunningham


George Washington University Law School

2010

Florida Law Review, Vol. 62, 2010

Abstract:     
This Article contributes a new approach and evidence to the longstanding debate concerning the relative merits of traditional legal analysis compared to contemporary economic analysis of law. It evaluates prominent opinions of two judicial exemplars of the contending conceptions, the traditionalist Benjamin Cardozo and the economist Richard Posner, in torts, the field where economic analysis has greatest impact. Comparative critique of their opinions appearing in current torts casebooks, where they are the most ubiquitous judges, provides evidence that traditional legal analysis is a more capacious and persuasive basis of justification than contemporary economic analysis of law.

Keywords: torts, economic analysis of law, law and economics, traditional legal analysis, jurisprudence, Cardozo, Posner, juries, judges,Hand formula, negligence, negligence per se, proximate cause, standards, rules, statutory violations, least cost avoider

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: March 19, 2010 ; Last revised: September 17, 2010

Suggested Citation

Cunningham, Lawrence A., Traditional Versus Economic Analysis: Evidence from Cardozo and Posner Torts Opinions (2010). Florida Law Review, Vol. 62, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1574926

Contact Information

Lawrence A. Cunningham (Contact Author)
George Washington University Law School ( email )
2000 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
United States
202-994-0732 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,241
Downloads: 291
Download Rank: 56,484

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.250 seconds