IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/irlaec/v31y2011i4p263-271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the optimality of a duty-to-rescue rule and the cost of wrongful intervention

Author

Listed:
  • Crettez, Bertrand
  • Deloche, Regis

Abstract

In common law legal systems, there is no legal duty to rescue persons in danger. By contrast in code-based legal systems, the principle of duty to rescue does apply. What is behind this difference? To answer this question, we develop a new model extending the reach and strength of the standard civic duty game by taking into account the cost of wrongful intervention. We use this model to analyze and compare three policy options: doing nothing, adopting a duty-to-rescue rule, and encouraging would-be rescuers. We show that a duty-to-rescue rule is more likely to be welfare enhancing when the cost of inappropriately intervening is low, and that, in certain cases, encouraging would-be rescuers is preferred by a representative citizen to both a duty-to-rescue rule and no-rule. Finally, we offer an explanation for the choices made in the USA and France as to whether to use rescue laws.

Suggested Citation

  • Crettez, Bertrand & Deloche, Regis, 2011. "On the optimality of a duty-to-rescue rule and the cost of wrongful intervention," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 263-271.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:31:y:2011:i:4:p:263-271
    DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2011.08.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818811000494
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.irle.2011.08.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Palfrey, Thomas R. & Rosenthal, Howard, 1984. "Participation and the provision of discrete public goods: a strategic analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 171-193, July.
    2. Rubin, Paul H., 1986. "Costs and benefits of a duty to rescue," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 273-276, December.
    3. Sophie Harnay & Alain Marciano, 2009. "Should I help my neighbor? Self-interest, altruism and economic analyses of rescue laws," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 103-131, October.
    4. William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, 1978. "Salvors, Finders, Good Samaritans and Other Rescuers: An Economic Study of Law and Altruism," NBER Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Hasen, Richard L., 1995. "The efficient duty to rescue," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 141-150, June.
    6. Joseph E Harrington Jr, 2001. "A Simple Game-Theoretic Explanation for the Relationship Between Group Size and Helping," Economics Working Paper Archive 417, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rothenhäusler, Dominik & Schweizer, Nikolaus & Szech, Nora, 2013. "Institutions, shared guilt, and moral transgression," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2013-305, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. Rothenhäusler, Dominik & Schweizer, Nikolaus & Szech, Nora, 2018. "Guilt in voting and public good games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 664-681.
    3. Friehe, Tim & Tabbach, Avraham, 2018. "A comparison of simple action-based and outcome-based policies for emergency-like situations," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 22-34.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maaser, Nicola & Stratmann, Thomas, 2024. "Costly voting in weighted committees: The case of moral costs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    2. Stefano Barbieri & David Malueg & Iryna Topolyan, 2014. "The best-shot all-pay (group) auction with complete information," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 57(3), pages 603-640, November.
    3. Rothenhäusler, Dominik & Schweizer, Nikolaus & Szech, Nora, 2018. "Guilt in voting and public good games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 664-681.
    4. Rothenhäusler, Dominik & Schweizer, Nikolaus & Szech, Nora, 2013. "Institutions, shared guilt, and moral transgression," Working Paper Series in Economics 47, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    5. Alain Marciano, 2010. "Calabresi, "law and economics" and the Coase theorem," ICER Working Papers 26-2010, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    6. Stefano Barbieri & David Malueg, 2014. "Group efforts when performance is determined by the “best shot”," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 333-373, June.
    7. Hasen, Richard L., 1995. "The efficient duty to rescue," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 141-150, June.
    8. Hong, Fuhai & Lim, Wooyoung, 2016. "Voluntary participation in public goods provision with Coasian bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PA), pages 102-119.
    9. Alastair Smith & Bruce Bueno de Mesquita & Tom LaGatta, 2017. "Group incentives and rational voting1," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(2), pages 299-326, April.
    10. Kawamura, Kohei, 2008. "Communication for Public Goods," SIRE Discussion Papers 2008-25, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    11. Ryusuke Shinohara, 2014. "Participation and demand levels for a joint project," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 925-952, December.
    12. Dufwenberg, Martin & Patel, Amrish, 2017. "Reciprocity networks and the participation problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 260-272.
    13. DavidP. Myatt & Chris Wallace, 2009. "Evolution, Teamwork and Collective Action: Production Targets in the Private Provision of Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 61-90, January.
    14. Kalina Koleva, 2005. "Seeking for an optimal tax administration: the efficiency costs’ approach [A la recherche de l'administration fiscale optimale : l'approche par les coûts d'efficience]," Post-Print halshs-00195354, HAL.
    15. Leslie M. Marx & Steven A. Matthews, 2000. "Dynamic Voluntary Contribution to a Public Project," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(2), pages 327-358.
    16. Makris, Miltiadis, 2009. "Private provision of discrete public goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 292-299, September.
    17. Tasos Kalandrakis, 2007. "On participation games with complete information," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 35(3), pages 337-352, February.
    18. Edward Cartwright & Anna Stepanova, 2017. "Efficiency in a forced contribution threshold public good game," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(4), pages 1163-1191, November.
    19. Ferrari, Giorgio & Riedel, Frank & Steg, Jan-Henrik, 2016. "Continuous-Time Public Good Contribution under Uncertainty," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 485, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    20. Güth, W. & Nitzan, S., 1993. "Are moral objections to free riding evolutionarily stable?," Discussion Paper 1993-2, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bystander effect; Duty to rescue;

    JEL classification:

    • K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:31:y:2011:i:4:p:263-271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.