{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01669195751138088, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.739130434782608, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Multiple Tortfeasors and the Economy of Prevention

IT would be ironic if economists turned out to be the last moralists to theorize about the law of negligence. Yet whenever they see the real thing, they call it by the worst name they know. Most economists believe that negligent behavior is always inefficient. For this reason social psychologists may some day regard the current economic theory of tort in the same light as Cotton Mather's sermons. Indeed, the better parallel may be The Scarlet Letter. Economists commit negligence several times on the way to work,' but once at their desks they continue to imagine that negligent behavior is exceptional.