Analysis of public institutions must be robust to the uncertainties facing agents within them, and the varying ways in which individuals cope with these uncertainties. This dissertation uses formal theoretical models to analyze the subjective and idiosyncratic nature with which most citizens face risk and uncertainty. This dissertation focuses on how different public institutions perform in specific settings based on the possibilities that agents may err in either their assessment of possible outcomes or the relevant choices and payoffs that are available. In the first chapter, I show that allowing for voter beliefs to feature ex-post error changes the incentives for candidates to set policy platforms, reducing the incentives for candidate convergence even with purely electorally-motivated candidates. Therefore, even if voters are on-average correct about political platforms and behavior, the distribution of imprecision will still change the incentives of political actors competing for their votes. This reopens consideration of how American political polarization may be driven by changes in the ways in which voters form beliefs about politicians, even as the distribution of political preferences may have remained unchanged. In the second chapter, co-authored with Keith N. Hylton, we determine that the incentives for potential litigants depend fundamentally upon the specific setting in which courts make determinations. We show that courts, facing only the facts concerning this particular decision, and not all the facts necessary to determine the global optimum, will be more likely to create incentives for socially excessive (i.e., defensive) care. In the final chapter, I modify a model of strategic communication to consider situations under which groups may be able to manipulate legislators who are uncertain which topics are most salient to said groups. Such uncertainty changes the incentives of interest groups, providing a new avenue of exploration for why different ideological groups take on different issues. I find that they must weigh the ability to “hide” their salient issue within a bundle of others with the possibility that taking on too many will cause the receiver to ignore their advice entirely.

This thesis seeks to justify on moral grounds the existence of tort systems. The argument is that corrective justice is necessary but not sufficient to succeed at this task. Corrective justice is necessary because it is the only principle that can adequately justify the bilateral structure of tort litigation between claimants and defendants, and full compensatory damages as the default remedy in most tort systems. However, it is argued that the critiques to corrective justice lead us to the important lesson that tort law is more than just corrective justice. Three gaps of corrective justice are identified: the equivalence between gains and losses, the definition of what counts as a tort, and the diversity of remedies. The thesis offers a solution to these problems based on the values of restorative and distributive justice. It is argued that restorative justice plays an important role in tort law, providing an apologetic framework for material compensation (the message that money awards communicate), but especially for symbolic remedies, such as apologies, nominal damages, non-pecuniary damages, punitive damages, and gain-based damages, solving the diversity of remedies problem. This restorative framework of tort remedies is compatible with corrective justice. Distributive justice also plays an important role in tort law. Even though corrective and distributive justice are conceptually separate concepts, in the context of tort law they cannot be separated. It is argued that the definition of what counts as a tort involves a distributive task. Following this argument, the thesis argues that there is a distributive uneasiness in tort law, because tort law protects some interests regardless of how they were acquired, and regardless of whether their distribution amounts to an unfair distribution of resources. It is suggested that the distributive mechanism of insurance can solve, or at least ameliorate, this uneasiness.

O presente estudo tem por objetivo demonstrar que, nas hipóteses em que alguém intervém na esfera jurídica alheia e obtém benefícios econômicos sem causar danos ao titular do direito ou, causando danos, o lucro obtido pelo ofensor é superior aos danos causados, as regras da responsabilidade civil, isoladamente, não são suficientes, à luz do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, enquanto sanção eficaz pela violação de um interesse merecedor de tutela. Isto porque, como a principal função da responsabilidade civil é remover o dano, naquelas hipóteses, não fosse a utilização de um remédio alternativo, o interventor faria seu o lucro da intervenção, no primeiro caso integralmente e, no segundo, no valor equivalente ao saldo entre o lucro obtido e a indenização que tiver que pagar à vítima. A tese pretende demonstrar que o problema do lucro da intervenção não deve ser solucionado por intermédio das regras da responsabilidade civil, devendo, portanto, ser rejeitadas as propostas de solução neste campo, como a interpretação extensiva do parágrafo único, do artigo 944, do Código Civil, as indenizações punitivas e o chamado terceiro método de cálculo da indenização. Como alternativa, propõe-se o enquadramento dogmático do lucro da intervenção no enriquecimento sem causa, outorgando ao titular do direito uma pretensão de restituição do lucro obtido pelo ofensor em razão da indevida ingerência em seus bens ou direitos. Defende-se que a transferência do lucro da intervenção para o titular do direito tem por fundamento a ponderação dos interesses em jogo à luz da Constituição Federal, com especial atenção ao princípio da solidariedade, e da teoria da destinação jurídica dos bens. A tese procura demonstrar, ainda, que o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro não exige um efetivo empobrecimento do titular do direito para a configuração do enriquecimento sem causa e que a regra da subsidiariedade não impede a cumulação de ações, de responsabilidade civil para eliminar o dano (e no limite do dano), e de enriquecimento sem causa, para forçar a restituição do saldo positivo que permanecer no patrimônio do ofensor após o pagamento da indenização, se houver. Finalmente, a tese pretende provocar a discussão acerca da quantificação do objeto da restituição, propondo alguns critérios que deverão orientar o aplicador do direito. / The present study aims to demonstrate that when someone profits by interfering In: another persons rights without causing damage to the victim, or when the act does cause damage but the benefits so obtained are greater than the damage caused, tort rules alone are not enough, under Brazilian Law, as an efficient sanction for violation of an interest or right that deserves protection. Since the maIn: function of civil liability rules is to redress the damage, or make the victim whole, without an alternative remedy the wrongdoer would keep the benefits wrongfully obtained, fully In: the first case and In: the second case to the extent of the difference between the profits obtained and damages paid to the victim. I aim to show that the problem of benefits wrongfully obtained cannot be solved through tort rules alone, and some proposed measures In: this area, such as expansive interpretation of Article 944, sole paragraph, of the Civil Code, punitive damages and the so-called third method of quantifying damages should be rejected. As an alternative, I propose framing the question of benefits wrongfully obtained withIn: the rules on unjust enrichment, granting the victim the right to claim restitution of benefits obtained by the wrongdoer by interference In: the victims assets or rights. I argue that the transfer of the benefits wrongfully obtained to the victim should be based on a balance of conflicting interests In: light of the Federal Constitution, with special attention to the solidarity principle and on the theory of the juridical allocation of assets. Besides this, I argue that Brazilian law does not require the victim to suffer any kind of damage In: order to apply unjust enrichment rules and that the subsidiarity rule does not prohibit the filing of joint claims, a tort one to remedy the damage (limited to the actual damage caused) and an unjust enrichment one to force restitution of any positive balance that remains with the wrongdoer after payment of damages. Finally, I intend to stimulate discussions on how to quantify the amount of restitution In: these cases and offer some criteria that can guide judges.

Loss of earning capacity is a concept that is relevant to actions in which a wrongdoer is held liable for the detrimental effect of his actions on a claimant’s capacity to generate an income.Take the example of a claimant who had worked as a shift leader in a mine but after a damage-causing event is only capable of working above ground as a clerk. By comparing his salary pre-morbid with his salary post-morbid, it is possible to calculate the difference. This difference, if the former is the greater, constitutes the damage suffered by the claimant and, as such, the amount constitutes what he can claim as compensation.In an instance where a person is not in a position to furnish evidence about his earnings pre- and post-morbid, nevertheless, the court may award compensation for the claimant’s loss of earnings.Essentially, the compensation is payment for loss of earning capacity and not for loss of earnings.In making such an award, the court recognises that the claimant experiences a partial or total impairment of his capacity to generate an income.Koch states that in such problematic cases the courts often shy away from quantifying a claimant’s estimated annual income.Instead of employing the sum-formula approach,the courts opt for a general assessment using the “some-how-or-other” approach.What seems at first like a straightforward pre- and post-morbid calculation therefore is fraught with intricate theoretical questions. Although this problem is more evident in cases of unemployed claimants and children, it may also occur in other cases where loss of earning capacity is one of the heads of damages. / Prof. J.W.G. Van der Walt

Canon and Baum’s (1981) pioneering study examined diffusion of 23 plaintiff-oriented tort doctrines among the state court systems in 1876-1975 provided an early model to study judicial innovation. Meanwhile, Berry and Berry’s (1990) later model featured event history analysis (EHA) that was relevant for this dissertation which sought to explain political behavior. This dissertation used archival data only and was a quantitative research design that was descriptive and exploratory of the judicial policy adoption process. The researcher used quantitative archival data and described what sociological, political, and criminological factors had impacted policy adoptions over time and explored the possible associations with proposed covariates and independent variables. The states had differed in their adoption of the following torts and any associated reforms: tort of false arrest/false imprisonment and tort of assault and battery related to domestic violence. This study did not address causality and did not involve surveys or interviews carrying out experiment or observant behavior. This dissertation had tracked the adoption of criminal mental health courts across the states as a form of restorative justice. The diffusion of tort innovations was a changing process that was not well understood and merited further study.

Univ., Diss.--Hamburg, 2003.

According to legislation, common law and case law, South African educators have a responsibility to ensure the safety of learners. Above all, God has placed children in our care and it is our God-given duty to take care of them. For educators to be able to perform this duty of care as it should be, they need to be equipped with the necessary legal knowledge. However, the acquisition of this knowledge remains the primary responsibility of each educator. Other educational role-players also have some moral obligation and responsibility to assist educators in attaining such knowledge. As educators should acquaint themselves with the relevant legislation regarding duty of care, such legislation should be accessible to all educators. Principals should encourage educators to become acquainted with the content of the relevant education laws. All the determinants regarding duty of care ought to be general knowledge to educators. Principles such as what torts comprise of, the requirements of delictual accountability, reasonable foreseeability and preventability and the reasonable educator test should be as well-known as subject didactical knowledge. Real-life situations and case law should be used to ensure a clear understanding of these principles. Tendencies in international law should also be communicated to educators. This study determined that educators do not have sound legal knowledge to meet the minimum requirements set by legislation, common law and case law. Tertiary institutions will have to compile training programs urgently so that education departments, trade unions, governing bodies and principals can make it available to educators, who, in turn can empower themselves with relevant, practical education law knowledge. / Thesis (M.Ed.)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2006.

Liability laws currently in use rely on a fault-based system that focuses on a causal connection between driver actions and the resulting road accident. The role of the driver is set to reduce with the emergence of autonomous vehicles, so how will liability adapt to meet the needs of an autonomous world? The paper discusses possible frameworks of liability that could be implemented in the future, and accentuates the importance of the causal aspects of the current framework in the new system.

Competition between trade rivals in a marketplace operating within a common law-based legal system is regulated primarily by two fairly distinct branches of the law: the prohibitions against anti-competitive conduct imposed by the competition law framework, and the common law restraints against acts of “unfair competition” that attract liability under the economic torts. This dissertation aims to critically examine both these legal frameworks and provide an integrated account of how these branches of the law distinguish between lawful and unlawful modes of competitive conduct. By scrutinising the doctrinal and policy foundations that underlie each of these legal frameworks, common thematic strands that may not be immediately apparent to lawyers working exclusively in either field will be exposed, while fundamental differences between their respective inner workings will also be uncovered in the process. Engaging in such a comparative exercise will facilitate a deeper understanding of the contrasting objectives and jurisprudential approaches associated with each legal framework which, in turn, sheds some light on the nature of their relationship with each other and the extent to which legal developments in one field ought to influence, or be influenced by, the other. Besides evaluating how and why the common law economic torts operate differently from the competition law prohibitions in circumscribing the liberty of individual competitors to inflict economic harm upon their trade rivals, this dissertation will also analyse selected types of commercial conduct which are regarded as lawful under one framework but unlawful by the other, and contrast them with scenarios which could attract overlapping legal liability under both legal frameworks. In addition, this dissertation will explore a selection of legal issues arising from the doctrinal interaction between these areas of the law that may confront the courts as these two legal frameworks continue to develop in tandem with each other.

102 Summary Liability based on Fault and the Concept of Fault in Czech and German Law of Torts The aim of the thesis is an introduction and comparison of the Czech and German law of torts - a branch of law which determines liability for damage caused by breach of a duty imposed by law - in the area of liability based on fault and an introduction and comparison of the concept of fault as one of the conditions for the application of this liability. That the subject is tort law of these two particular countries is not an act of arbitrariness, but it relates to the fact that the new Civil Code of 2012 is significantly inspired by the German system of tort law in the field of liability based on fault. This thesis attempts to provide not only comparison of the Civil Code No. 40/1964 Sb. with the new Civil Code of 2012, but also comparison with the German Civil Code - BGB. The thesis consists of four parts - "The Concept of Law of Torts", "General Conditions of Liability in the basic tort Provisions", "The Concept of fault and its forms" and "Liability based on fault". Every part except the first is subdivided into three chapters. Every chapter deals with one of the civil codes - Civil Code No. 40/1964 Sb., German Civil Code and the new Civil Code of 2012. Part One outlines briefly the concept of tort law and its...