How Dangerous Do You Think it is? A Perception of Risk Approach to the Standard of Care in Negligence

Ohad Somech
{"title":"How Dangerous Do You Think it is? A Perception of Risk Approach to the Standard of Care in Negligence","authors":"Ohad Somech","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2559198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Be it driving a car, fixing your toaster or investing in complex derivatives, we have all grown accustomed to risk playing an integral part in our society. Nowhere is the idea of constant exposure to risk more clear than in the law of negligence. Indeed negligence in general and the standard of care in particular can be thought of as drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable creation of and exposure to risk. This framework of thought, however, ignores a more basic role played by the law of negligence: deciding on the concept of risk our society should adopt. It is this preliminary discussion the article wish to address; challenging the current, technical approach to risk, for its failure to maximize social welfare, and proposing a Perception of Risk approach to replace it. After describing the Perception of Risk approach, the article continues in four parts. First, on a normative plane, the Perception of Risk approach is demonstrated as welfare maximizing. Second, a formal model of the Perception of Risk approach is presented. Third, the proposed approach is proven optimal when applied to case studies and compared with current legal doctrine. Fourth and finally, possible limitations of the Perception of Risk approach are addressed.","PeriodicalId":230084,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Law (Topic)","volume":"423 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CSN: Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2559198","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Be it driving a car, fixing your toaster or investing in complex derivatives, we have all grown accustomed to risk playing an integral part in our society. Nowhere is the idea of constant exposure to risk more clear than in the law of negligence. Indeed negligence in general and the standard of care in particular can be thought of as drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable creation of and exposure to risk. This framework of thought, however, ignores a more basic role played by the law of negligence: deciding on the concept of risk our society should adopt. It is this preliminary discussion the article wish to address; challenging the current, technical approach to risk, for its failure to maximize social welfare, and proposing a Perception of Risk approach to replace it. After describing the Perception of Risk approach, the article continues in four parts. First, on a normative plane, the Perception of Risk approach is demonstrated as welfare maximizing. Second, a formal model of the Perception of Risk approach is presented. Third, the proposed approach is proven optimal when applied to case studies and compared with current legal doctrine. Fourth and finally, possible limitations of the Perception of Risk approach are addressed.
你觉得有多危险?玩忽职守中谨慎标准的风险感知方法
无论是开车、修理烤面包机还是投资复杂的衍生品,我们都已经习惯了在社会中扮演不可或缺的角色。没有什么比过失法更清楚地说明持续暴露于风险之中。事实上,一般的疏忽,特别是护理标准,可以被认为是在可接受和不可接受的风险创造和风险暴露之间划清了界限。然而,这种思维框架忽略了过失法发挥的一个更基本的作用:决定我们社会应该采用的风险概念。本文所要探讨的正是这一初步问题;挑战当前的技术风险方法,因为它不能最大限度地提高社会福利,并提出一种风险感知方法来取代它。在描述了风险感知方法之后,文章继续分为四个部分。首先,在规范层面上,风险感知方法被证明为福利最大化。其次,提出了风险感知方法的正式模型。第三,当应用于案例研究并与现行法律理论进行比较时,所提出的方法被证明是最佳的。第四,也是最后,讨论了风险感知方法可能存在的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信