劳动派遣关系中的雇主替代责任研究

劳动派遣中涉及关系比较复杂,建议在未来的《民法典》的侵权行为编中,专条规定在劳动派遣关系中,两个雇主可以约定对共同雇员的替代责任的承担,如果没有约定或约定不明的,两个雇主应承担连带的替代责任,以更好地保护无辜受害人的合法权益。     

In-house or in court? Legal challenges to university decisions

Every day, decisions are made in universities that affect students. When a decision adversely affects a particular student, what means of redress does that student have? The circumstances in which a student has a legal claim against their university are generally unclear. Courts have traditionally tended to draw a distinction between ‘purely academic’ decisions and disciplinary decisions. There has been reluctance on the part of courts to intervene in non-disciplinary decisions which involve academic judgment, for example, the grade to be given to a student's work. On the other hand, where the decisions are purely disciplinary, for example, in relation to a student's behaviour towards others or towards university property, the courts have made it clear that there is essentially no difference between this and disciplinary matters within any other public institution or organization. However, disciplinary decisions that are connected with allegations of academic misconduct, for example, cheating and/or plagiarism, have been more problematic for the courts. Historically, the debate was whether any such decision was justiciable in public law. Recently the question has also been whether an aggrieved student may succeed in a private law action against a university. The legal issues raised by university decisions affecting students have not yet been clearly resolved in all jurisdictions. Indeed, in some cases, judges have raised many more questions than they have answered. This article will review the framework for legal challenges to university decisions against a background of recent judicial attitudes in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US.     

在大学生伤害事故中高校民事责任的认定

学生伤害事故范围的合理界定是高校民事责任认定的前提与基础,对学生伤害事故性质的准确分析是高校民事责任认定的关键,学生伤害事故归责的科学运用是高校民事责任认定的核心。加强对学生伤害事故中高校民事责任认定的研究,有助于积极预防和妥善处理高等学校学生伤害事故,依法维护大学生和学校的合法权益,促进和谐校园的建设。     

揭开雇主“替代责任”的面纱——兼论《侵权责任法》第34条之解释论基础

我国民法学界和立法机关的主流观点认为,雇主责任的性质是替代责任,这种看法并不合理。替代责任原理及规则渊源于英美普通法,其立基于近代手工业社会,反映了当时较为简单的雇佣关系。到了现代工业风险社会,随着企业规模的扩大和雇佣关系的复杂化,这一原理及规则不能为遭受企业活动侵害的受害人提供充分的法律保护,也不能为雇主积极履行义务提供法律上的激励机制。因此,使用替代责任原理并不能对《侵权责任法》第34条作出合理、妥当的解释。目前,英美法上的"企业责任理论"和德国法上的"组织过错理论"反映了比较法上雇主责任领域的最新发展趋势。     

The Role of Interest Groups in the European Union Decision-Making Process

Most of the economic models that analyse the behaviour of interest groups in the policy making process uphold the idea that there are many organized groups that compete, with the aim of achieving their individual goals. The adoption of decisions is the result of a complex system of strategic interactions, and since different groups have different resources at their disposal this makes it easier for one or more groups to influence whether or not a policy is adopted. This research demonstrates that an institutional system such as the European Union (EU) should be able to protect us from the potential manipulation, which accompanies these channels of influence.     

Vicarious Liability and Non‐Delegable Duty for Child Abuse in Foster Care: A Step Too Far?

In NA v Nottinghamshire County Council the Court of Appeal held that a local authority is not liable under vicarious liability or for breach of a non‐delegable duty when foster parents sexually or physically abuse a child that it has placed in their care. The note discusses the decision in the light of recent developments in the law. It is argued that the result is unsatisfactory in terms of doctrine and policy. It is further suggested that non‐delegable duty, rather than vicarious liability, offers the most appropriate route for establishing liability.     

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。     

Policy implications of private sector involvement in correctional services and programs

The movement toward private sector involvement in our correctional services and programs is growing. Before our focus is turned completely to privatization of these services, it would be prudent to analyze the "policy impact of such change. It is evident that the diverse and incompatible policies guiding the government approach to corrections and the absence of any rational planning to answer public interest goals is costly. Moreover, despite the increasing complexity of problems now confronting public authorities, little change has been made in their approach to resolving them. However, is it realistic to assume that the profit/loss barometer of the private sector can be applied in an area of social problems that are so pluralistic and ill defined? What of the many areas of potential legal concern, that is, vicarious litigation, First Amendment right of prisoners, and so forth? These are all areas that need to be researched so that any judgements or decisions made will be sound.     

The who, what, and why of risk adjustment: a technology on the cusp of adoption

Risk adjustment (RA) consists of a series of techniques that account for the health status of patients when predicting or explaining costs of health care for defined populations or for evaluating retrospectively the performance of providers who care for them. Although the federal government seems to have settled on an approach to RA for Medicare Advantage programs, adoption and implementation of RA techniques elsewhere have proceeded much more slowly than was anticipated. This article examines factors affecting the adoption and use of RA outside the Medicare program using case studies in six U.S. health care markets (Baltimore, Seattle, Denver, Cleveland, Phoenix, and Atlanta) as of 2001. We found that for purchasing decisions, RA was used exclusively by public agencies. In the private sector, use of risk adjustment was uncommon and scattered and assumed informal and unexpected forms. The most common private sector use of RA was by health plans, which occasionally employed RA in negotiations with purchasers or to allocate resources internally among providers. The article uses classic technology diffusion theory to explain the adoption and use of RA in these six markets and derives lessons for health policy generally and for the future of RA in particular. For health policy generally, the differing experiences of public and private actors with RA serve as markers of the divergent paths that public and private health care sectors are pursuing with respect to managed care and risk sharing. For the future of RA in particular, its history suggests the need for health service researchers to consider barriers to use adoption and new analytic technologies as they develop them.     

An Economic Analysis of State and Individual Responsibility Under International Law

The international law of state responsibility determines whenstates are liable for international law violations. States aregenerally liable when they have control over the actions ofwrongdoers; thus, the actions of state officials can implicatestate responsibility whereas the acts of private citizens usuallydo not. We argue that the rules of state responsibility havean economic logic similar to that of vicarious liability indomestic law: the law in both cases provides third parties withincentives to control the behavior of wrongdoers whom they canmonitor and influence. We also discuss international legal remediesand individual liability under international criminal law.     

Enterprise Liability: Justifying Vicarious Liability

In Lister v Hesley Hall [2002] 1 AC 215 the House of Lords reformedthe law on vicarious liability, in the context of a claim arisingover the intentional infliction of harm, by introducing the‘close connection’ test. The immediate catalystwas the desire to facilitate recovery of damages on the partof victims of child abuse. The precise form the revision assumedwas derived from two Canadian Supreme Court cases: Bazley vCurry [1999] 174 DLR (4th) 45 and Jacobi v Griffiths [1999]174 DLR (4th) 7. The Canadian jurisprudence contains a detailedreview of the policy factors underpinning the law of vicariousliability and expresses the view that the most significant ofthese is ‘enterprise liability’. This article attemptsto establish whether enterprise liability holds the same significancein the UK. And, on the assumption that it does, the articlegoes on to consider any difficulties that may ensue and anyfurther common law reforms that may result. In particular itconsiders whether the law on vicarious liability for independentcontractors is likely to change.     

Distorting Vicarious Liability

The note considers the decision of the Court of Appeal in Maga v The Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church and analyses the application of the status based risk approach to vicarious liability in that case. It considers its application outside of the area of clerical sexual abuse, and also the role in vicarious liability of job conferred status which materially increases the risk of the commission of a tort, or helps to facilitate a tort.     

Street‐Level Tort Law: The Bureaucratic Justice of Liability Decision‐Making

Most legal scholarship on tort focuses primarily on judicial decisions, but this represents only a limited aspect of tortious liability. The vast majority of decisions concerning tortious liability are made by bureaucrats. Unavoidably then, there are two tiers of justice in tort law. This article focuses on the lower tier – bureaucratic decision‐making – arguing that the justice of bureaucratic decisions on tort should be considered on its own terms and not by judicial standards. We develop the notion of bureaucratic justice, applying a normative framework originally set out in relation to public administration. This enables an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of different ways of bureaucratically determining liability claims in tort. The regimes discussed concern the liability of public authorities, but decision makers comprise both state and non‐state actors and the bureaucratic justice framework is, in principle, applicable to understand and evaluate the liability of both public and private actors.     

雇主替代责任在我国未来侵权法中的地位

雇主替代责任是指雇主就其雇员于职责范围内实施的侵权行为对受害人承担的侵权责任。两大法系国家侵权法都对雇主替代责任作出了规定,我国民法通则没有规定雇主承担的替代责任。最高人民法院2003年司法解释虽然规定了雇主替代责任,但其规定存在严重问题,违反了两大法系国家雇主替代责任的基本精神,无法适用我国当前社会发展的需要,对受害人保护不力。我国未来侵权法应当借鉴两大法系国家雇主替代责任方面的成功经验,对雇主替代责任作出明确规定。     

国家赔偿：代位责任还是自己责任

国家赔偿责任,究系代位责任还是自己责任,乃学术界向有争议的问题。寻求此问题的答案,当关注代位责任说和自己责任说之间的真正分歧,当关注合理的国家赔偿制度所欲实现的四个目标,当关注特定境域中为实现这些目标而建构的国家赔偿具体制度,当关注不同学说对不同境域国家赔偿制度的解释力和逻辑自洽力。因此,代位责任说、自己责任说以及它们的理论变体,在本质上是解释论而非规范论。在具体境域中,首先需结合本境域特定条件打造合理有效的国家赔偿制度,而后才是选择与该制度相契合的学说。国家赔偿责任是代位责任还是自己责任的问题,也就不存在放之四海而皆准的答案。     

University opposition to unfettered research: a new bedfellow for biotech?

This Article examines university opposition to a proposed statutory exemption to infringement liability for basic genetic research and patient care. Gene patenting has allowed patentees to bar basic genetic research, slowing the progress of developing and administering diagnostics and gene-targeting therapeutics. Debates over the merits of gene patents have been heated, most recently leading to an unprecedented invalidation of several broad patents covering all variations and use of two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancers. More important, however (as this ruling was reversed in part), are proposed statutory exemptions to infringement liability. The Department of Health and Human Services' Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS) has promulgated an exemption from liability for infringement that occurs in the course of research. This exemption would promote basic research by granting academic scientists unfettered access to genetic material. The proposal does not alter the patentability of gene sequences; it merely restricts patentees from using infringement threats to stop research. Surprisingly, the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), an organization responsible for promoting development of university research, opposes such an exemption. The AUTM alleges that the exemption would slow research by reducing the incentive for private firms to invest in upstream discoveries made in university laboratories. Yet the exemption would do the opposite: by opening the doors to research relating to any gene segment, a research exemption would accelerate basic research. Moreover, it would not affect collaboration with private industry: where there is potential to commercialize basic research, biomedical companies would continue to license the rights to university discoveries. Thus, the AUTM's motivations in opposing the proposed research exemption are suspect. They appear to reflect either a misunderstanding of the purpose behind granting property rights to publicly funded university research, or an improper alignment with industry goals.     

论知识经济时代空间隐私权的侵权法保护——以美国侵权法空间隐私权保护为启示的研究

空间隐私权是围绕隐私空间保护而形成的人格性权利,其所针对的是对隐私空间的不法侵入而非隐私信息的不法传播。在知识经济时代,公民隐私空间的保护面临着前所未有之挑战。我国侵权责任法已经出台,其中确立了隐私权的法律地位,但对空间隐私权却只字未提。因此有必要对空间隐私权的法律定位、侵权类型、责任构成进行研究,在借鉴外国法经验的基础上,形成我国的空间隐私权保护制度。     

论雇主的替代责任

我国立法还没有关于替代责任的规定 ,雇员侵权案件的审理 ,尚无法可依。应借鉴国外的相关立法 ,在民法典中规定雇主替代责任制度 ,对雇主、雇员的连带责任、雇主的追偿权等问题作出明确规定 ,为解决相关纠纷提供法律依据     

Bribing the Machine: Protecting the Integrity of Algorithms as the Revolution Begins

In the Industrial Revolution, machines took on the burden of physical labor; in the Big Data Revolution, machines are taking on the tasks of making decisions. Algorithms are the rules and processes that enable machines to make those decisions. Machines will make many decisions that affect general well‐being. This article addresses a threat to the efficacy of those decisions: the intentional distortion or manipulation of the underlying algorithm so that machines make decisions that benefit self‐interested third parties, rather than decisions that enhance public well‐being. That threat has not been recognized or addressed by legal thinkers or policy makers. This article first examines the lifecycle of an algorithm, and then demonstrates the likelihood that self‐interested third parties will attempt to corrupt the development and operation of algorithms. The article then argues that existing mechanisms cannot protect the integrity of algorithms. The article concludes with a discussion of policies that could protect the integrity of algorithms: transparency in both the development of and the content of algorithms that affect general well‐being and holding persons who corrupt the integrity of such algorithms accountable. Just as the Industrial Revolution eventually improved the quality of life for many, so too does the Big Data Revolution offer enhancement of general well‐being. That promise, however, will only be realized if policy makers take action to protect the integrity of underlying algorithms now, at the beginning of the revolution.     

债权类民间融资演化为犯罪的制度动因及其防范

各地民间借贷风波与非法集资类案件的频发日益困扰着我国民间金融制度的正常发展,继而影响到中国金融体制改革的进程。对于这种内生性的融资行为缘何转化为犯罪行为,厘清其界限,并进行制度分析显得尤为重要。金融抑制政策、法律规定的不健全、法律责任体系的不完善等一系列制度诱因,导致中小企业融资难、民间资本投资渠道的不畅通,继而从外部诱发不正当民间融资行为的产生。故而,需要明确民间融资的法律地位、厘清监管边界、健全法律责任体系,从制度上变打击为预防。