(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)"> (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)">
Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cor/louvrp/2473.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to share joint liability: a cooperative game approach

Author

Listed:
  • DEHEZ, Pierre
  • FEREY, Samuel
Abstract
Sharing a damage that has been caused jointly by several individuals - called tortfeasors - is a difficult problem that courts often face. Even if there are basic principles and rules to apportion damages among them, legal scholars are still looking for a systematic apportionment method. We analyze that question from a normative point of view, using the theory of cooperative games that offers an axiomatic approach to surplus or cost sharing. We show how this kind of damage can be apportioned on two distinct basis, causation and degree of misconduct. Our analysis is based on the concept of potential damage. The potential damage associated to a subset of tortfeasors is the monetary value of the damage that they would have caused without the participation of the other tortfeasors. It is distinct from the additional damage associated to a subset of tortfeasors that is given by the difference between the total damage and the potential damage of the complementary subset. We distinguish two situations of joint liability, the simultaneous case where the damage would not have occurred in the absence of any one of the tortfeasors and the sequential case where the sequence of acts that has produced the damage is known. In the simultaneous case, the potential damage of an individual tortfeasor is by definition zero. In the sequential case, the only information needed is the immediate damage each tortfeasor has caused, depending on his or her position in the sequence. A judgment specifies for each tortfeasor an amount to be paid. That amount should not exceed his or her additional damage but should not fall below his or her potential damage. This defines two natural bounds, an upper bound and a lower bound, that we extend to subsets of tortfeasors. A judgment is fair if the contribution of any subset of tortfeasors is inferior to his potential damage and superior to his additional damage. Particular fair judgments are then obtained by assigning weights to tortfeasors to reflect
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • DEHEZ, Pierre & FEREY, Samuel, 2013. "How to share joint liability: a cooperative game approach," LIDAM Reprints CORE 2473, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    • Handle: RePEc:cor:louvrp:2473
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2013.02.003
    Note: In : Mathematical Social Sciences, 66(1), 44-50, 2013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fleurbaey,Marc & Maniquet,François, 2011. "A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521715348, October.
    2. Monderer, Dov & Samet, Dov & Shapley, Lloyd S, 1992. "Weighted Values and the Core," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 21(1), pages 27-39.
    3. Parisi Francesco & Singh Ram, 2010. "The Efficiency of Comparative Causation," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 219-245, September.
    4. Ambec, Stefan & Sprumont, Yves, 2002. "Sharing a River," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 453-462, December.
    5. Pierre Dehez, 2011. "Allocation Of Fixed Costs: Characterization Of The (Dual) Weighted Shapley Value," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(02), pages 141-157.
    6. SCHMEIDLER, David, 1969. "The nucleolus of a characteristic function game," LIDAM Reprints CORE 44, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Duranton, Gilles & Martin, Philippe & Mayer, Thierry & Mayneris, Florian, 2010. "The Economics of Clusters: Lessons from the French Experience," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199592203.
    8. S. C. Littlechild & G. Owen, 1973. "A Simple Expression for the Shapley Value in a Special Case," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 370-372, November.
    9. M. Maschler & B. Peleg & L. S. Shapley, 1979. "Geometric Properties of the Kernel, Nucleolus, and Related Solution Concepts," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 303-338, November.
    10. repec:cor:louvrp:-2405 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Greenberg, Joseph & Weber, Shlomo, 1986. "Strong tiebout equilibrium under restricted preferences domain," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 101-117, February.
    12. Ichiishi, Tatsuro, 1981. "Super-modularity: Applications to convex games and to the greedy algorithm for LP," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 283-286, October.
    13. William Thomson, 2007. "Cost allocation and airport problems," RCER Working Papers 537, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    14. Gaertner,Wulf & Schokkaert,Erik, 2011. "Empirical Social Choice," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107013940, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samuel Ferey & Pierre Dehez, 2016. "Multiple Causation, Apportionment, and the Shapley Value," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(1), pages 143-171.
    2. Pierre Dehez, 2013. "Cooperative provision of indivisible public goods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(1), pages 13-29, January.
    3. Pierre Dehez, 2017. "On Harsanyi Dividends and Asymmetric Values," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(03), pages 1-36, September.
    4. Dehez Pierre & Poukens Sophie, 2014. "The Shapley Value as a Guide to FRAND Licensing Agreements," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(3), pages 265-284, November.
    5. Demuynck, Thomas & Rock, Bram De & Ginsburgh, Victor, 2016. "The transfer paradox in welfare space," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-4.
    6. Emilio Calvo, 2021. "Redistribution of tax resources: a cooperative game theory approach," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 633-686, December.
    7. Dehez, Pierre, 2023. "Sharing a collective probability of success," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 122-127.
    8. Dehez, Pierre, 2021. "1-convex transferable utility games, a reappraisal," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2021016, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    9. Caulier, Jean-François & Mauleon, Ana & Vannetelbosch, Vincent, 2015. "Allocation rules for coalitional network games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 80-88.
    10. Thomas Baudin & David de la Croix & Paula E. Gobbi, 2015. "Fertility and Childlessness in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(6), pages 1852-1882, June.
    11. Kirchsteiger, Georg & Mantovani, Marco & Mauleon, Ana & Vannetelbosch, Vincent, 2016. "Limited farsightedness in network formation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 97-120.
    12. Dirk Van de gaer & Joost Vandenbossche & José Luis Figueroa, 2014. "Children's Health Opportunities and Project Evaluation: Mexico's Oportunidades Program," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 28(2), pages 282-310.
    13. Tamas Solymosi & Balazs Sziklai, 2015. "Universal Characterization Sets for the Nucleolus in Balanced Games," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1512, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    14. Mendolicchio Concetta & Paolini Dimitri & Pietra Tito, 2012. "Asymmetric Information And Overeducation," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, October.
    15. Claude, DASPREMONT & Rodolphe, DOS SANTOS FERREIRA & Jacques, THEPOT, 2007. "Hawks and doves in segmented markets : a formal approach to competitive aggressiveness," Discussion Papers (ECON - Département des Sciences Economiques) 2007039, Université catholique de Louvain, Département des Sciences Economiques.
    16. Nora, Vladyslav & Uno, Hiroshi, 2014. "Saddle functions and robust sets of equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 866-877.
    17. Bocart, Fabian Y.R.P. & Hafner, Christian M., 2015. "Fair Revaluation of Wine as an Investment," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 190-203, November.
    18. Trudeau, Christian & Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2020. "Clique games: A family of games with coincidence between the nucleolus and the Shapley value," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 8-14.
    19. Yokote, Koji & Funaki, Yukihiko & Kamijo, Yoshio, 2017. "Coincidence of the Shapley value with other solutions satisfying covariance," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 1-9.
    20. Daniel Granot & Jeroen Kuipers & Sunil Chopra, 2002. "Cost Allocation for a Tree Network with Heterogeneous Customers," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 647-661, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cor:louvrp:2473. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alain GILLIS (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/coreebe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.