Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/38240
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor經濟學系en
dc.creator廖郁萍zh_TW
dc.creatorYu-Ping Liaoen
dc.creatorMichelle J. Whiteen
dc.creatorLiao, Y-P.en
dc.creatorWhite, M.J.en
dc.date2002-
dc.date.accessioned2010-03-25T01:06:47Z-
dc.date.available2010-03-25T01:06:47Z-
dc.date.issued2010-03-25T01:06:47Z-
dc.identifier.issn1465-7252-
dc.identifier.urihttp://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/38240-
dc.description.abstractThis article compares incentives and efficiency under the pure tort system (the comparative negligence rule) to those under pure and mixed no-fault systems. Under no-fault systems, drivers are allowed to opt out of no-fault and file lawsuits if their damages exceed a certain threshold. We find that no single liability system always dominates on efficiency grounds, but the pure tort system does best when costs of care are low, and pure no-fault does best when costs of care are high. Choice systems, in which drivers choose between no-fault or pure tort systems, lead to less efficient results because drivers choose the pure tort rule too often.en
dc.languageen_USen
dc.language.isoen_US-
dc.relationAmerican Law and Economics Review 4(2),258-294en
dc.titleNo-Fault for Motor Vehicles: An Economic Analysisen
dc.typearticleen
item.languageiso639-1en_US-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
Appears in Collections:期刊論文
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
aler-reprint.pdf172.88 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.