Liability for Third-Party Harm When Harm-Inflicting Consumers Are Present Biased

When Manipulations are Harm[less]ful?

We say that a mechanism is harmless if no student can ever misreport his preferences so that he does not hurt but someone else. We consider a large class of rules which includes the Boston, the agent-proposing deferred acceptance, and the school-proposing deferred acceptance mechanisms (sDA). In this large class, the sDA happens to the unique harmless mechanism. We next provide two axiomatic ch...

Cumulative Harm and Resilient Liability Rules for Product Markets*

In the traditional model of the law and economics of torts, harm accrues proportional to use. This has the remarkable implication for products-generated torts that product performance concerns (e.g., issues of care and of liability for harm) can be considered independently of market performance concerns (e.g., market structure and competition). Moreover, the classical analysis finds that all li...

Liability for psychological and psychiatric harm: the road to recovery.

This article examines the judicial approach to emotional harm claims from a medical perspective. Legal rules in this area are already recognised as being illogical and incoherent. Psychological and psychiatric research illustrate that they also conflict with empirical findings. By basing claims on erroneous criteria, courts may deny liability in meritorious cases, and impose liability in possib...

Patients as Victims—Hospital Liability for Third- Party Crime

The Liability of Third Party Volunteers for Undue Influence

If a claimant, C, gives property to the defendant, D, as a result of actual or presumed undue influence over C by another person, X, why is D liable to rescind the gift? A common misconception, given Equity’s ubiquitous concern with conscience, is that D’s liability must be based upon fault and that this will be established if D was aware of the relationship of influence between C and X. 1 Prof...