Topic
Damages
About: Damages is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 9365 publications have been published within this topic receiving 89750 citations. The topic is also known as: compensation award.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors extend the use of panel data to analyze the damage associated with proximity to a hazardous waste site and discuss an important application which has led to sizeable natural resource damages actually being paid.
Abstract: This study extends the use of panel data to analyze the damage associated with proximity to a hazardous waste site. Panel data can control for property specific factors which affect sale values, allowing the analysis to focus upon both the spatial and intertemporal factors associated with pollution. We contrast alternative econometric approaches which are applicable to panel data sets and discuss an important application which has led to sizeable natural resource damages actually being paid.
111 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, two experiments were conducted to study the manner in which civil jurors assess punitive damage awards, and they found that the plaintiffs requested award values had a dramatic effect on awards: the higher the request, higher the award, and also found that local plaintiffs were awarded more than were geographically remote plaintiffs.
Abstract: Two experiments were conducted to study the manner in which civil jurors assess punitive damage awards. Jury-eligible citizens were shown a videotaped summary of an environmental damage lawsuit and told that the defendant had already paid compensatory damages. They were asked to judge liability for punitive damages and, if damages were to be assessed, to assign a dollar award. Three independent variables were manipulated in the case materials: the dollar amounts that were explicitly requested by the plaintiffs in their closing arguments to the jury, the geographical location of the defendant corporation, and the location of the lead plaintiff. Consistent with prior findings of anchor effects on judgments, we found that the plaintiffs requested award values had a dramatic effect on awards: the higher the request, the higher the awards. We also found that local plaintiffs were awarded more than were geographically remote plaintiffs, while the location of the defendant company did not have reliable effects on the awards. The implications of these results for procedures in civil trials and for theories of juror decision making are discussed.
108 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the interaction between uncertainty and insurability in the context of some of the risks associated with climate change is discussed, and the implications for insurance risk capital and the capacity of the insurance industry to handle large-scale events are discussed.
Abstract: This Article focuses on the interaction between uncertainty and insurability in the context of some of the risks associated with climate change. It discusses the evolution of insured losses due to weather-related disasters over the past decade and the key drivers of the sharp increases in both economic and insured catastrophe losses over the past twenty years. In particular, the authors examine the impact of development in hazard-prone areas and of global warming on the potential for catastrophic losses in the future. In this context, the authors discuss the implications for insurance risk capital and the capacity of the insurance industry to handle large-scale events. A key question that needs to be addressed is which factors determine the insurability of a risk and the extent of coverage offered by the private sector to provide protection against extreme events when there is significant uncertainty surrounding the probability and consequences of a catastrophic loss. The authors further discuss the concepts of insurability by focusing on coverage for natural hazards, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods. The Article also focuses on the liability issues associated with global climate change and possible implications for insurers, including issuers of Directors’ and Officers’ policies, given the difficulty in identifying potential defendants, tracing harm to their actions, and apportioning damages among them. The Article concludes by suggesting ways that insurers can help mitigate future damages from global climate change by providing premium reductions and rate credits to companies investing in risk-reducing measures.
108 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that in most cases involving only one potential defendant, the conventional interpretation of the preponderance standard is appropriate, but they note an important exception.
Abstract: The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard usually is understood to mean that the plaintiff must show that the probability that the defendant is in fact liable exceeds 1/2. Several commentators and at least one court have suggested that in some situations it may be preferable to make each defendant pay plaintiff's damages discounted by the probability that the defendant in question is in fact liable. This article analyzes these and other decision rules from the standpoint of statistical decision theory. It argues that in most cases involving only one potential defendant, the conventional interpretation of the preponderance standard is appropriate, but it notes an important exception. The article also considers cases involving many defendants, only one of whom could have caused the injury to plaintiff. It argues that ordinarily the single defendant most likely to have been responsible should be liable for all the damages, even when the probability associated with this defendant is less than 1/2. At the same time, it identifies certain multiple-defendant cases in which the rule that weights each defendant's damages by the probability of that defendant's liability should apply.
107 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors reestimate the values from the models using a range of discount rates and methodologies considered more appropriate for the very long time horizons associated with climate change and assign equity weights to damages based upon relative income levels between regions.
Abstract: In 2010, as part of a rulemaking on efficiency standards, the U.S. government published its first estimates of the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions, referred to as the social cost of carbon (SCC). Using three climate economic models, an interagency task force concluded that regulatory impact analyses should use a central value of \$21 per metric ton of CO2 for the monetized benefits of emission reductions. In addition, it suggested that sensitivity analysis be carried out with values of \$5, \$35, and \$65. These estimates have been criticized for relying upon discount rates that are considered too high for intergenerational cost–benefit analysis, and for treating monetized damages equivalently between regions, without regard to income levels. We reestimate the values from the models (1) using a range of discount rates and methodologies considered more appropriate for the very long time horizons associated with climate change and (2) using a methodology that assigns “equity weights” to damages based upon relative income levels between regions—i.e., a dollar’s worth of damages occurring in a poor region is given more weight than one occurring in a wealthy region. Under our alternative discount rate specifications, we find an SCC 2.6 to over 12 times larger than the Working Group’s central estimate of \$21; results are similar when the government’s estimates are equity weighted. Our results suggest that regulatory impact analyses that use the government’s limited range of SCC estimates will significantly understate potential benefits of climate mitigation. This has important implications with respect to greenhouse gas standards, in which debates over their stringency focus critically on the benefits of regulations justifying the industry compliance costs.
107 citations