scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers on "Damages published in 1985"


Journal Article
TL;DR: The last estimate of national economic costs associated with erosion-related damages was made in 1946 as discussed by the authors, and the Conservation Foundation recently completed a study that attempts to fill this gap. But, as stated by the authors, "many damages are only weakly documented, and even if the damages and linkages are known, it is difficult to assign economic values to the damages".
Abstract: MANY studies document the damage that sediment, nutrients, and other soil erosion-related pollutants cause in streams, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries, but few studies attempt to calculate the economic costs of these damages. All recent economic studies are limited in the damage they consider, their geographic scopes, or, most commonly, both. The last estimate of national economic costs associated with erosion-related damages was made in 1946 ( 1 ). The Conservation Foundation recently completed a study that attempts to fill this gap ( 3 ). Any such attempt must grapple with numerous problems. Many damages are only weakly documented. If the damages are well documented, the linkage between them and soil erosion is probably not. Even if the damages and linkages are known, it is difficult to assign economic values to the damages. Thus, the estimates given here are indicative, not definitive. Instream damages Instream damages are those caused by sediment, nutrients, and other erosion-related contaminants in streams and lakes. These include damages to aquatic organisms, water-based recreation, water storage facilities, and navigation Biological impacts . Aquatic ecosystems can be seriously affected by sediment and other erosion-related contaminants in complex ways. Sediment can destroy spawning areas, food sources, and habitat as …

135 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: One of the central problems in the economic analysis of tort law is to determine the proper rules for allocating loss when both parties have engaged in wrongful conduct that has helped bring that loss about as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: ONE of the central problems in the economic analysis of tort law is to determine the proper rules for allocating loss when both parties have engaged in wrongful conduct that has helped bring that loss about. In addressing this problem, most recent scholarship has been directed to the question of how to make an all-or-nothing allocation between plaintiff and defendant, usually in the guise of asking when the contributory negligence defense should bar a cause of action that is itself based on proof of the defendant's negligence. The academic inquiry is in some sense oddly conceived, as the clear direction in the modern cases is away from treating recovery for harm in this all-or-nothing manner. Indeed, the rule that treats contributory negligence as a total bar for recovery presently is operative only in a minority of states covering just over one-quarter of the population, and in precious few jurisdictions abroad. In the meantime, various systems of comparative negligence, which do divide damages between the plaintiff and defendant, have grown enormously in importance, so they now cover almost three-quarters of the American population, much of the rest of the industrialized world, and, in peacetime, virtually all ships at sea.' Notwithstanding its recent surge to dominance,

103 citations


Book
01 Jan 1985
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a legal framework for the design and construction process, focusing on the prime contractor and regulatory framework, and the main actors: the prime contractor and the design professional.
Abstract: PART A: LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. 1. Sources Of Law: Varied And Dynamic. 2. The American Judicial System: A Forum For Dispute Resolution. 3. Forms Of Business Association: Organizing To Accomplish Objectives. 4. Agency And Employment. 5. Contracts: From Formation To Breach. 6. Torts: Legal Relations Not Arising From Contract. 7. Restrictions On Ownership: Land Use Controls And Environmental Law. PART B: THE MAIN ACTORS: THE PRIME CONTRACTOR AND DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. 8. Introduction To The Construction Process: Focus On The Prime Contractor And Regulatory Framework. 9. Licensing Of The Design Professional And Contractor. 10. The Design Professional - Client Relationship. 11. Design Professional Liability. 12. Defenses To Claims Of Design Professional Liability. 13. Intellectual Property: Ideas, Copyrights, Patents And Trade Secrets. PART C: PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS. 14. Project Delivery Variations. 15. Public Contracts. PART D: PERFORMANCE DISPUTES: FROM DESIGN TO TERMINATION. 16. Performance Disputes Overview: Claims And Defenses To Liability For The Owner And Prime Contractor. 17. Construction Contracts And Rules Of Contract Interpretation. 18. Changes: Complex Construction Centerpiece. 19. Payment: Money Flow As Lifeline. 20. Subsurface Problems: Predictable Uncertainty. 21. Time: Project Scheduling And Delay Claims. 22. Dispute Remedies: Damages. 23. The Subcontracting Process: An "Achilles Heel". 24. Terminating A Construction Contract: Sometimes Necessary But Always Costly. PART F: RISK MANAGEMENT AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 25. Risk Management: Indemnity And Insurance. 26. Risk Management: Surety Bonds Backstopping Contractors. 27. Dispute Resolution Outside Of Litigation: Contractual Claims Process, Arbitration And Other Dispute Resolution Methods. Appendices.

76 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The traditional model of business conduct in perfectly competitive markets is described in this article. But the model does not consider the effect of economic factors on business conduct and is not suitable for the modern market.
Abstract: I. THE MEANING OF INJURY AND COMPENSATION ........... 1435 II. BASIC DAMAGE FORMULAS ............................... 1438 A. Substitute-Price ....................................... 1439 B. Lost-Surplus .......................................... 1439 C. Opportunity-Cost ...................................... 1440 D. Out-of-Pocket-Cost .................................... 1442 E. Diminished-Value ..................................... 1442 F Add-Ons and Offsets .................................. 1442 III. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND MARKET STRUCTURE .... 1444 A. Perfectly Competitive Markets ......................... 1445 L The Traditional Model of Business Conduct in Perfectly Competitive Markets ..................... 1445 2. The Statistical-Planning Model of Business Conduct in Perfectly Competitive Markets ................... 1449 B. Imperfectly Competitive Markets ....................... 1451 1. The Traditional Model of Business Conduct in Imperfectly Competitive Markets ................... 1451 2. The Fishing Model of Business Conduct in Imperfectly Competitive Markets ................... 1455 IV. WHAT MEASURE OF DAMAGES SHOULD THE LAW PREFER? ..... .................................... .. 1459 A. The General Case ..................................... 1459 1. Performance ...................................... 1462 2. Precaution ........................................ 1464 3. Reliance .......................................... 1465

50 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a new model of contract remedies was developed and applied to analyze the common law, in the process integrating into the general economic model of the common-law the action for the agreed sum.
Abstract: IN recent years a number of important papers have appeared, all trying to apply economic analysis to the issue just when specific performance should be used in preference to damages as a remedy for breach of contract. Kronman has argued for the efficiency of the traditional commonlaw distinction between unique and nonunique goods.' Schwartz has refuted Kronman's analysis and advocated general specific performance.2 Shavell has suggested that there is an economic case for the French rule of specific performance for contracts "to give" and damages for contracts "to do."3 This paper will develop (Sections II-IV) a new model of contract remedies and will use it to analyze the common law, in the process integrating into the general economic model of the common law the action for the agreed sum. The model and its applications will show that Shavell's analysis, though suggestive, is not elaborate enough to account for the common-law rules. Section V will seek to refute Schwartz's analysis. Sections VI and VII offer some comment on method and on comparative law.

31 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a travel cost model was used to estimate losses in the net economic value of the Adirondack recreational fishery resulting from damages caused by acidic deposition, and it was estimated that annual losses to New York resident anglers are approximately $@@•@@1 million per year in 1976 dollars.
Abstract: A travel cost model is used to estimate losses in the net economic value of the Adirondack recreational fishery resulting from damages caused by acidic deposition. Annual losses to New York resident anglers are estimated to be approximately $@@‐@@1 million per year in 1976 dollars. Although there are many reasons why these damages understate the full extent of losses to both current users and others, this research represents one of the initial attempts to quantify one type of cost associated with the acidic deposition problem.

30 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A securities violation may affect thousands of investors, and each may seek to recover the difference between the price paid for the stock and its current value, and the claims quickly mount up as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Securities cases commonly entail claims for millions of dollars in damages. A securities violation may affect thousands of investors, and each may seek to recover the difference between the price paid for the stock and its current value. Because securities litigation typically accompanies some catastrophe in the fortunes of the firm, the claims quickly mount up. Although securities cases are a staple of modern litigation, there are no accepted rules for the computation of damages. The principal statutes contain a number of different articulations, ranging from rescission to "profits" to unspecified "damages."' The cases contain a melange of rules. Some courts emphasize the plaintiff's out-of-pocket loss; some emphasize the defendant's profits; some award rescission and some restitution; all too often a court will give up and announce that the district court has discretion to

26 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For example, in this article, it was shown that the Court of Hawaii could not recover for diminished taxes and injury to its economy caused by what it assumed to be a cartel of oil.
Abstract: FROM 1890 until 1972 it was easy for courts to compute damages in antitrust cases. Once the plaintiff showed the "fact" of injury, the court would indulge all reasonable inferences in that party's favor when computing the "quantum" of injury. All loss proximately caused by the violation would be found, trebled, and awarded to the plaintiff, with attorneys' fees as a bonus. All this seemed natural. After all, the statute says that "[a]ny person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ... shall recover three-fold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." Yet in other parts of the law courts routinely decline to equate plaintiffs' actual losses with the amount recoverable as damages. They use the specification of damages to achieve substantive goals. For example, in the law of contracts the courts rarely award the injured party full consequential damages. If the person who contracted for a machine loses profits while delays in delivery idle the rest of his plant, that is too bad. The plaintiff in such a case recovers only the difference between the agreed-on price and the actual cost of obtaining a similar item from another supplier. The rules of damages in contract law as a group serve important functions in creating incentives to prepare for transactions, make, and breach contracts when it is optimal to do so; damages supplement inevitably incomplete contracts.2 In 1972 the Supreme Court began to fit antitrust damages to substantive ends. It held that Hawaii could not recover for diminished taxes and injury to its economy caused by what it assumed to be a cartel of oil

23 citations


Book
01 Jun 1985
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors applied statistical methods to national closed claims data and national survey data about automobile accident compensation and found that no-fault schemes appear to increase the proportion of victims being compensated and that because fewer victims are paid general damages, payments to similarly situated victims vary less in no fault states than in tort states.
Abstract: Statistical methods are applied to national closed claims data and national survey data about automobile accident compensation. The empirical analysis confirms some conventional wisdom and reveals some surprises. As intended, no-fault schemes appear to increase the proportion of victims being compensated. Moreover, because fewer victims are paid general damages, payments to similarly situated victims vary less in no-fault states than in tort states. Even modest tort thresholds work surprisingly well in reducing the number of bodily injury insurance claims. Finally, the empirical evidence on the effects of shifting from contributory negligence to comparative negligence is weak.

12 citations


Book
01 Aug 1985
TL;DR: The Modern American Remedies: Cases and Materials, Fourth Edition as discussed by the authors provides a thorough and accessible examination of the overarching policy themes and principles behind remedies law, with daily teaching units of roughly equal length, each exploring a central theme.
Abstract: This classroom-tested casebook provides a thorough and accessible examination of the overarching policy themes and principles behind remedies law. Modern American Remedies: Cases and Materials, Fourth Edition, doesn t hide the ball students are given the information they need to participate in classroom discussions that will broaden their understanding. Among the features that make this text a success: A strong and logical organization based on remedies categories and concepts, with daily teaching units of roughly equal length, each exploring a central theme. A balanced presentation of public and private law. Explanations of basic law and economics that provide necessary background without dominating the primary themes of the book. Memorable cases and well written notes. An excellent Teacher s Manual that includes daily teaching units, suggested assignment sheets for a variety of courses from one hour to five hours, and suggestions for teaching the cases. The carefully edited Fourth Edition features: New cases, including: o In re September 11th Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (on the measure of damages for the destruction of the World Trade Center) o In re Trans World Airlines (2d Cir. 1998) (on liquidated damages) o Oden v. Chemung County Industrial Development Agency (N.Y. 1995) (on modern statutes modifying the collateral source rule) o Arbino v. Johnson andamp; Johnson (Ohio 2007) (on the constitutionality of damage caps) o Whitlock v. Hilander Foods (Ill. App. 1999) (on undue hardship) o Almurbati v. Bush (D.D.C. 2005) (on the ripeness of perceived threats to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to countries where they would be tortured) o Pepsico v Redmond (7th Cir. 1995) (on prophylactic injunctions) o Horne v. Flores (U.S. 2009) (on modification of injunctions) o eBay v. MercExchange LLC (U.S. 2006) (on the prerequisites to an injunction, or on undue hardship, depending on the point of view) o Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council (U.S. 2008) (on preliminary injunctions) o Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (U.S. 2008) (on the federal common law standard for measuring punitive damages) o Philip Morris USA v. Williams (U.S. 2007) (on the constitutional limits on punitive damages) o Van de Kamp v. Goldstein (U.S. 2009) (on prosecutorial immunity) o And more in later chapters Substantial reworking of Chapter 8, on restitution, in light of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust EnrichmentA thorough updating of Notes throughout and of the Teacher s Manual Modern American Remedies: Cases and Materials, Fourth Edition, offers students a clear, logical approach to the study of Remedies while offering instructors a flexible approach to teaching it.

12 citations


01 Jan 1985
TL;DR: In this paper, the effects of comparative negligence law on plaintiffs' awards were analyzed in San Francisco under both the old and the new law, and the results showed that the former is more effective than the latter.
Abstract: : The comparative negligence doctrine is a rule in our system of civil justice which allows partial compensation of plaintiffs who are partly at fault for their own injuries. Forty-one states have a comparative negligence law today, while remaining nine operate under an older law (called contributory negligence or 'contrib'), which denies plaintiffs such partial compensation. Many of the states with the new law have just recently switched, and some of the nine are currently considering a change. By analyzing jury decisions in San Francisco under both the old and the new law, this study measures the effects of comparative negligence law on plaintiffs' awards. The law of comparative negligence instructs jurors on the apportionment of damage awards when the plaintiff is partially at fault. The comparative law asks the jury to divide damages between the plaintiff and negligent defendants according to relative fault. Thus, a plaintiff 50 percent responsible for his own injuries receives half of his total damages, and one 10 percent responsible receives 90 percent. Additional keywords: Tables(data); Charts.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the Supreme Court established this legal rule in two decisions, Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp. and Illinois Brick Co v. Illinois, which dealt with the fact that illegal overcharges may be "passed on" from direct buyers to indirect buyers further down the distribution chain.
Abstract: DIRECT purchasers of price-fixed goods now have the right to sue for treble damages based on the full overcharge. The Supreme Court established this legal rule in two decisions, Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp. and Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois.2 Both cases deal with the fact that illegal overcharges may be "passed on" from direct purchasers to indirect purchasers further down the distribution chain. The defendant in Hanover Shoe claimed that the plaintiff, a direct purchaser, was not injured because it passed overcharges on to indirect purchasers. Indirect purchaser plaintiffs in Illinois Brick claimed damages from overcharges passed on to them by direct purchasers. The Supreme Court rejected both uses of passing on-the "defensive" use in Hanover Shoe and "offensive" use in Illinois Brick.3 This legal rule has been debated vigorously. Harris and Sullivan,4 the severest critics, argue that the rule does not deter horizontal conspiracies due to the weakness of direct purchaser incentives, that it is unfair, and that alternative rules splitting damages based on the extent of passing on


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a discussion of legal issues and trends in the courts and strategies for reducing potential liability are suggested. But the authors focus on the "action, no action" dilemma, which is an increasingly important issue for local governments.
Abstract: Local governments may be sued if they tightly regulate uses in flood, erosion, avalanche, or natural hazard areas, or undertake other mitigation measures. They may also be sued if they issue permits for hazardcausing uses, increase natural or technological hazards, or fail to design or maintain adequately mitigation measures such as flood control works. How should local governments react to this dual and often serious threat of litigation? Given the current trends in the courts, are immediate constitutional challenges and claims for damages or long-term "liability" suits a greater potential problem? How can the chances of high jury awards, which can bring a local government to the verge of bankruptcy, be avoided? The following discussion focuses on this "action, no action" dilemma not only because it is an increasingly important issue for local governments, but because the dilemma illustrates a broad range of legal issues in hazards management.' The discussion of legal issues and trends in the courts begins with an overview of hazards litigation. Constitutional challenges to government issuance or denial of permits, planning, zoning, mitigation measures are then considered. Liability suits and trends in litigation are next examined. Finally, strategies for reducing potential liability are suggested.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the same individuals who heard the case two years earlier are asked to recall the facts of the case accurately, or will they reconstruct a distorted version of events? Do they have the same attitudes, prejudices and opinions that led them to be selected in voir dire two years before? How will the long delay affect their judgment of damages? Most important, should a new trial be held with a new jury?
Abstract: A jury sits through a lengthy civil trial involving a dispute between two major industrial corporations Complicated technological testimony is presented on both sides The jury ultimately finds the defendant liable A date to assess damages is set, but unforeseen events intervene A jury member is ill; the judge takes a leave of absence; damage assessement is postponed again and again; two entire years pass When the jury is finally summoned to reconvene, the defense attorney requests a new trial After two years, he argues, the jury who will assess damages is no longer the same group of people who decided liability so long ago Time, he asserts, has changed the jury The above case is extreme, but the defense attorney raises a provocative legal and psychological question that pertains to many jurors in lengthy or delayed trials: how would time change a jury? While the jury is composed of the same individuals who heard the case two years earlier, are they still the same people psychologically? Can they recall the facts of the case accurately, or will they reconstruct a distorted version of events? Will they forget mitigating factors in order to justify their prior verdict? Do they have the same attitudes, prejudices and opinions that led them to be selected in voir dire two years before? How will the long delay affect their judgment of damages? Most important, should a new trial be held with a new jury? A good deal of psychological research, much of it very recent, helps to answer each of these questions The research comes from different areas of investigation, relating to different types of issues: first, recent research on social cognition has explored how memory functions as human beings note, store, and recall information about other people and events; second, classic work on attitude change has demonstrated how emotional needs motivate people deliberately to reconstruct the past in order to justify their decisions and behavior; and third,

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The United States Supreme Court decided in 1971 that individual federal officials may be sued for alleged violations of citizens' constitutional rights as mentioned in this paper, and many of these decisions may serve to expand federal employee liability.
Abstract: The United States Supreme Court decided in 1971 that individual federal officials may be sued for alleged violations of citizens' constitutional rights. Before that, federal employees could not personally be sued for actions taken within the scope of their jobs. Now concern is growing that such litigation may be having significant unintended consequences. In addition, questions are being raised about the effectiveness of litigation which targets individual federal employees as the primary method of vindicating citizens' civil rights. Thousands of federal employees are involved in such litigation, and their personal financial resources are at risk, raising several issues of appropriateness of this avenue of redress. Policy makers in the executive branch and Congress, and increasingly, the courts themselves, are voicing perceptions of significant damage to the public service and to the ability and willingness of civil servants to incur the inevitable risks involved in the execution of public policy. To address these issues, several recent court decisions attempt to place boundaries on the exposure to litigation faced by individual employees. However, other decisions may serve to expand federal employee liability. The present situation is a marked transformation from the days of sovereign immunity, when government and its agents could do no wrong, and no remedy at law existed for damages suffered by individual citizens. Yet, if public employees are to be held formally accountable for the protection of citizens' constitutional rights, any system instituted to accomplish such purpose should also respect the rights of public employees. After all, in performing their duties, federal employees do not act as private parties but are responsible for fulfilling public purposes. The thesis of this paper is that this judicially created method for protecting citizens' rights has not resulted in the consequences intended, and that recent Supreme Court decisions are attempts to ameliorate the primary results of this approach, which were largely unintended by the court. The argument here is that an alternative framework is needed to guide both citizens and federal employees. One problem experienced in addressing these questions is that neither the courts nor Congress have had broad-based data to examine actual federal experience





Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Monckton Committee on Alternative Remedies as discussed by the authors recommended the maintenance of the alternative remedy, despite lack of evidence that it achieves either of its supposed objectives, namely, the compensation of personal injury victims or the deterrence of carelessness.
Abstract: The passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 did not affect an injured worker's rights to sue for damages at common law or under the Employers' Liability Act 1880. However, the evidence suggests that these alternative remedies declined in importance until the 1930s when certain court decisions and acts of Parliament gave them renewed significance. For several reasons Beveridge was antipathetic towards unmodified retention of the alternative remedy, but he proposed the establishment of an official committee for the purpose of making a full inquiry. As a result, the Home Secretary, Herbert Morrison, appointed the Monckton Committee on Alternative Remedies. The Committee's majority report largely endorsed the TUC's viewpoint in recommending maintenance of the alternative remedy. Subsequent legislation, the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act, permitted reduction of damages where industrial injuries benefit was secured; otherwise injured workers' rights to sue were perpetuated, albeit with questionable results. Down to the present day the costly alternative remedy survives, despite lack of evidence that it achieves either of its supposed objectives, namely, the compensation of personal injury victims or the deterrence of carelessness.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For example, the authors suggests that courts should award damages to persons exposed to toxic substances before any disease occurs and without proof of causation of injury in the traditional sense, without using traditional causation requirements, and this is the direction in which the law of "toxic torts" is now moving.
Abstract: GLEN ROBINSON'S suggestion' that courts should award damages to persons exposed to toxic substances before any disease occurs and without proof of causation of injury in the traditional sense is not merely an idle theoretical proposal; it is the direction in which the law of "toxic torts" is now moving. To be sure, as yet few courts have been willing openly to jettison traditional causation requirements. Rather, the change is being accomplished indirectly under the guise of damages for "cancerphobia,'"2 reimbursement for the costs of future "medical monitoring,''3 judicially stimulated settlements,4 and reimbursement for loss of property values.5 Together these trends add up to courts and juries straining to nullify the unrealistic hurdle that allowed victims of toxic substances poisoning to



Journal Article
TL;DR: Informed consent refers to the requirement that a patient be apprised of the nature and risk of any medical procedure before his/her physician can claim exemption from liability for damages to him/her.
Abstract: Informed consent refers to the requirement that a patient be apprised of the nature and risk of any medical procedure before his/her physician can claim exemption from liability for damages to him/her. If a patient has not given a voluntary informed consent, a medical procedure is deemed to be unauthorized and recovery for damages may result. Under conditions of emotional or intellectual limitation, or of medical emergency, the central problem of informed consent becomes that of assessing the degree to which individual well-being is furthered by individual autonomy as opposed to medical paternalism.· Efforts to formulate a comprehensive legal doctrine of informed consent inevitably have certain assumptions about the role of information and rationality in the exercise of free choice. The operational legal system assumes that normal adults primarily rely upon a logical approach to decision making. In other words, that data are collected, compared, in­ stances recalled, and analyses undertaken of risk versus benefits with physician assistance, ultimately leading to conclusions about various treat­ ment alternatives upon which a patient's decision is based. Naturally such an accomplishment requires a collaborative physician/patient relationship and some discussion beyond mere written consent. What little research on this subject exists is far from conclusive but seems to dispute this view of rationality and lend support to ideas of a less logical basis of decision making. 2 Even in those instances in which efforts are made to ensure a sympathetic, communicative environment, the nature of human thought process and emotion, some of which is universal and some of which belongs to either individual character or acute stress reactions, will heavily influence patients' decisions. 3 Law and psychoanalysis both value personal autonomy. Law attempts to secure it by eliminating social injustices and psychoanalysis by overcoming the instinctual domination of rational thought. Common aims are pursued differently. The law regards a social context, the analyst regards an internal equilibrium of psychologic forces. The law's unease with the subjective question of a patient's personal comprehension has led to the prevalence of the Canterbury Standard 4 of consent based upon what a "reasonable person"



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a legal screening program for early detection of diseases and developmental disorders during childhood, in order to prevent or to diminish permanent health damages, has been presented. But even by satisfactory participation a number of weaknesses, downgrading effectivity and efficiency, can be found.
Abstract: Programs for early detection of diseases and developmental disorders during childhood, in order to prevent or to diminish permanent health damages, have a long history. The Federal Republic of Germany started in 1970 a legal screening program, in order to make such a service available to all children in the whole nation. The program consists of eight examinations, beginning at birth and spread over the first four years of life. Even by satisfactory participation a number of weaknesses, down-grading effectivity and efficiency, can be found. Overdiagnosis as well as missed cases do occur. A number of examples will serve to demonstrate shortcomings and possible causes thereof. From these, suggestions for improved strategies will be derived. The proposals include even those for improved monitoring of effectivity and efficiency, which should be already an integral part at the very beginning of every screening program.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The German Victim Compensation Act of 1976 provides compensation for violent acts within the framework of a social security system with periodic payments, while most of the other West-European countries grant lump sums from a special compensation fund as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: In the Federal Republic of Germany, as well as in most other Western European countries, the growing emphasis in victimology during the last 15 years has led to several legal schemes for victim compensation. The German Victim Compensation Act of 1976 provides compensation for violent acts within the framework of a social security system with periodic payments, while most of the other West-European countries grant lump sums from a special compensation fund. The German legislation, however, has given the victim a relatively weak position. The problems are aggravated because of the restrictive, and concerning the Federal states—different, application of the law. Victim compensation as a restitutional sanction within the penal law doesn't play an important role. Furthermore, the financial situation of most offenders is so bad, that the civil claims of the victim for damages cannot be compensated. In Germany, however, remarkable efforts are made by the debt relief programs for offenders, which allow v...