Купить СНПЧ А7 Архангельск, оперативня доставка


Strict Liability and the Fair Level of Damages

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18836/2178-0587/ealr.v1n1p78-94



Leandro M. Zanitelli1


Resumo: O objetivo deste artigo é determinar o montante de indenização requerido por teorias da responsabilidade civil objetiva baseadas na ideia de equidade ou fairness. Argumenta-se que, na maior parte dos casos, o referido montante é o correspondente ao seguro ótimo.

Palavras-chave: Responsabilidade Civil Objetiva; Equidade; Justiça Distributiva; Seguro Ótimo, Indenização


Abstract: The aim of this paper is to determine the level of compensatory damages required by fairness approaches to strict liability. It argues that, most of the time, such level is the level corresponding to optimal insurance.

Key words: Strict Liability; Enterprise Liability; Fairness; Distributive Justice; Optimal Insurance; Damages


1 Paper written when I was a visiting scholar at the Institut für Recht und Ökonomik at Universität Hamburg, Germany. I would like to thank the Hamburg University, the Institute of Law and Economics, and particularly the Director of the latter, Professor Thomas Eger. Financial support from CAPES and FAPERGS is acknowledged. E-mail: leandro_zanitelli@uniritter.edu.br. Centro Universitário Ritter dos Reis – UniRitter
Faculdade de Direito


Literatura Citada

ARLEN, Jennifer. Tort Damages. In Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, v. II: Civil Law and Economics, p. 702-709 (Boudewijn Bouckaert & Gerrit De Geest eds., 2000).

AVRAHAM, Ronen. Should Pain-and-Suffering Damages Be Abolished from Tort Law? More Experimental Evidence. 55 University of Toronto Law Journal, p. 941 (2005).

BOVBJERG, Randall R.; SLOAN, Frank A. & BLUMSTEIN, James F. Valuing Limb and Life in Tort: Scheduling “Pain and Suffering.” 83 Northwestern University Law Review, p. 908 (1989).

CALFEE, John E. & RUBIN, Paul H. Some Implications of Damage Payments for Nonmonetary Losses. 21 Journal of Legal Studies, p. 371 (1992).

CASTRO, Guilherme Couto de. A Responsabilidade Civil Objetiva no Direito Brasileiro. 3d ed. Forense, 2000.

COOK, Philip J. & GRAHAM, Daniel A. The Demand for Insurance and Protection: The Case of Irreplaceable Commodities. 91 Quarterly Journal of Economics, p. 143 (1977).

COOTER, Robert. Towards a Market in Unmatured Tort Claims. 75 Virginia Law Review, p. 383 (1989).

COOTER, Robert & ULEN, Thomas. Law & Economics. 4th ed. Addison Wesley, 2004.

CRASWELL, Richard. Passing On the Costs of Legal Rules: Efficiency and Distribution in Buyer- Seller Relationships. 43 Stanford Law Review, p. 361 (1991).

CROLEY, Steven P. & HANSON, Jon D. Rescuing the Revolution: The Revived Case for Enterprise Liability. 91 Michigan Law Review, p. 683 (1993).

CROLEY, Steven P. & HANSON, Jon D. The Nonpecuniary Costs of Accidents. 108 Harvard Law Review, p. 1785 (1995).

DANZON, Patricia M. Tort Reform and the Role of Government in Private Insurance Markets. 13 Journal of Legal Studies, p. 517 (1984).

DWORKIN, Ronald. ‘Sovereign Virtue’ Revisited. 113 Ethics 106 (2002).

EPSTEIN, Richard. A Theory of Strict Liability. 2 Journal of Legal Studies, p. 151 (1973).

FLETCHER, George P. Fairness and Utility in Tort Theory. 85 Harvard Law Review, p. 537 (1972).

HANSON, Jon D. & LOGUE, Kyle D. The First-Party Insurance Externality: An Economic Justification for Enterprise Liability. 76 Cornell Law Review, p. 129 (1991).

KEATING, Gregory C. The Idea of Fairness in the Law of Enterprise Liability. 95 Michigan Law Review, p. 1266 (1997)

KEATING, Gregory C. Pressing Precaution Beyond the Point of Cost-Justification. 56 Vanderbilt Law Review, p. 653 (2003).

KEATING, Gregory C. Rawlsian Fairness and Regime Choice in the Law of Accidents. 72 Fordham Law Review, p. 1857 (2004).

LIMA, Alvino. Da Culpa ao Risco. Revista dos Tribunais, 1938.

PERRY, Stephen R. The Moral Foundations of Tort Law. 77 Iowa Law Review, p. 449 (1992).

POSNER, Richard. Economic Analysis of Law. 7th ed. Aspen, 2007.

PRIEST, George L. The Current Insurance Crisis and Modern Tort Law. 96 Yale Law Journal, p. 1521 (1987).

RAWLS, John. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press, 1971.

PRYOR, Ellen Smith. The Tort Law Debate, Efficiency, and the Kingdom of the Ill: A Critique of the Insurance Theory of Compensation. 79 Virginia Law Review, p. 91 (1993).

PRYOR, Ellen Smith. Rehabilitating Tort Compensation. 91 Georgia Law Journal, p. 659 (2003).

RIPSTEIN, Arthur. Equality, Responsibility, and the Law. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

SCHWARTZ, Alan. Proposals for Products Liability Reform: A Theoretical Synthesis. 97 Yale Law Journal, p.. 353 (1988).

SEN, Amartya. Well-Being, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. 82 Journal of Philosophy, p. 169 (1985).

SHAVELL, Steven. Economic Analysis of Accident Law. Harvard University Press, 1987.

VENOSA, Sílvio de Salvo. Direito Civil: responsabilidade civil. 3d ed. Atlas, 2003.

VISCUSI, W. Kip & EVANS, William N. Utility Functions That Depend on Health Status: Estimations and Economic Implications. 80 American Economic Review, p. 353 (1990).

VISCUSI, W. Kip & EVANS, William N. Estimation of State-Dependent Utility Functions Using Survey Data. 73 Review of Economics and Statistics, p. 94 (1991).

WEINRIB, Ernest. The Idea of Private Law. Harvard University Press, 1995.