Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Shay Lavie
{"title":"Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability","authors":"Shay Lavie","doi":"10.1177/13657127231185887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are two familiar decision rules: the binary, preponderance of the evidence and the continuous, proportional liability rule. This article proposes a thought experiment. Instead of all-or-nothing or a continuous rule, the law can utilise a middle ground—assigning liability stepwise, according to the procedural progression of the case—stepwise liability. Stepwise liability relies on the gradual design of civil procedure. Under the current system, the plaintiff has to pass several procedural thresholds with increasing evidentiary requirements in order to proceed to trial. Examples are a motion to dismiss and then a summary judgment. I propose that, corresponding to the procedural progression of the case, after surviving each step the plaintiff will be entitled to a gradually increasing share of the damages. Stepwise liability offers several advantages relative to the traditional rules. It provides partial compensation where the defendant's liability falls short of the 50% threshold, hence restoring incentives to take care. Unlike the proportional rule, this outcome can be achieved without major modifications to the existing decision rules. Unlike both rules, the proposal enables plaintiffs to cash in with some award before trial. I analyse the foregoing advantages together with the potential pitfalls, such as over-deterrence, larger legal expenses, and the day-in-court ideal.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"27 1","pages":"279 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127231185887","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

There are two familiar decision rules: the binary, preponderance of the evidence and the continuous, proportional liability rule. This article proposes a thought experiment. Instead of all-or-nothing or a continuous rule, the law can utilise a middle ground—assigning liability stepwise, according to the procedural progression of the case—stepwise liability. Stepwise liability relies on the gradual design of civil procedure. Under the current system, the plaintiff has to pass several procedural thresholds with increasing evidentiary requirements in order to proceed to trial. Examples are a motion to dismiss and then a summary judgment. I propose that, corresponding to the procedural progression of the case, after surviving each step the plaintiff will be entitled to a gradually increasing share of the damages. Stepwise liability offers several advantages relative to the traditional rules. It provides partial compensation where the defendant's liability falls short of the 50% threshold, hence restoring incentives to take care. Unlike the proportional rule, this outcome can be achieved without major modifications to the existing decision rules. Unlike both rules, the proposal enables plaintiffs to cash in with some award before trial. I analyse the foregoing advantages together with the potential pitfalls, such as over-deterrence, larger legal expenses, and the day-in-court ideal.
逐步责任:介于优势原则和比例责任之间
有两种常见的判决规则:二元证据优势规则和连续比例责任规则。本文提出了一个思想实验。法律可以利用一个中间立场——根据案件的程序进展,逐步分配责任——逐步承担责任,而不是全部或全部或连续规则。逐步赔偿责任依赖于民事诉讼程序的逐步设计。在目前的制度下,原告必须通过几个程序门槛,证据要求越来越高,才能进行审判。例如驳回动议,然后作出简易判决。我建议,根据案件的程序进展,在每一步都幸存下来后,原告将有权获得逐渐增加的损害赔偿份额。与传统规则相比,逐步责任提供了几个优势。它在被告的责任低于50%的阈值时提供部分赔偿,从而恢复了谨慎行事的动机。与比例规则不同,这种结果可以在不对现有决策规则进行重大修改的情况下实现。与这两项规则不同,该提案使原告能够在审判前获得一些裁决。我分析了上述优势以及潜在的陷阱,如过度威慑、更大的法律费用和理想的出庭日。
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
×
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