Experience from Early Tort Reforms: Comparative Negligence Since 1974.

UNCG Author/Contributor (non-UNCG co-authors, if there are any, appear on document)
Daniel T. Winkler, Professor (Creator)
Joseph E. Johnson, Professor Emeritus (Contributor)
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG )
Web Site: http://library.uncg.edu/

Abstract: Insurance consumers in states that have adopted comparative negligence pay more for automobile liability insurance than do consumers in states that retain contributory negligence. Through the use of a transformed generalized least squares regression model, allowance is made for: no-fault, population density, state-specific price-level, and automobile safety/fatality differences. States with pure comparative have much higher costs than do states with modified comparative negligence; states with modified comparative have higher costs than those with contributory negligence. The influence of alternative liability rules on the cost of insurance is of public concern. In recent years many states have changed from contributory negligence to either pure or modified comparative negligence. This article examines the cost of automobile insurance under three liability rules. The authors conclude that states with either type of comparative negligence have higher automobile insurance costs.

Additional Information

The Journal of Risk and Insurance, vol. 56, September 1989, pp. 525-534
Language: English
Date: 1989
Early Tort Reforms, Comparative Negligence, Contributory negligence

Email this document to