Negligence and insufficient activity: The missing paradigm in torts

David Gilo*, Ehud Guttel

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations


Conventional wisdom in tort law maintains that the prevention of undesirable risks mandates restriction of harmful conduct. Against this widely held conviction, this Article shows that undesirable risks often stem from insufficient, rather than excessive, activity. Because negligence requires investments in only cost-justified care, parties might deliberately limit their activity so that the size of the ensuing risk would be lower than the cost of welfare-enhancing precautions. Parties' incentives to strategically restrict their activity levels have striking implications for the inducement of efficient harm prevention. The overlooked paradigm of insufficient activity calls for the imposition of a new form of tort liability, justifies the application of controversial regulatory rules recently challenged before the Supreme Court, and supports overturning the standard guidelines concerning the choice between negligence and strict liability.

Original languageAmerican English
Pages (from-to)277-322
Number of pages46
JournalMichigan Law Review
Issue number3
StatePublished - Dec 2009


Dive into the research topics of 'Negligence and insufficient activity: The missing paradigm in torts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this