Presumption of Negligence

Alice Guerra, Barbara Luppi, Francesco Parisi

    Research output: Working paper › Research

    Abstract

    This paper is about the incentive effects of legal presumptions. We analyze three interrelated effects of legal presumptions in a tort setting: (1) incentives to invest in evidence technology; (2) incentives to invest in care-type precautions; and (3) incentives to mitigate excessive activity levels. We suggest that the overlooked interaction between evidence and substantive tort rules is an important dimension that should inform the choice of legal presumptions. After considering the traditional factors that guide the choice of legal presumptions in tort law, we introduce the concept of “best discovery-bearer” to capture some of the factors that should guide the choice of legal presumptions. According to our analysis, the best-discovery-bearer criterion requires a shift of the burden of proof to the parties (a) who can most effectively invest in evidence technology; (b) whose precautions are more inelastic relative to discovery errors; and (c) who are not already burdened by the residual liability.
    This paper is about the incentive effects of legal presumptions. We analyze three interrelated effects of legal presumptions in a tort setting: (1) incentives to invest in evidence technology; (2) incentives to invest in care-type precautions; and (3) incentives to mitigate excessive activity levels. We suggest that the overlooked interaction between evidence and substantive tort rules is an important dimension that should inform the choice of legal presumptions. After considering the traditional factors that guide the choice of legal presumptions in tort law, we introduce the concept of “best discovery-bearer” to capture some of the factors that should guide the choice of legal presumptions. According to our analysis, the best-discovery-bearer criterion requires a shift of the burden of proof to the parties (a) who can most effectively invest in evidence technology; (b) whose precautions are more inelastic relative to discovery errors; and (c) who are not already burdened by the residual liability.
    LanguageEnglish
    Place of PublicationMinneapolis, MN
    PublisherUniversity of Minnesota Press
    Number of pages29
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 26 Mar 2016
    SeriesMinnesota Legal Studies Research Paper
    Number15-08

    Keywords

    • Burden of proof
    • Cheapest evidence-producer
    • Best discovery-bearer

    Cite this

    Guerra, A., Luppi, B., & Parisi, F. (2016). Presumption of Negligence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 15-08, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2577416
    Guerra, Alice ; Luppi, Barbara ; Parisi, Francesco. / Presumption of Negligence. Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota Press, 2016. (Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper; No. 15-08).
    @techreport{edb361b5f1374cf0840bd932e976e7b9,
    title = "Presumption of Negligence",
    abstract = "This paper is about the incentive effects of legal presumptions. We analyze three interrelated effects of legal presumptions in a tort setting: (1) incentives to invest in evidence technology; (2) incentives to invest in care-type precautions; and (3) incentives to mitigate excessive activity levels. We suggest that the overlooked interaction between evidence and substantive tort rules is an important dimension that should inform the choice of legal presumptions. After considering the traditional factors that guide the choice of legal presumptions in tort law, we introduce the concept of “best discovery-bearer” to capture some of the factors that should guide the choice of legal presumptions. According to our analysis, the best-discovery-bearer criterion requires a shift of the burden of proof to the parties (a) who can most effectively invest in evidence technology; (b) whose precautions are more inelastic relative to discovery errors; and (c) who are not already burdened by the residual liability.",
    keywords = "Burden of proof, Cheapest evidence-producer, Best discovery-bearer , Burden of proof, Cheapest evidence-producer, Best discovery-bearer",
    author = "Alice Guerra and Barbara Luppi and Francesco Parisi",
    year = "2016",
    month = "3",
    day = "26",
    doi = "10.2139/ssrn.2577416",
    language = "English",
    publisher = "University of Minnesota Press",
    address = "United States",
    type = "WorkingPaper",
    institution = "University of Minnesota Press",

    }

    Guerra, A, Luppi, B & Parisi, F 2016 'Presumption of Negligence' University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2577416

    Presumption of Negligence. / Guerra, Alice; Luppi, Barbara; Parisi, Francesco.

    Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota Press, 2016.

    Research output: Working paper › Research

    TY - UNPB

    T1 - Presumption of Negligence

    AU - Guerra,Alice

    AU - Luppi,Barbara

    AU - Parisi,Francesco

    PY - 2016/3/26

    Y1 - 2016/3/26

    N2 - This paper is about the incentive effects of legal presumptions. We analyze three interrelated effects of legal presumptions in a tort setting: (1) incentives to invest in evidence technology; (2) incentives to invest in care-type precautions; and (3) incentives to mitigate excessive activity levels. We suggest that the overlooked interaction between evidence and substantive tort rules is an important dimension that should inform the choice of legal presumptions. After considering the traditional factors that guide the choice of legal presumptions in tort law, we introduce the concept of “best discovery-bearer” to capture some of the factors that should guide the choice of legal presumptions. According to our analysis, the best-discovery-bearer criterion requires a shift of the burden of proof to the parties (a) who can most effectively invest in evidence technology; (b) whose precautions are more inelastic relative to discovery errors; and (c) who are not already burdened by the residual liability.

    AB - This paper is about the incentive effects of legal presumptions. We analyze three interrelated effects of legal presumptions in a tort setting: (1) incentives to invest in evidence technology; (2) incentives to invest in care-type precautions; and (3) incentives to mitigate excessive activity levels. We suggest that the overlooked interaction between evidence and substantive tort rules is an important dimension that should inform the choice of legal presumptions. After considering the traditional factors that guide the choice of legal presumptions in tort law, we introduce the concept of “best discovery-bearer” to capture some of the factors that should guide the choice of legal presumptions. According to our analysis, the best-discovery-bearer criterion requires a shift of the burden of proof to the parties (a) who can most effectively invest in evidence technology; (b) whose precautions are more inelastic relative to discovery errors; and (c) who are not already burdened by the residual liability.

    KW - Burden of proof

    KW - Cheapest evidence-producer

    KW - Best discovery-bearer

    KW - Burden of proof

    KW - Cheapest evidence-producer

    KW - Best discovery-bearer

    UR - http://ssrn.com/abstract=2577416

    U2 - 10.2139/ssrn.2577416

    DO - 10.2139/ssrn.2577416

    M3 - Working paper

    BT - Presumption of Negligence

    PB - University of Minnesota Press

    CY - Minneapolis, MN

    ER -

    Guerra A, Luppi B, Parisi F. Presumption of Negligence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 2016 Mar 26. Available from, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2577416

    Access to Document