析缔约过失责任的性质

本文对将缔约过失责任归属于债权的责任或合同责任的观点进行了评述,指出了其弊端,提出将缔约过失责任作为一个独立的民事责任。     

缔约过失责任概念辨析

通过对缔约过失责任传统理论的探讨,从缔约过失责任适用的空间、时间范围,结合我国法律的有关规定,阐明了对缔约过失责任的理解,界定了我国现行法律中规定的缔约过失责任的概念。并就概念的效力确定、法定性及相对性的理解等诸多方面做了论述,阐明了缔约过失责任对民法理论发展的理论意义及实践意义。     

注册会计师的过失责任:连带责任抑或比例责任

对于注册会计师的过失责任应适用连带责任还是比例责任,目前理论界存在争议,而这一问题对于注册会计师的法律风险具有相当大的影响。从西方来看,更多地采用连带责任,但近年来,以美国为代表,正表现出逐渐从连带责任向比例责任的转变的趋势。我国目前有关法律亦采用连带责任,但从我国注册会计师的执业环境来看,连带责任将使注册会计师承担过高的法律风险,因此,对于注册会计师的过失责任采用比例责任可能更为合适。     

Strict liability versus negligence when the injurer's activity involves positive externalities

In this paper, I assert that, if the potential injurer’s activity involves externalities unrelated to accidents, the strict liability rule minimizing only the social cost associated with accidents does not induce the social optimum. I also demonstrate that if the externalities are positive, the negligence rule can perform better than the strict liability rule by selecting the due care appropriately, whereas it cannot if the externalities are negative. This argument can be applied to the product liability law. JEL Classification K13     

论单独侵权致同一损害适用按份责任的例外

单独侵权不足以致全部损害时,应适用连带责任还是按份责任并无定论。连带责任将部分侵权人不能清偿的风险转嫁给其他侵权人,有利于保护受害人,却让过错比例较小的侵权人承担过重的责任;按份责任可避免过错程度与责任不相称,却将部分侵权人不能清偿的风险转移给原告。这使连带责任或按份责任作为一般规则设置例外显得必要,由此形成两种模式:连带责任为一般规则、按份责任为例外与按份责任为一般规则、连带责任为例外。多数国家采纳前者,我国采纳后者。排除政策性连带责任,网络服务提供者承担连带责任属于我国"按份责任"一般规则的例外,但其适当性欠妥,司法实践将环境侵权、医疗侵权作为例外情形有其合理性。     

过失相抵与无过错责任简

过失相抵是损害赔偿法中的一项基本规则,适用于所有的损害赔偿之债。在适用无过错责任的侵权行为中,除非法律另有规定,可以适用过失相抵,这是法律之公平精神与自己责任原则的要求。在可以适用过失相抵规则的无过错责任中,对该规则的适用也应有一定的限制。首先,只有当受害人对损害的发生或扩大有重大过失时,才能适用过失相抵,减轻侵权人的赔偿责任。其次,如果受害人是不完全民事行为能力人,无论是受害人本人还是其监护人对于损害的发生或扩大有过错,对侵权人赔偿责任的减轻都不得低于全部损失的一定比例。     

Lender Liability for Environmental Harm: An Argument Against Negligence Based Rules

A firm strictly liable for any harm done will choose an inefficiently low care level if there is a possibility that it goes bankrupt. One possibility to improve care is extending liability to secured lenders, as applied under CERCLA and as currently being discussed in the EU. I compare strict liability, partial liability and vague negligence for lenders in a model with moral hazard and environmental auditing. While auditing is socially valuable only if it increases the firm's care level, the creditor also calculates the reduction in the information rent. Thus, for each possible care level, monitoring is always too high. This effect is aggravated by a vague negligence rule, where the probability that a lender is found liable decreases in the level of auditing. It is demonstrated that partial liability is superior, because the incentive for excessive monitoring is diminished.     

日本环境侵权法的发展

日本的环境侵权法并非单纯由过失责任原则直接发展为无过失责任原则 ,而是经历了从客观过失理论到过失推定 ,再从过失推定到无过失责任主义的演进过程。日本法制在环境侵权的私法救济上将损害赔偿与排除侵害分割开来 ,各自开创新说。且排除侵害制度的重心在于权利本身 ,即对何种权利于何种程度上承认排除侵害请求权。     

雇主责任的归责原则与劳动者解放

我国学界的多数观点认为雇主责任是无过错的替代责任,而我国"人身损害赔偿司法解释"第9条不以雇员的侵权责任为雇主责任的要件,并规定轻过失的雇员可以免责,与替代责任说的原理相矛盾,因而遭到学界的批判。于此相对,我国司法实务界多认为雇主责任是过错责任,学界与实务界在问题意识和基本立场上存在着明显差异。结合对德国、日本和英国的比较法研究,笔者发现,纯粹无过失的雇主责任是不存在的,替代责任并非世界法律发展的潮流。雇主责任的本质是组织过失责任,其根源在于雇主在企业组织上的瑕疵,因此雇主责任的成立无须以雇员的侵权责任为要件,倘以之为要件反而会招致诸多弊端。雇员的轻过失只是雇主组织瑕疵的衍生物,为雇主的经营行为所吸收,雇员可以从赔偿责任中解放出来。"人身损害赔偿司法解释"第9条体现的正是劳动者解放的法理。     

Environmental liability and harmonization in the presence of transboundary effects and hidden assets

Within the context of transboundary disputes, this paper seeks to determine which liability concept, negligence or strict liability, performs better when assets are secure against foreign claims for transboundary damages. Our results indicate that, if assets are hidden from foreign claims, strict liability will not implement the socially optimal outcome, but neither will negligence. However, even though the socially optimal outcome is not always achieved, strict liability weakly dominates negligence. These results suggest that the harmonization of statues that deal with transboundary pollution should be based on strict liability not negligence. JEL classification K32 · Q5 Smith and Eckert both thank SSHRC of Canada for financial assistance. We thank two referees for valuable comments that greatly improved the paper and Matt Smith for his research assistance. All remaining errors are our responsibility.     

环境犯罪归责的主观要件分析

刑法惩罚和预防犯罪的功能决定了刑法中所谓的严格责任实质上是过错推定,而不是完全的"不问过错",环境刑法也不例外。环境犯罪是一类罪名,其归责的主观要件因具体罪名的不同而不同。抗拒环保监管罪的主观方面多为直接故意;破坏自然资源罪的主观方面多为间接故意;污染环境犯罪的主观方面则多为过失,且这种过失应当以结果规避义务为基础。     

Scope of liability: the vanishing distinction between negligence and strict liability

The duty-of-care requirement cannot be used anymore as the touchstone to differentiate negligence from strict liability because it can be found in many forms of the latter. Duty of care is smuggled into strict liability hidden under the scope of liability requirement (traditionally called “proximate causation”). As far as the scope of liability requirement is common to negligence and to many forms of strict liability, there is a fairly large common ground to both liability rules, and consequently the marginal Hand formula is applied to both rules. Indeed, under a negligence rule, the marginal Hand formula is applied twice: first to assess whether or not the defendant did breach his or her duty of care, and, second, to delimit whether or not the defendant’s behavior was a proximate cause of the harm suffered by the victim. However, under a strict liability rule, the Hand formula is applied only once when the proximate causation question is raised. Traditional law and economics analysis has almost always taken the normative question raised by the causation requirement as given, which is a potential major problem due to the importance of scope of liability or proximate causation in legal practice. Defining the scope of liability, that is to say, the boundaries of the pool of potential defendants, is the basic legal policy decision for each and every liability rule. In the normative model presented in this paper, the government first chooses efficient scope of liability, and given the scope of liability, the government then decides the liability rule and damages that guarantee efficient precaution. In the article, most known scope of liability rationales developed by both common law and civil law systems are discussed in order to show the substantial common ground between negligence and strict liability.     

现代侵权行为法中过错责任原则的发展

过错责任原则是侵权行为法中一项基本归责原则,但是随着社会的发展,从近代侵权行为法到现代侵权行为法的发展中,过错责任原则也出现了一些值得注意的新发展,主要表现为过失的客观化、过失推定以及违法视为过失。     

共同危险行为争议问题探析

共同危险行为属于责任者不明型共同侵权,其与份额不明型共同组成客观共同侵权之类型。此类共同侵权中连带责任的正当化基础为可能因果关系,故当行为人证明自己的行为与损害间不存在因果关系时,便可免于承担责任。共同危险行为制度同样可以适用于无过错责任领域。共同危险行为与共同过失型共同侵权的区分,主要看行为人是否具有共同过失,共同过失表现为基于一致的行为安排而作出一定行为,而该行为中含有可预见并可避免的致害可能性。     

论“不合理的伤害危险”——对过失概念客观要素的考察

过失概念在理论上可以区分出两项要素，即客观上存在着不合理的伤害危险，主观上该危险存在着可预见性，但两项要素并非泾渭分明。不仅理性相对人不能认识和防范的危险可以构成不合理危险，在一定条件下，非理性相对人不能认识和防范的危险同样可以构成不合理危险。“不合理危险”这一要素在内涵和外延上的不确定性，导致了过错责任与危险责任的界限模糊。不同的情况对本人提出的认识要求是不同的。对于理性相对人不能防范的危险，要求本人更认真地去认识，非理性相对人不能防范的危险，则不是如此，但不等于不要求本人去认识。     

共同过失命题之证伪

共同过失这个命题是共同侵权制度据以扩张解释的一个理论假设。然而目前所有关于共同过失的观点及其论证都是不成立的。共同过失就其实质而言,属于无意思联络的数人过失侵权,按照目前侵权责任法的规定,数人应对受害人承担按份责任。然而共同过失这个理论假设不适当地扩张了共同侵权行为的范围,并导致了连带责任制度被滥用。     

论法律责任的历史发展

法律责任经历了三个历史发展过程 :从原始行为规则中的某些保护性习惯 ,发展为阶级社会的法律责任制度 ;由客观责任发展为主客观相统一的责任 ;由团体责任发展为个人责任     

我国侵权法上特殊数人侵权责任分担制度立法体例与规则研究——兼评《侵权责任法（二次审议稿）》第14条及相关条文

从法律适用规则、内部责任份额和立法技术规则等角度可以将四种数人侵权责任分担形态区分为两类：一般数人侵权责任分担形态（包括按份责任形态和连带责任形态）、特殊数人侵权责任分担形态（包括补充责任形态和不真正连带责任形态）。立法技术上,在一般规则部分对特殊数人侵权责任形态的基本制度应予以规定,而对适用过错责任或过错推定责任的侵权行为类型的补充责任形态和适用严格责任的侵权行为类型中的不真正连带责任形态应予以全面列举。     

侵权法上的原因力理论研究

在数人的分别加害行为不构成一个整体原因但致受害人同一损害后果之情形,需要解决多数加害人的责任分配问题。在受害人有过错而减轻或免除行为人责任之情形以及共同侵权责任人在承担连带责任后内部分割责任份额之情形,也需要相应的规则来分配责任。过去的理论比较侧重于从过错中寻找答案,而作者认为对这些情形的责任分配之基本规则主要应当是原因力,即主要依据各当事人的分别行为对同一损害后果之发生所起作用之大小确定其责任,但是这并不否认比较过错规则在一些案件中的作用。     

Efficiency of 'Simple' Liability Rules When Courts Make Erroneous Estimation of the Damage

The literature on liability rules shows that the damage awards under a liability rule affect the efficiency of the rule. One crucial factor that could affect the damage awards and therefore the efficiency characteristics of liability rules is the error made by a court while estimating the harm suffered by the victims. In this paper efficiency property of what we label as 'simple' liability rules when courts make errors in estimation of the damage is studied in a unified framework. The paper provides a characterization of efficient simple liability rules and shows that the biased court errors act to change the efficiency characterization of simple liability rules. A necessary and sufficient condition for a simple liability rule to be efficient in the presence of upper-biased court errors is provided. The analysis is carried out in a quite general framework.