Y5

a. Under common law, a dog is allowed one bite yet a tiger is allowed none. Which tort rule we discussed in class would apply to a dog owner? Which rule would apply to the tiger owner? Explain. b. Negligence rules determine liability by comparing an injurer's actual level of care to some legal standard. One problem is that the injurer's actual level of care is different that their intended level of care. Thus, it is possible that a person could be found liable when their negligence was unintentional, and it is possible that a person would not be held liable even when their negligence was intentional. Why don't courts use a rule of liability for accidents caused by intentional negligence only, and not unintentional? Explain. c. When we discussed tort law we gave various reasons when strict liability is preferable to negligence and vice versa. Suppose that either rule is equally efcient. Does the presence of litigation cost make strict liability preferable or negligence? Explain