自Shavell (1982)以來，有關訴訟的文獻大多主張，與美制（American rule，即訴訟兩造各自負擔訴訟費）相較，英制（English rule，即訴訟敗方負責兩造的訴訟費用）鼓勵高價值而抑制低價值訴訟案件的發生。一個有價值的案件是指對原告而言，其勝訴機率很高的案件。但文獻的討論大多數建立在風險中立的假設下，本文則提出風險趨避行為有可能使上述此一主張不成立：當風險趨避程度顯著時，英制較美制更加抑制訴訟案件，許多價值高的案件只在美制下提出。此外，美制雖然產生過多的訴訟案件，但相較英制，可降低訴訟當事人的風險損失。因此就社會鼓勵高價值案件及降低訴訟當事人風險損失的觀點而言，美制優於英制。

Most literature, including Shavell (1982), demonstrate that the English rule (the losing side bears all costs) encourages people to file high merit suit and discourages low merit suit while comparing to the the American rule (each side bears its own costs). The high merit lawsuit is regarded as the case with high probability of prevailing. However, this conclusion is yielded based on the assumption of risk neutral. Therefore, there is a gap about whether it can still stand when players' risk attitude is considered. This paper shows that when the players are very risk averse, the discouragement of meritorious suits is greater under the English rule than under the American rule. Some high merit suits are filed only under the American rule. Besides, litigants are worse off in bearing risk under the English rule than under the American rule. Therefore, this paper claims that the American rule is better than the English rule in encouraging meritorious suits and reducing the litigant's risk loss.