Yonathan A. Arbel & Yotam Kaplan, Tort Reform Through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies, 90 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1199 (2017).

2016 SSRN working-paper PDF of 2017 Southern California Law Review article

Apology safe-harbor laws are a form of tort reform because they reduce victims' recovery and shield commercial injurers from liability while avoiding the conventional tort-reform label

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 2–5, that laws making an injurer's apology inadmissible are not merely humane evidentiary reforms. By increasing the availability and effectiveness of apologies that induce victims to forgo claims or settle for less, the laws reduce expected liability in a way analogous to damages caps. Commercial interests advanced this change through the language of empathy, communication, and penance, gaining support from some actors who ordinarily oppose tort reform. This is significant because the political framing concealed the laws' effects on compensation and deterrence from the debate that would accompany an explicit liability limitation. It connects to apology privileges, tort reform, evidentiary safe harbors, damages caps, political framing, medical malpractice, and democratic accountability.

The article's central reframing makes the incentive and distributional effects of apology protection, rather than its benevolent rhetoric, the relevant object of evaluation.

apology privileges
tort reform
evidentiary safe harbors
damages caps
political framing
medical malpractice
democratic accountability

The article develops a theoretical and evidence-informed critique; it does not prove that every apology statute was enacted with covert motives or has the same effects in every jurisdiction.

The introduction identifies apology laws as de facto tort reform, describes their bipartisan enactment, and compares their reduction of expected liability with conventional damages limitations.


Apologies can dilute tort deterrence when commercial actors anticipate that apologizing after an accident will reduce settlement payments and other liability costs

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 3–5, that the option to apologize changes behavior before an accident occurs. If a hospital, manufacturer, or other commercial actor expects an apology to make victims forgive, abandon claims, or accept smaller settlements, the expected private cost of causing harm falls. That reduction weakens the incentive to invest in precautions, making it cheaper to be sorry after the fact than safe beforehand. This is significant because an intervention praised for resolving disputes after injury may increase risk at the primary-behavior stage that dispute-resolution scholarship overlooks. It connects to deterrence, ex-ante incentives, settlement behavior, precaution, medical errors, moral hazard, and law and economics.

The claim shifts analysis from the emotional quality of an apology to its effect on the injurer's expected accident costs and safety choices.

deterrence
ex-ante incentives
settlement behavior
precaution
medical errors
moral hazard
law and economics

Reduced liability may correct overdeterrence in some settings, and the article repeatedly acknowledges that the direction and magnitude of real accident effects require empirical testing.

The introduction explains how anticipated settlement reductions lower the price of accidents to commercial actors and thereby can reduce precaution investments.


Professionalization and institutionalization let commercial actors produce apologies at low cost and amplify their ability to reduce claims and payouts

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 3–5, that corporate apologies differ from interpersonal remorse because organizations can systematize them. Firms can delegate apologies, train employees, hire specialists, adopt scripts and workflows, and repeat the process across many disputes, while the individual speaking often bears little personal responsibility. These market and organizational developments reduce the private cost and raise the effectiveness of apologizing. This is significant because legal rules based on a model of vulnerable personal contrition may subsidize a repeat-player risk-management technology. It connects to professionalized apology, corporate organization, repeat players, claims management, strategic communication, institutional design, and economies of scale.

The organizational account explains why the article regards commercial apologies as a distinct regulatory problem rather than a simple extension of interpersonal reconciliation.

professionalized apology
corporate organization
repeat players
claims management
strategic communication
institutional design
economies of scale

Commercial apologies vary in sincerity, cost, governance, and context; organizational capacity does not establish that every firm uses apologies manipulatively.

The introduction previews the article's account of professionalized apology practices and ties their falling costs and demonstrated effectiveness to the deterrence concern.


Further expansion of apology laws should pause until their safety, compensation, and deterrence effects are evaluated transparently as tort reform

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 4–5, that the unexamined diffusion of apology privileges warrants a moratorium on new state, federal, and cross-doctrinal expansions. Legislators and the public should evaluate these measures alongside damages caps and other tort reforms, with particular attention to medical systems that have routinized disclosure and apology. Judges should likewise approach commercial apologies cautiously rather than assume remorse warrants leniency. This is significant because procedural momentum can entrench a nationwide liability reform before policymakers measure its effects on accidents or victim welfare. It connects to regulatory moratoria, evidence-based policy, medical malpractice, legislative transparency, judicial leniency, policy evaluation, and precaution.

The proposal seeks to restore public scrutiny before a difficult-to-reverse evidentiary and remedial regime expands further.

regulatory moratoria
evidence-based policy
medical malpractice
legislative transparency
judicial leniency
policy evaluation
precaution

A moratorium is a prudential response to uncertainty, not a demonstration that all existing apology protections should be repealed or that sincere apologies lack value.

The introduction calls for suspended expansion, focused safety research, candid classification as tort reform, and greater judicial caution toward commercial apologies.


Part I.A, Apologies in Legal Scholarship

The Legal Apologists treat apology as a relationship-repairing and dispute-resolving practice that law should facilitate rather than inhibit

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 6–10, that a broad scholarly movement challenged adversarial legal responses to wrongdoing by emphasizing apology's expressive and therapeutic benefits. The literature argues that apologies acknowledge victims and violated norms, reduce anger and attributed blame, restore relationships, communicate a commitment against repetition, and unlock settlement. Laboratory and survey work often finds that victims want apologies and become more willing to settle or accept lower offers after receiving them. This is significant because these moral, psychological, and dispute-resolution claims supplied the intellectual vocabulary later used to justify evidentiary safe harbors. It connects to restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, mediation, relational repair, victim vindication, settlement, and legal facilitation.

Reconstructing the scholarly movement clarifies the attractive interpersonal premises that enabled apology reform to gain broad legitimacy.

restorative justice
therapeutic jurisprudence
mediation
relational repair
victim vindication
settlement
legal facilitation

The reviewed studies use varied methods and often examine interpersonal or hypothetical settings, so their findings do not automatically establish social benefits for repeat-player commercial apologies.

Part I.A surveys the movement's claimed benefits and supporting experimental and survey findings about victim satisfaction, blame, future trust, settlement, and litigation avoidance.


Apology scholarship recognizes sincerity, coercion, commodification, and undercompensation problems but has generally treated them as manageable within an interpersonal frame

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 11–12, that the apology movement is not oblivious to objections. Critics argue that legal protection can drain apology of the vulnerability that gives it moral value, strategic actors can fake remorse, courts cannot reliably judge sincerity, and victims may exchange substantial legal entitlements for emotional satisfaction. Yet the movement largely continues to favor facilitated apology, an orientation the authors regard as most understandable when the paradigm is one person apologizing to another. This is significant because commercial organizations magnify precisely the sincerity, repetition, and bargaining-power concerns that interpersonal theory tends to bracket. It connects to commodification, strategic apology, sincerity verification, victim undercompensation, coerced forgiveness, moral responsibility, and corporate personhood.

The claim locates the article's intervention inside an existing debate and identifies the shift from interpersonal to organizational actors as the neglected variable.

commodification
strategic apology
sincerity verification
victim undercompensation
coerced forgiveness
moral responsibility
corporate personhood

The authors characterize tendencies in a heterogeneous literature and do not claim that every apology scholar dismisses commercial exploitation or compensation concerns.

The end of Part I.A catalogs objections concerning protected, insincere, coerced, and settlement-reducing apologies and explains why those concerns become sharper in commercial contexts.


Tort reform is centrally a project to reduce tort law's deterrent and compensatory force, not merely a neutral effort to lower administrative costs

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 12–15, that clarity about the term tort reform is essential. Both supporters and opponents can favor cheaper and more efficient dispute resolution; the contested reform agenda instead seeks to restrict recoveries because proponents believe liability overdeterrs useful conduct and produces practices such as defensive medicine. Damage caps and screening devices therefore redistribute accident costs and alter precaution incentives, while opponents dispute both the empirical premise of excessive liability and the desirability or constitutionality of the restrictions. This is significant because an apology law counts as tort reform when it reduces expected liability and deterrence even if it also saves litigation costs. It connects to damages caps, defensive medicine, deterrence, compensation, administrative costs, constitutional limits, and tort politics.

The functional definition prevents efficiency rhetoric from obscuring reforms that change how much harm injurers internalize and victims recover.

damages caps
defensive medicine
deterrence
compensation
administrative costs
constitutional limits
tort politics

The definition focuses on the dominant American political controversy and does not deny that individual proposals can combine efficiency, access, compensation, and deterrence effects.

Part I.B distinguishes broadly shared system-efficiency goals from the disputed objective of lowering recoveries and deterrence through caps and related restrictions.


Political, interest-group, and constitutional resistance to conventional damages restrictions created incentives for tort reformers to pursue apology protection as an alternative venue

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 14–16, that the familiar tort-reform struggle aligned business and professional interests against consumers and plaintiffs' lawyers and mapped substantially onto party politics. Although damages limits spread, Democratic opposition, organized trial-lawyer resistance, and state constitutional rulings constrained further gains through the front door. Apology legislation offered an alternate route that could reduce liability while evading those political and legal obstacles. This is significant because institutional blockage can redirect organized interests toward reforms whose distributive consequences are less visible. It connects to public choice, venue shopping, interest groups, constitutional avoidance, bipartisan coalitions, medical lobbying, and policy substitution.

The political-economy account explains why liability reform appeared in the unexpected form of a compassionate evidentiary rule.

public choice
venue shopping
interest groups
constitutional avoidance
bipartisan coalitions
medical lobbying
policy substitution

The state-level descriptive figures are drawn from then-current datasets and electoral classifications and do not constitute a causal study of why each legislature adopted apology protection.

Part I.B describes partisan and institutional resistance to caps, and Part I.C presents apology safe harbors as the alternative coalition's successful response.


The same commercial interests that support conventional tort reform promoted apology laws by adopting the moral and relational rhetoric developed by apology scholars

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 15–17, that insurers, medical associations, hospitals, and other business groups joined legal ethicists and dispute-resolution scholars in promoting apology legislation. Rather than argue openly for reduced liability, industry advocates described safe harbors as a way to restore compassion, permit physicians to communicate, and reward people who do the right thing. This is significant because borrowing a trusted normative vocabulary can assemble a coalition for a policy whose material effects serve interests quite different from those that created the vocabulary. It connects to framing effects, coalition building, co-optation, medical associations, insurance lobbying, moral rhetoric, and legislative advocacy.

The claim reveals how ideas developed for interpersonal justice can be repurposed by repeat players seeking changes in expected litigation outcomes.

framing effects
coalition building
co-optation
medical associations
insurance lobbying
moral rhetoric
legislative advocacy

Shared support does not prove shared motives, and compassion, communication, risk management, and liability reduction may all influence an organization's position.

Part I.C identifies the commercial sponsors of state reforms and contrasts their empathy-centered public arguments with the liability-reducing consequence emphasized by the authors.


Part I.C, Safe Harbors and Institutional Uses

The apology-reform agenda extends from evidentiary safe harbors to mediation, settlement, early criminal process, judicial leniency, and compelled apology

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 16–18, that the central reform makes apologies or expressions of sympathy inadmissible so speakers need not fear that remorse will prove fault. But the wider movement also seeks to encourage apology in mediation and settlement, use remorse in charging and sentencing, and authorize courts to order apologies as a remedy or sanction. This is significant because the policy is not one narrow evidence exception; it is an emerging institutional architecture that changes the legal consequences of apologizing at multiple procedural stages. It connects to evidence law, admissions, mediation, plea bargaining, sentencing mitigation, court-ordered remedies, and safe harbors.

Mapping the agenda's breadth shows that the article's incentive critique can reach beyond medical-malpractice evidence rules.

evidence law
party admissions
mediation
plea bargaining
sentencing mitigation
court-ordered remedies
safe harbors

Different forms of legal encouragement operate through distinct mechanisms, and the article's strongest commercial-deterrence analysis does not transfer mechanically to every criminal or public apology.

Part I.C describes safe-harbor statutes and related proposals involving informal dispute resolution, charging, sentencing, and compelled apologies.


Apology laws spread rapidly across partisan lines because they were presented as neutral dispute-resolution reforms rather than measures affecting liability and deterrence

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 18–20, that apology protection achieved an unusual political success: thirty-six states enacted laws within roughly a decade, courts began treating apologies as grounds for mitigation, and advocates sought broader, federal, and more uniform protection. Adoption did not follow the ordinary partisan pattern of damages caps, and even prominent opponents of tort reform supported apology safe harbors. This is significant because bipartisan consensus may reflect the suppression of incentive and compensation questions rather than resolution of the underlying tort-reform dispute. It connects to policy diffusion, bipartisanship, federalization, judicial mitigation, agenda expansion, hidden redistribution, and tort politics.

The speed and breadth of enactment are evidence for the article's political claim that apology rhetoric neutralized familiar resistance to liability reform.

policy diffusion
bipartisanship
federalization
judicial mitigation
agenda expansion
hidden redistribution
tort politics

Contemporaneous counts and proposals capture the legal landscape at the time of writing; later statutory amendments and empirical evidence may change particular jurisdictions' treatment.

Part I.C reports enactment in thirty-six states, describes judicial and scholarly expansion proposals, and emphasizes support spanning conventional partisan divisions.


Apology-law advocacy framed the reform as costless communication improvement while leaving its effects on accident incentives, harms, and victim recovery largely unexamined

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 19–20, that the public case for apology laws foregrounded virtue and efficient dispute resolution while treating victims' rights as unaffected. That presentation omitted the possibility that privileged apologies lower settlements, reduce injurers' expected costs, and thereby change safety behavior and social harm. This is significant because a reform cannot be evaluated as neutral when it predictably changes bargaining outcomes and the price of causing accidents. It connects to policy salience, hidden costs, primary behavior, settlement leverage, victim rights, regulatory impact analysis, and democratic deliberation.

Identifying the missing incentive question supplies the bridge from the article's political history to its economic model.

policy salience
hidden costs
primary behavior
settlement leverage
victim rights
regulatory impact analysis
democratic deliberation

The omission in advocacy does not itself establish the direction or size of actual safety effects, which remain empirical questions.

The close of Part I states that broader effects on incentives and harms were suppressed while apology laws were presented as neutral improvements in dispute resolution.


Apology scholarship overemphasizes ex-post litigation savings and neglects tort law's primary ex-ante function of influencing precautions and risky activity

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 20–22, that tort law pursues compensation and deterrence as primary goals and reduction of litigation costs as an important but secondary one. Dispute-resolution specialists encounter conflicts after harm and naturally emphasize the ability of apology to dissipate anger and promote settlement. Tort analysis must also ask how the prospect of a cheaper post-accident resolution affects the earlier decision to engage in risky conduct or invest in care. This is significant because optimizing the handling of realized disputes can worsen the frequency or severity of the underlying injuries. It connects to ex ante versus ex post analysis, optimal deterrence, accident prevention, litigation costs, precaution, dispute resolution, and institutional perspective.

The temporal reframing exposes a category of social cost that an exclusively settlement-centered account cannot observe.

ex ante analysis
ex post analysis
optimal deterrence
accident prevention
litigation costs
precaution
dispute resolution

The article does not deny that administrative-cost savings are real or important; it argues that they must be balanced against changes in primary behavior.

Part II.A.1 states tort law's principal and secondary goals and explains why conflict-resolution scholarship's post-dispute vantage omits precaution incentives.


Part II.A.1, Compensation and Therapeutic Value

Victims' willingness to accept lower payments after an apology does not by itself prove that the apology therapeutically compensates for the foregone money

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 22–25, that apology has an ambiguous relation to tort law's compensatory goal. The therapeutic-value account treats emotional healing and acknowledgment as nonpecuniary compensation that victims rationally trade for money. But the same acceptance behavior can arise from manipulation, social pressure, confusion about what a corporate apology means, anthropomorphic reactions to a firm, or bounded judgment. The larger the forgone payment, especially for a severely disabled victim, the harder it is to infer full compensation from settlement choice alone. This is significant because revealed acceptance under strategic and emotional conditions is not a clean measure of restored welfare. It connects to compensatory justice, therapeutic value, behavioral law and economics, settlement choice, bounded rationality, victim welfare, and preference inference.

The critique prevents reduced payouts from being relabeled as equivalent healing without evidence about the victim's informed and durable welfare.

compensatory justice
therapeutic value
behavioral law and economics
settlement choice
bounded rationality
victim welfare
preference inference

The authors do not rule out genuine therapeutic benefits and acknowledge that informed victims may sometimes value acknowledgment more than additional money.

Part II.A.1 presents the therapeutic theory and then offers alternative explanations and a magnitude-based thought experiment challenging the inference from acceptance to compensation.


Commercial apologies can reduce claims by manipulating victims and activating social norms that portray continued litigation after an apology as vengeful or ungrateful

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 22–23, that a sophisticated repeat player can design apology programs to cool out injured people before they investigate their rights or speak to counsel. Even when the organization applies no direct pressure, the victim may experience a social or internal norm that a gracious person accepts an apology and forgives, making a later suit appear vindictive. This is significant because a settlement reduction produced by pressure or manipulation is not evidence that the victim has been made whole and may deepen bargaining inequality. It connects to cooling-out practices, social norms of forgiveness, exploitation, informed consent, repeat-player advantage, access to counsel, and settlement pressure.

The mechanism explains how apparently voluntary forgiveness can reflect constrained agency rather than a welfare-improving exchange.

cooling-out practices
social norms of forgiveness
exploitation
informed consent
repeat-player advantage
access to counsel
settlement pressure

The cited scholarship and psychological findings identify plausible mechanisms; they do not establish that manipulation or social pressure drives every accepted commercial apology.

The section describes apology programs intended to dissuade legal consultation and research showing negative perceptions of victims who decline to forgive after an apology.


Part II.A.1, Corporate Meaning and Anthropomorphism

Victims may misread a corporate apology by importing interpersonal signals of guilt, character, and reduced recidivism into an organization with dispersed responsibility

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 23–24, that it is unclear what a firm means when an employee or chief executive apologizes. Organizational decisions are distributed, the speaker may bear little responsibility, and the statement may reveal little about whether processes or incentives will change. Yet people personify brands and may instinctively treat a company as a remorseful individual whose apology signals moral improvement. This is significant because the human disposition to forgive can attach to an entity that has not incurred the personal moral cost or behavioral transformation associated with interpersonal repentance. It connects to corporate personhood, brand anthropomorphism, diffuse responsibility, signaling, recidivism, organizational behavior, and consumer psychology.

The distinction undermines a direct transfer of psychological findings about interpersonal apology to firms and hospitals.

corporate personhood
brand anthropomorphism
diffuse responsibility
signaling
recidivism
organizational behavior
consumer psychology

Organizations can undertake genuine corrective action and institutional learning; the claim concerns ambiguity and inferential risk, not the impossibility of sincere corporate reform.

The authors ask whose guilt and future conduct a proxy apology represents and connect victims' reactions to documented tendencies to endow firms and brands with human personality.


Part II.A.1, Magnitude and Counterfactual Welfare

Very large settlement concessions strain the claim that apology substitutes for compensation, and the victim's willingness to repeat the harmful transaction is a useful counterfactual check

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 24–25, that therapeutic value must have some plausible limit. A small monetary concession may reflect a conscious trade for acknowledgment, but foregoing sums needed to treat disability or hardship is harder to explain as equivalent healing. They propose asking whether a malpractice victim, knowing both the injury and later apology, would voluntarily undergo the same procedure again; a negative answer suggests that the apology did not truly mend the harm. This is significant because the counterfactual separates willingness to settle an irreversible loss from willingness to accept the underlying welfare package. It connects to counterfactual choice, willingness to accept, remedial adequacy, nonpecuniary value, revealed preference, disability compensation, and welfare measurement.

The thought experiment provides a disciplined way to question whether post-injury accommodation equals restoration without denying apology's emotional value.

counterfactual choice
willingness to accept
remedial adequacy
nonpecuniary value
revealed preference
disability compensation
welfare measurement

Counterfactual willingness to repeat a medical procedure is also affected by risk preferences, updated information, and alternatives, so it is an intuitive diagnostic rather than a complete welfare test.

The section contrasts modest and very large concessions and asks whether a fully informed patient would choose the same harmful procedure again after accounting for the apology.


The private benefit of apology differs from its social benefit because reduced liability is a transfer while avoided litigation costs are real resource savings

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 25–27, that apology must be evaluated by separating payments from administrative costs. An injurer privately counts a lower settlement and its own saved legal expense as benefits of apologizing. Society does not count the lower payment as a gain because the injurer's saving is the victim's loss, but it does count legal resources saved on both sides. The private and social comparisons therefore use different benefits and can point in opposite directions. This is significant because treating every reduction in a defendant's post-accident expense as social efficiency mistakes redistribution for resource conservation. It connects to transfer payments, social cost, litigation expense, private incentives, welfare economics, settlement, and accident law.

The accounting distinction is the formal core of the article's claim that profitable commercial apologies can be socially excessive.

transfer payments
social cost
litigation expense
private incentives
welfare economics
settlement
accident law

The model treats liability payments as welfare-neutral transfers and therefore abstracts from wealth effects, risk aversion, insurance, distributional justice, and compensation's independent moral value.

Part II.A.2 extends the accident model by adding apology cost, reduced liability, and lower litigation expense, then contrasts the injurer's savings with society's joint resource calculus.


Part II.A.2, Divergent Apology Incentives

Injurers may apologize either more or less often than is socially optimal depending on apology cost, liability reduction, and the parties' combined litigation savings

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 26–27, that there is no general identity between private and socially desirable apology. An injurer may apologize too much when a modest apology cost buys a large reduction in victim recovery even though total litigation savings are smaller than that cost. Conversely, the injurer may apologize too little when an apology would save both parties more legal expense than it costs but the injurer's own share of those savings is insufficient. This is significant because a blanket policy of making apologies cheaper can aggravate one divergence while correcting another. It connects to overproduction, underproduction, externalities, optimal subsidy, private-social divergence, litigation settlement, and comparative statics.

The two-sided result replaces the assumption of an apology deficit with conditions under which either excess or scarcity can arise.

overproduction
underproduction
externalities
optimal subsidy
private-social divergence
litigation settlement
comparative statics

Which divergence dominates in practice depends on empirical magnitudes the model does not itself estimate.

The informal model and paired numerical examples show excessive apology when liability savings dominate and insufficient apology when joint cost savings exceed the speaker's private savings.


When apology is privately worthwhile because it reduces expected liability, the injurer takes less care and may undertake socially undesirable risky activity

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 27–30, that an injurer anticipates the cheapest available response to an accident when deciding whether to act and how much care to take. An apology is optional, so the injurer uses it only when its cost plus post-apology liability is lower than the alternative. The resulting reduction in expected accident cost encourages less precaution and can make privately profitable an activity whose benefit is below its total social harm. This is significant because the same effectiveness that makes apology attractive as a settlement device can weaken the price signal tort liability is designed to create. It connects to optimal precautions, activity levels, expected liability, accident externalities, cheap talk, underdeterrence, and primary conduct.

The result formalizes the article's phrase 'better sorry than safe' by linking post-accident settlement strategy to pre-accident risk creation.

optimal precautions
activity levels
expected liability
accident externalities
cheap talk
underdeterrence
primary conduct

The harmful result is conditional: if apology reduces total litigation expense without materially lowering victim recovery, it can remain socially beneficial.

The second numerical example and synthesis show how a liability-reducing apology changes the injurer's activity and care choices and identify cheap, effective apology as the high-risk combination.


Law should not minimize the cost of apology unconditionally; the optimal legal treatment preserves enough cost to prevent liability-reducing apologies from overwhelming genuine litigation savings

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 29–30, that apology cost can serve a socially useful screening and deterrence function. Evidentiary privileges lower the expected downside of apologizing and therefore make apology cheaper. Legislators should reduce that cost only enough to induce apologies whose joint litigation savings exceed their cost, not so far that firms profit from apologies mainly by reducing victim recovery and safety incentives. This is significant because legal exposure is not merely an irrational obstacle to humane communication; some vulnerability can align private use of apology with social value. It connects to optimal legal design, costly signaling, apology privilege, screening, settlement efficiency, calibrated incentives, and public safety.

The proposal replaces the movement's monotonic cheaper-is-better premise with an interior optimum tied to apology's real social benefits.

optimal legal design
costly signaling
apology privilege
screening
settlement efficiency
calibrated incentives
public safety

The optimal point is difficult to measure and may vary by actor, harm, forum, and apology form; the article does not provide a ready statutory formula.

The end of Part II.A argues that privilege reduces apology cost and that lawmakers should preserve enough cost to limit apologies whose liability effect exceeds joint administrative savings.


Part II.B.1, Delegation and Specialization

Corporations can delegate apology to their most effective representative or an outside specialist, making the organizational apology as persuasive as the best available speaker

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 30–32, that an individual wrongdoer ordinarily cannot outsource remorse, but a corporation necessarily acts through agents and can choose who speaks. A firm can select a charismatic employee, a community insider, a new executive untainted by the event, or a crisis-management professional; BP's shift from its chief executive to local Gulf Coast employees illustrates this flexibility. This is significant because delegation lets a repeat player optimize credibility and emotional resonance without requiring the responsible decisionmakers to bear the apology's personal cost. It connects to agency, corporate spokespeople, in-group bias, crisis communication, specialization, proxy apology, and strategic delegation.

The mechanism gives organizations a structural cost and effectiveness advantage over natural persons in producing apology.

agency
corporate spokespeople
in-group bias
crisis communication
specialization
proxy apology
strategic delegation

Audiences may demand a specific accountable speaker, and a poorly chosen proxy can appear evasive or insincere; delegation is an advantage, not a guarantee of success.

Part II.B.1 contrasts personal and corporate apology, analyzes the discretion created by dispersed corporate action, and uses BP's choice of local representatives as an example.


Part II.B.2, Professionalization and Training

Commercial actors can convert research on sincerity cues, language, timing, and speaker identity into trained apology routines that improve effect and lower cost

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 32–33, that sincerity is inferred through observable cues rather than directly known. Organizations and consultants can study those heuristics, teach speakers to exploit in-group identity and effective wording, select favorable timing, and embed apology in complaint and claims workflows. Programs such as Sorry Works! and COPIC's 3Rs explicitly train medical, insurance, and legal personnel in these techniques. This is significant because a response that victims experience as spontaneous contrition can be the replicable output of a professional risk-management system. It connects to sincerity cues, apology scripts, claims training, behavioral design, service recovery, medical disclosure programs, and organizational routines.

Professionalization supplies a mechanism by which commercial apologies become simultaneously more persuasive, standardized, and scalable.

sincerity cues
apology scripts
claims training
behavioral design
service recovery
medical disclosure programs
organizational routines

Training can also improve truthful disclosure, empathy, and corrective communication; the existence of technique does not establish insincerity in an individual case.

Part II.B.2 reviews research on apology design and identifies firms and healthcare programs that train professionals on the timing, structure, and content of apologies.


Part II.B.3, Diffusion of Responsibility

Diffused organizational responsibility lowers the psychological cost of apology because the speaker can condemn a past wrong without admitting personal fault

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 33–34, that a personal apology requires one person to identify both as the blameworthy past offender and the reformed present speaker. A corporation separates those roles: responsibility for a product or medical failure is spread across many employees, and the representative apologizing may have played no role in the event. A new executive can therefore accept institutional responsibility and even criticize predecessors without suffering the same loss of face. This is significant because corporate form reduces the psychic and reputational price that makes interpersonal apology a potentially costly signal. It connects to diffusion of responsibility, corporate agency, psychological cost, successor leadership, blame allocation, costly signaling, and organizational identity.

The mechanism explains how a company can obtain the social benefit of apparent contrition while externalizing much of its personal burden.

diffusion of responsibility
corporate agency
psychological cost
successor leadership
blame allocation
costly signaling
organizational identity

Senior leaders can still face reputational, employment, legal, and emotional consequences, and audiences may attribute organizational blame to the current speaker.

Part II.B.3 explains the separation between offender and representative and illustrates it with General Motors and BP leaders who were not personally responsible for the underlying events.


A cultural shift transformed commercial apology from a stigmatizing admission into an expected sign of leadership that can improve consumer relationships

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 34–36, that business culture changed markedly from a deny-and-defend norm. Relationship marketing, internet-era crisis management, a broader culture of apology, and the service-recovery paradox made public contrition an accepted or even expected tool for restoring trust. Failure to apologize can now violate consumer expectations, while a well-managed apology may enhance reputation beyond its pre-crisis level. This is significant because social and reputational changes lower apology's cost independently of statutory privilege and can turn remorse into a profitable brand investment. It connects to corporate culture, recovery paradox, reputation management, consumer expectations, internet crises, relationship marketing, and leadership signaling.

The cultural mechanism reinforces the model's concern that organizations can apologize cheaply even before law further subsidizes the practice.

corporate culture
service-recovery paradox
reputation management
consumer expectations
internet crises
relationship marketing
leadership signaling

Evidence of a broad cultural shift does not show that recovery gains are universal; repeated failures, severe misconduct, or perceived insincerity can eliminate or reverse them.

Part II.B.4 surveys scholarship describing the post-1990s normalization of corporate apology, consumer expectations, and the possibility of post-failure reputational improvement.


Part II.C, Effectiveness of Commercial Apologies

Commercial apologies can remain highly effective even when recipients know an employee is paid to deliver a low-cost, strategic communication

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 36–37, that the organizational advantages of apology would matter little if victims discounted corporate speech as strategic. Yet field research in online commerce found that a cheap-talk employee apology produced better outcomes for the firm than monetary compensation, surprising researchers who expected customers to recognize the speaker's paid role. This is significant because strategic origin does not necessarily immunize recipients against apology's social and emotional effects. It connects to cheap talk, consumer behavior, strategic communication, field experiments, forgiveness, monetary compensation, and behavioral persistence.

The evidence supports the article's critical premise that low production cost and high persuasive effect can coexist.

cheap talk
consumer behavior
strategic communication
field experiments
forgiveness
monetary compensation
behavioral persistence

The online-market experiment concerns low-value transactions and review retraction, so its magnitude should not be transferred directly to serious physical injury or litigation.

Part II.C quotes researchers' surprise that customers responded strongly to paid apology emails and reports that apology outperformed monetary compensation in the field setting.


Institutional disclosure-and-apology programs are associated with substantial reductions in claims, lawsuits, legal costs, and compensation payments

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 36–38, that healthcare provides the strongest available evidence of commercial apology's financial effect. A before-and-after study of the University of Michigan program reported fewer monthly claims and lawsuits, lower per-case cost, and a large reduction in compensation payments; COPIC's 3Rs program likewise paired apology with small offers and reported fewer malpractice claims and lower settlement costs. This is significant because apology programs can alter not merely emotional satisfaction but whether victims seek money and how much they receive. It connects to disclosure-and-offer programs, malpractice claims, hospital risk management, COPIC 3Rs, settlement payments, claims suppression, and patient compensation.

The reported magnitudes make the compensatory and deterrence stakes of institutional apology too large to treat as a minor communication reform.

disclosure-and-offer programs
malpractice claims
hospital risk management
COPIC 3Rs
settlement payments
claims suppression
patient compensation

The programs combine disclosure, investigation, compensation offers, and apology, and before-after comparisons may reflect selection or other changes; the figures do not isolate apology's causal effect.

Part II.C reports outcome changes associated with the Michigan and COPIC programs, including claims, lawsuits, per-case expense, compensation, and small-offer practices.


Part II.C, State-Law and Market Evidence

State-law studies associate apology protection with lower malpractice payments, while commercial studies find effects on settlement, review retraction, purchasing, and reputation

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 38–39, that evidence extends beyond individual hospital programs. Econometric work comparing state apology laws reports substantial reductions in payments for severe injuries, and another insurer study reports a large average payment reduction. Other studies find apology-related changes in tenants' settlement willingness, consumers' purchasing intentions, eBay review withdrawal, social-media response, and firm reputation. This is significant because apology's behavioral reach spans legal claims and ordinary markets, supporting the premise that commercial actors can obtain material value from it. It connects to natural experiments, malpractice payments, online marketplaces, consumer trust, reputation repair, settlement willingness, and empirical legal studies.

The cross-context evidence makes commercial apology a general risk-management technology rather than an anomaly of one hospital.

natural experiments
malpractice payments
online marketplaces
consumer trust
reputation repair
settlement willingness
empirical legal studies

The designs, outcomes, and causal strength vary; some effects lack statistical significance, state-law studies rely on identifying assumptions, and market outcomes do not directly measure safety.

Part II.C summarizes state-law estimates and studies of housing, e-commerce, consumer intentions, social media, and stock-market or reputational response.


In at least one field experiment, an apology induced nearly twice the forgiveness rate of monetary compensation, and doubling compensation produced only a small additional effect

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 38–39, that an eBay field experiment illustrates apology's comparative potency. Customers retracted negative feedback after a small payment in 19.3 percent of cases and after a payment twice as large in 22.9 percent, but after an apology without compensation in 44.8 percent. This is significant because the apology's effect cannot be explained simply as another unit of monetary value and suggests that firms can secure forgiveness very cheaply relative to cash. It connects to randomized field experiments, nonmonetary remedies, e-commerce reputation, forgiveness, price sensitivity, consumer redress, and behavioral economics.

The comparison supplies a concrete example of the cheap-and-effective combination driving the article's theoretical concern.

randomized field experiments
nonmonetary remedies
e-commerce reputation
forgiveness
price sensitivity
consumer redress
behavioral economics

The transactions averaged only about 23.5 euros, the outcome was feedback retraction, and the experiment does not show equivalent effects for bodily injury, legal claims, or long-term welfare.

A footnote to Part II.C reports the experimental compensation levels and the respective 19.3, 22.9, and 44.8 percent feedback-withdrawal rates.


The article predicts that apology laws increase accident frequency or severity by lowering expected liability, but the available claims data are inconclusive about that safety outcome

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 40–42, that the model yields a testable contrast: if apology privileges weaken deterrence, adopting states should experience more or more severe accidents; if the conventional account is right, litigation should fall without a safety increase. Existing studies report patterns including more disposed severe claims, sharply lower payments, more zero-payment claims, and in one study a greater likelihood that claims become lawsuits. But disposed-claim databases omit many accidents and unpaid matters, reporting can be incomplete, and another insurer dataset differs in scope. This is significant because payment and processing outcomes cannot answer the central policy question without a denominator measuring underlying harms. It connects to accident incidence, malpractice severity, administrative data, selection bias, zero-payment claims, causal inference, and research design.

The claim turns the theory into an empirical agenda while resisting a stronger causal conclusion than the available data support.

accident incidence
malpractice severity
administrative data
selection bias
zero-payment claims
causal inference
research design

The article expressly calls the evidence inconclusive and largely consistent with, rather than proof of, its prediction; disposed claims and insurer records do not capture all accidents.

Part III.A states the rival predictions, reviews Ho-Liu and insurer-data findings, and explains why reporting definitions and missing no-payment events prevent a clean inference about accident levels.


Part III.B, The Paradox of Excessive Apologies

Apology-law advocacy contains a tension because it portrays unprotected apologies as increasing litigation through admissions while praising apologies for decreasing litigation through settlement

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 42–43, that the standard case for safe harbors pulls in opposite directions. The claim that legal fear suppresses apologies assumes an unprivileged apology strengthens victims' lawsuits, while the claim that apology is socially useful assumes it prevents or settles those lawsuits. One possible reconciliation distinguishes filing from probability of plaintiff success; another posits victim groups with heterogeneous responses. But either account leaves a class of victims whose likelihood of recovery is reduced without corresponding litigation savings. This is significant because resolving the apparent paradox requires acknowledging a compensatory or deterrence cost that the reform's rhetoric omits. It connects to evidentiary admissions, litigation selection, heterogeneous victims, settlement, plaintiff success, apology privilege, and policy tradeoffs.

The internal critique shows that litigation-reduction claims cannot simultaneously justify protection and deny that protection changes substantive outcomes.

evidentiary admissions
litigation selection
heterogeneous victims
settlement
plaintiff success
apology privilege
policy tradeoffs

The paradox can be resolved empirically if the relevant victim groups and effects are measured; the article argues that such a resolution is costly, not logically impossible.

Part III.B states the encourage-discourage tension and tests two reconciliations, each of which exposes victims whose recovery probability or entitlement is reduced.


Protecting apologies may not materially increase error disclosure, and disclosure without liability does not ensure that commercial actors will pay the cost of preventing recurrence

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 43–45, that the disclosure rationale rests on two uncertain links. First, culture and professional norms, not liability alone, may explain nondisclosure; comparisons with lower-liability systems do not necessarily reveal more reporting. Second, learning that an error occurred does not make corrective action free: safer equipment, staffing, tests, and procedures can be expensive, and firms still need an incentive to internalize those costs. This is significant because information production and behavioral correction are separate institutional problems, and weakening liability may improve neither. It connects to error disclosure, patient safety, organizational learning, internalization, malpractice liability, corrective investment, and regulatory incentives.

The critique distinguishes a communication benefit from the economic motivation required to translate disclosed mistakes into prevention.

error disclosure
patient safety
organizational learning
internalization
malpractice liability
corrective investment
regulatory incentives

Some apology programs combine disclosure with investigation, quality improvement, and compensation, and may generate learning through mechanisms the simplified critique does not model.

Part III.C questions cross-system evidence that liability suppresses reporting and emphasizes the continuing cost of precautions after an error becomes known.


The premise that commercial actors suffer from an apology deficit is unproven and economically doubtful because profit-seeking firms already have incentives to produce value-creating apologies

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 45–46, that apology reform assumes too few apologies without establishing the baseline shortage. If apologies lower claims, repair reputation, and improve relationships, firms should invest in them like any other profitable output even without legal subsidy. Risk-manager surveys, the transition from deny-and-defend to apologize-and-settle, and a rough media-count analysis are consistent with commercial apology becoming commonplace. This is significant because government encouragement needs evidence of underproduction, not merely evidence that apology can be useful. It connects to market provision, regulatory justification, apology deficit, profit maximization, media trends, hospital risk management, and policy baselines.

The claim shifts the burden to reform proponents to demonstrate a market failure before lowering the legal cost of an already valuable practice.

market provision
regulatory justification
apology deficit
profit maximization
media trends
hospital risk management
policy baselines

The media analysis is expressly nonrigorous, survey responses may not reflect practice, and widespread apology in some commercial sectors does not disprove shortages in others.

Part III.D develops the market-incentive argument, cites an early risk-manager survey, and presents a descriptive EBSCO trend while carefully disclaiming causal or rigorous prevalence inference.


Apology laws should be debated transparently as liability-reducing tort reform, and further safe-harbor expansion should pause while safety effects remain unresolved

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 46–47, that policymakers should first relabel apology protection honestly. The question is not whether compassion is virtuous but whether reducing compensation and expected liability is justified relative to other tort reforms. Because commercial apologies appear cheap and effective while accident effects remain uncertain, the authors call for a moratorium on new safe-harbor expansion. This is significant because apology rules are difficult to calibrate: unlike a numerical damages cap, their effect depends idiosyncratically on each victim's response and can produce unmeasured safety consequences. It connects to regulatory transparency, moratoria, damages-cap comparison, calibration, victim heterogeneity, precautionary policy, and democratic choice.

The recommendation preserves room for eventual reform while insisting that liability and safety tradeoffs become explicit before further enactment.

regulatory transparency
moratoria
damages-cap comparison
calibration
victim heterogeneity
precautionary policy
democratic choice

The authors do not conclude that apology laws can never be justified and acknowledge that informal settlement may have independent merit.

Part III.E calls for candid tort-reform framing, explains apology law's calibration disadvantage, and proposes suspending expansion because lowering apology cost can increase risky conduct.


Courts should presume against leniency for apologizing commercial actors, and policymakers should fund direct research on accidents rather than infer safety from litigation outcomes

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 47–48, that preferential treatment at judgment is especially difficult to justify because an in-court apology no longer saves the litigation whose avoidance supplies apology's main social benefit. For companies and other incorporeal actors, expressions of remorse are also particularly suspect as indicators of personal moral change. The authors therefore propose a presumption against apology-based leniency for commercial defendants and call for funded empirical study of apology laws, malpractice, and accident rates. This is significant because adjudication and research policy should track the mechanisms actually capable of producing public benefit or harm. It connects to judicial mitigation, corporate remorse, sentencing and damages, evidentiary policy, research funding, accident data, and evidence-based reform.

The paired recommendations limit an unsupported legal reward while building the evidence needed for a more calibrated future rule.

judicial mitigation
corporate remorse
sentencing
damages
evidentiary policy
research funding
accident data

The presumption is limited to commercial actors and does not resolve how courts should treat individual, demonstrably costly, or reparative apologies.

The final policy section distinguishes post-litigation leniency from settlement-saving safe harbors, urges caution toward corporate remorse, and calls for dedicated empirical funding.


Formal Proposition 1 proves that private and social apology incentives diverge, allowing both socially excessive apologies and socially valuable apologies that injurers decline to make

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on pages 50–52, that an injurer apologizes when apology cost is less than the reduction in liability, whereas society wants apology when its cost is less than the reduction in enforcement expense. If liability savings exceed administrative savings, there is a range in which the injurer apologizes although the act is socially wasteful; if administrative savings exceed liability savings, there is a range in which the injurer remains silent although apology would conserve resources. This is significant because the formal inequalities establish that neither voluntary apology nor universal legal encouragement reliably implements the social optimum. It connects to Proposition 1, private-social divergence, enforcement cost, liability reduction, apology cost, welfare conditions, and mechanism design.

The proof supplies the mathematical foundation for the article's rejection of a presumed universal apology deficit.

Proposition 1
private-social divergence
enforcement cost
liability reduction
apology cost
welfare conditions
mechanism design

The proposition uses a stylized binary apology choice and welfare measure that omits therapeutic value, distribution, heterogeneous speakers, and repeated interactions unless incorporated into the cost functions.

The Appendix derives the injurer's condition a < l(0)-l(1), society's condition a < s(0)-s(1), and the intervals producing excessive or insufficient apology.


Formal Proposition 2 shows that a privately beneficial apology lowers precautions below the social optimum and that more favorable legal treatment widens the deterrence gap

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on page 52, that an injurer who expects to apologize chooses care based on apology cost plus reduced post-apology liability, while society chooses care based on apology cost, full harm, and enforcement cost. Because a privately worthwhile apology lowers liability below harm, the injurer's marginal incentive for precaution is necessarily too weak. Making legal treatment of apology more favorable further reduces liability and increases the difference between actual and optimal care. This is significant because the model proves a monotonic connection between the generosity of apology privilege and underdeterrence once apology is privately beneficial. It connects to Proposition 2, first-order conditions, optimal care, liability dilution, comparative statics, accident probability, and legal subsidy.

The proposition converts the qualitative safety concern into a formal result about care levels and harm under increasingly favorable apology rules.

Proposition 2
first-order conditions
optimal care
liability dilution
comparative statics
accident probability
legal subsidy

The result assumes the model's accident technology, concavity, liability equal to harm without apology, and a privately beneficial apology; it does not establish that these conditions hold empirically in every regime.

The Appendix compares the injurer's and society's first-order conditions and proves that reduced apology-conditioned liability produces lower care and greater harm, with the gap increasing as treatment becomes more favorable.


Formal Proposition 3 limits the case for preferential treatment to apologies that are otherwise underproduced and whose administrative savings exceed the added harm from weaker precautions

Professor Yonathan A. Arbel and coauthor Yotam Kaplan claim, in “Tort Reform through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies” on page 53, that lowering liability to induce an apology is socially desirable only under two cumulative conditions. The apology not currently made must cost less than the enforcement expense it saves, and the net administrative saving must remain larger than the additional expected harm created when lower liability reduces care. This is significant because it requires reformers to count both ex-post dispute savings and ex-ante accident effects rather than infer desirability from more apologies or faster settlements alone. It connects to Proposition 3, second-best policy, induced apology, administrative savings, endogenous harm, precaution incentives, and cost-benefit analysis.

The proposition states the paper's constructive decision rule for when legal encouragement of apology can improve welfare.

Proposition 3
second-best policy
induced apology
administrative savings
endogenous harm
precaution incentives
cost-benefit analysis

Applying the rule requires credible estimates of apology cost, enforcement savings, changes in care, and accident harm, data the article finds currently limited.

The final appendix proof compares social cost before and after reducing liability enough to induce apology and requires administrative benefits to exceed the increase in expected harm.