Post by Rick Swedloff on Apr 6, 2011 9:25:35 GMT 4
Uncompensated Torts
Rick Swedloff
Rutgers School of Law - Camden
March 25, 2011
Abstract:
Victims of intentional torts suffer more than $460 billion of damages each year. Unlike those injured by negligence, however, those injured by intentional acts often have no practical remedy. They cannot recover from judgment proof defendants. And no other part of the compensatory system provides a significant remedy. Thus, victims of the most egregious torts go uncompensated. This failure to compensate magnifies certain inequities. Victims are likely to be hit twice by these bad acts: once by the victimization itself and once because they have few financial resources to aid them on their road to recovery.
This Article explores the possibility of filling the compensatory gap. It begins by mapping and considering the structural reasons for the compensatory gap. It then offers three possible solutions, including mandating liability insurance for intentional bad acts, enhancing existing compensation funds, and creating a market so that individuals can insure against noneconomic losses. Although the article ultimately offers a sobering and perhaps pessimistic view of the possibility that proposals will be enacted, it suggests that there are significant and important reasons for these redistributive programs.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1795343_code624863.pdf?abstractid=1795343&mirid=2
Rick Swedloff
Rutgers School of Law - Camden
March 25, 2011
Abstract:
Victims of intentional torts suffer more than $460 billion of damages each year. Unlike those injured by negligence, however, those injured by intentional acts often have no practical remedy. They cannot recover from judgment proof defendants. And no other part of the compensatory system provides a significant remedy. Thus, victims of the most egregious torts go uncompensated. This failure to compensate magnifies certain inequities. Victims are likely to be hit twice by these bad acts: once by the victimization itself and once because they have few financial resources to aid them on their road to recovery.
This Article explores the possibility of filling the compensatory gap. It begins by mapping and considering the structural reasons for the compensatory gap. It then offers three possible solutions, including mandating liability insurance for intentional bad acts, enhancing existing compensation funds, and creating a market so that individuals can insure against noneconomic losses. Although the article ultimately offers a sobering and perhaps pessimistic view of the possibility that proposals will be enacted, it suggests that there are significant and important reasons for these redistributive programs.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1795343_code624863.pdf?abstractid=1795343&mirid=2