This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: reduced to 3 drinks or if the speed limit was reduced to 15 miles per hour. Economic advisors recommended the former over the latter. Why do you suppose this was? What efficiency considerations are used to determine the appropriate standard of care? From this perspective, do you think the driver, Johnson, was negligent in this case? How about the runner, Smith? 2. Using the analysis suggested above, why might an economist argue that athletes, such as Smith, should be held to a higher standard of care than other pedestrians? 3. Consider both the common law rule of negligence and the rule of negligence with a contributory negligence defense. Which of these laws, if any, generates an incentive for both parties to take efficient precaution? 4. Which laws, if any, generate an incentive for both parties to choose their activity levels efficiently?...
View Full Document
- Spring '08