Causation and Foreseeability
Mark F. Grady
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law
February 19, 2013
Research Handbook on the Economic Analysis of Torts, Jennifer H. Arlen, ed., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013
UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 13-03
This paper critiques the theory of causation offered by Steven Shavell and proposes a new theory that more successfully predicts the results of proximate cause cases. Two doctrines of proximate cause exist: “direct consequences” and “reasonable foresight.” We can explain case law best if we assume that both doctrines must be satisfied in order for negligence liability to exist. Thus, the two doctrines do not represent alternative conceptions of proximate cause as some analysts have proposed. Proximate cause limitations are prominent when a party has inadvertently, as opposed to deliberately, omitted a reasonable precaution. Actors cannot efficiently reduce their inadvertent lapses to zero. In situations in which the defendant’s conduct has been “possibly efficient,” causation doctrines truncate liability. This truncation has the effect of preserving efficient activity levels and preventing actors from substituting inefficiently durable precaution for nondurable precaution.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 69
Keywords: tort law, law & economics theory on proximate cause, legal historyAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: February 21, 2013
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.250 seconds