Appellate Caseload and the Switch to Comparative Negligence,

Authors

Jonathan Klick, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law SchoolFollow
Jef De Mot
Michael Faure

ORCID

Jonathan Klick 0000-0003-1505-360X

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1-1-2015

Abstract

The switch from contributory to comparative negligence is thought to have been motivated primarily out of a concern for justice. We offer a different perspective. Language in state supreme court decisions suggests that some judges thought the switch would reduce appeal rates. We hypothesize that courts were more likely to make the switch when their appellate caseloads are relatively high. To examine this, we estimate hazard models, showing that states with appellate courts where caseloads grew relatively faster made the switch more quickly, and the effect was more pronounced for the switch to the pure, as opposed to the modified, form of comparative negligence.

Publication Title

International Review of Law & Economics

Repository Citation

42 Int'l Rev. L. & Econ. 147 (2015)