Do Administrative Courts Favour the Government? Evidence from Medical Malpractice in Spain
-
Sofia Amaral-Garcia
und
Nuno Garoupa
Abstract
A standard argument against specialised administrative courts in the tradition of civil law jurisdictions is their lack of independence. They are perceived to be ineffective in restraining the government’s interference with private rights, therefore failing to secure strong judicial independence. In this paper, we use a dataset of 365 medical malpractice cases decided by the Spanish Supreme Court in 2006–2010 to test the extent to which administrative courts are biased in favour of the government. We find no clear evidence that administrative courts decide more favourably for the defendant than civil courts.
Acknowledgement
We are indebted to ALEA 2012 (Stanford), CELS 2012 (Stanford), AEDE 2012 (Valencia), Universities of Lausanne, Besançon and Paris-Nanterre seminar participants and one anonymous referee, Robert Cooter, Morgan Hazelton and Rosa Ferrer for useful suggestions. Roya Samarghandi has provided valuable research assistance. The usual disclaimer applies. Sofia Amaral-Garcia acknowledges the financial support provided by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), Portuguese Ministry of Higher Education and Science, grant SFRH/BD/37917/2007; the research that lead to this paper was developed while she was a Postdoctoral Associate at ETH Zurich.
© 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Opting for Tort
- Do Administrative Courts Favour the Government? Evidence from Medical Malpractice in Spain
- Diffusing Law Softly: Insights into the European Travels of Italian Tort Law
- Should Physicians be Afraid of Tort Claims? Reviewing the Empirical Evidence
- Revocation of Fishing Quotas, ‘Positive Discrimination’, and Loss of a Chance – A Comment on ECJ, Giordano v Commission 20 March 2014
- On the Transformation of Economic Analysis of Tort Law
- Book Reviews
- Philippe Pierre and Fabrice Leduc (eds), La réparation intégrale en Europe. Études comparatives des droits nationaux (Éditions Larcier, Bruxelles 2012) 505pp. ISBN 978-2-9600997-3-7. € 104 (paperback).
- Israel Gilead/Michael D Green/Bernhard A Koch (eds), Proportional Liability: Analytical and Comparative Perspectives (de Gruyter, 2013), Tort and Insurance Law Series, vol 33, 376 pp. ISBN 978-3-11-028258-0. € 109.95 (hardcover).
- Eva Ondreasova, Die Gehilfenhaftung – Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zum österreichischen Recht mit Vorschlägen zur Reform [Liability for auxiliaries – A Comparative Law Study on Austrian Law with Proposals for Reform] (Manz Vienna, 2013). XXXVI + 258 pp. ISBN 978-3-214-00763-8. € 54 (paperback).
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Opting for Tort
- Do Administrative Courts Favour the Government? Evidence from Medical Malpractice in Spain
- Diffusing Law Softly: Insights into the European Travels of Italian Tort Law
- Should Physicians be Afraid of Tort Claims? Reviewing the Empirical Evidence
- Revocation of Fishing Quotas, ‘Positive Discrimination’, and Loss of a Chance – A Comment on ECJ, Giordano v Commission 20 March 2014
- On the Transformation of Economic Analysis of Tort Law
- Book Reviews
- Philippe Pierre and Fabrice Leduc (eds), La réparation intégrale en Europe. Études comparatives des droits nationaux (Éditions Larcier, Bruxelles 2012) 505pp. ISBN 978-2-9600997-3-7. € 104 (paperback).
- Israel Gilead/Michael D Green/Bernhard A Koch (eds), Proportional Liability: Analytical and Comparative Perspectives (de Gruyter, 2013), Tort and Insurance Law Series, vol 33, 376 pp. ISBN 978-3-11-028258-0. € 109.95 (hardcover).
- Eva Ondreasova, Die Gehilfenhaftung – Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zum österreichischen Recht mit Vorschlägen zur Reform [Liability for auxiliaries – A Comparative Law Study on Austrian Law with Proposals for Reform] (Manz Vienna, 2013). XXXVI + 258 pp. ISBN 978-3-214-00763-8. € 54 (paperback).
