Tort Hypothetical   The tort hypothetical needs one adjustment I think Scenario Three reads  If a cause of action does not exist and the damage equals  while the cost of the wall equals  the wall will exist Even though  cannot win the lawsuit he or she will still pay  some amount between  and  to build the wall  This doesnt seem correct If a cause of action does not exist  cannot shift the  cost onto  so  is faced with two options incur the  damage or pay a lower amount to avoid that damage by constructing a wall or having a wall constructed The utilitymaximizing choice would be to pay  to build the wall herself She wouldnt pay more than that to have  build the wall