董事忠实义务及其扩张

董事忠实义务在本质上是董事信义义务,与勤勉义务并列,成为约束董事行为的法定机制。董事忠实和勤勉义务均建立在公司与董事之间的信义关系基础上,均以维护公司整体利益为宗旨,但规制重点不同。忠实义务主要规范董事与公司之间利益冲突关系,勤勉义务旨在推动董事发挥聪明才智,两者共同成为评价董事履职的主要标准。忠实义务与民法中禁止自己代理和双方代理的规则之间关系密切,但在制度功能和义务要素上仍有重大差别,不能彼此替代或混为一谈。随着现代社会中公司交易复杂化以及公司集团现象普遍化,规制公司与董事利益冲突的公司法规则正在从“绝对禁止”向“禁止缓和”发展,忠实义务主体则已适度扩张至控股或主要股东,成为补充调整股东与公司关系的特殊机制。     

医患关系的形成与扩展:对美国法上几则新近案例的释读

在美国法中,存在医患关系是主张医疗损害赔偿的一个先决条件。医患关系是一种基于双方自愿的契约关系。医生没有直接接触患者并不妨碍医患关系的建立,医疗建议可以启动医患关系。与一个想分娩健康婴儿的孕妇形成医患关系的医生也与胎儿形成了医患关系。与医生这一职业人员存在相互关系的人可包括没有与职业人员建立严格/直接的契约关系的人群。医生的注意义务可扩展到与其不存在直接的医患关系但存在特殊关系的非患者。如果通行的注意标准所创设的义务明显有益于某些可以确定的第三方,该第三方处于可预见的危险区域,而医生知道此类第三方的存在,那么医生的义务将指向该第三方。当医生仅仅提供检查而没有对受雇者提供医疗和照护时,医生与被检查人员之间不存在医患关系。     

经营者对服务场所的安全保障义务

经营者在其服务场所对消费者等的人身和财产安全负有保障义务。这是一种法定义务 ,包括硬件和软件两个方面的内容。经营者违反该义务发生消费者人身、财产损害的 ,一般应当承担侵权责任。违反安全保障义务通常表现为消极不作为 ,判断不作为行为与损害之间的因果关系应当采用特别规则。在第三人直接加害行为造成受害人损害而且经营者有过错的情况下 ,经营者应承担补充的赔偿责任     

美国无救助义务规则的修正

无救助义务是美国传统侵权法上的一项重要规则。由于社会组织结构的精细化使人与人之间的关系更加紧密了,容易出现牵一发而动全身的局面,如果还任由人们对他人的困境无动于衷可能会造成无法挽回的严重后果,加之作为与不作为的区分越来越小,故美国选择了一条侵权过失责任的改良道路,主张不作为不应该成为被告承担过失责任的障碍。而美国的司法判例和立法经验也告诉我们,一般无救助义务规则正经受两方面的侵蚀:一是扩大特殊救助义务的范围;二是通过制定法律承认一般救助义务。     

公司机会准则研究

公司机会准则是英美国家公司法的一个重要理论 ,它确立了董事不得篡夺公司机会义务。判断一个交易机会是否是公司机会 ,须根据交易机会之不同而采不同方法。董事不得篡夺公司机会义务与董事的竞业禁止义务间不是种属关系 ,而是交叉关系 ,这就决定了我国公司法应在规定竞业禁止制度之外 ,另行导入公司机会准则     

行政法规范之违反与过失实行行为之认定——基于新过失论的阐释

讨论行政法规范之违反与过失实行行为之认定的关系,对于我国过失犯罪,特别是业务过失犯罪的认定,有重大意义。对此,应当从不同的过失犯构造理论出发,做体系性思考。立足于行为无价值的新过失论,将过失实行行为定义为违反结果回避义务,不仅能合理限制过失不法的范围,理论立场上也更为首尾一贯;而且通过注意义务的类型化,更能贯彻刑法的自由保障功能和法益保护功能。在新过失论的框架下,行政法规范上的义务和刑法上的注意义务在范围、性质上均有不同,但也存在相同之处:前者的危险防止义务是以定型的危险为前提而课予一般人的义务,后者则是以个案事态为前提而课予(处于行为人地位的)一般人的义务。违反不以避免构成要件结果为指向的行政法规范上的义务,并不构成对刑法上注意义务的违反。而违反以避免构成要件结果为指向的行政法规范上的义务,如果该义务对于个案中的结果回避是必要的或不足的,则构成对刑法上注意义务的违反;如果该义务对于个案中的结果回避是不必要的、可替代的,或者会起消极作用,则不违反刑法上的注意义务。     

司法何以如此尴尬——以一起医疗纠纷案件审理为例

不断增多的医疗纠纷及其引发的种种愤懑,使得各种利益纠葛、体制冲突、伦理诉求和法律管制之间形成了一种较之从前更为复杂而微妙的关系。对医患关系的社会调查显示,目前我国医患双方的关系并不融洽,双方缺乏高度的信任感,一旦患者未达到其预期的疗效,势必为双方的矛盾、冲突和纠纷埋下伏笔;医患双方在具体运用知情同意权法则时产生的强烈的错位,使得知情同意权在减少医患纠纷、构建高度信任基础上的医患和谐关系的功能大打折扣。而对实践中的一个真实案例的审理的剖析则反映出我国法律和司法在知情同意权方面是如此的苍白无力,使得知情同意法则的建立迫在眉睫。我国知情同意权法则的理想构架应该包括:知情同意权法则的基本原则,医生的告知义务,患者的同意以及违反告知义务的构成要件。     

Many Duties of Care--Or A Duty of Care? Notes from the Underground

In the course of attacking the idea that the concept of theduty of care can be dispensed with and replaced by a view ofnegligence that deals only with fault and causation, criticshave revived the notion that there are many duties of care.This article argues that the idea of many duties of care isunworkable, but that there is no need to revive such an ideato avoid falling into the view that the whole concept of theduty of care can be discarded. It argues instead for a unifiedview of the duty of care as a single duty. It also argues fora new analysis of negligence, facilitated by the one-duty view,which does see fault as central to negligence but which, insteadof discarding duty, sees arguments about duty as about whetherthe defendant should be permitted to act unreasonably. The articledefends the one-duty view and the new analysis of negligenceagainst the relational view of negligence and against chargesthat it is motivated by a desire for unity between English andFrench law, that it would be incompatible with the conventionaleconomic analysis of tort law (in the course of which it suggestsan economic analysis of the duty of care), and that, unlikethe no-duty view or the many-duties view, it fails to articulatea coherent view of the relationship between freedom and community.     

The Relational Conception of Practical Authority

I argue for a new conception of practical authority based on an analysis of the relationship between authority and subject. Commands entail a demand for practical deference, which establishes a relationship of hierarchy, vulnerability, and responsibility that involves a variety of signals and commitments. In order for this relationship to be justified, the subject must be under a preexisting duty, the authority’s commands must take precedence over the subject’s judgment regarding fulfillment of that duty, the authority must accept the position and responsibilities of command, and the authority must be sufficiently trustworthy relative to how vulnerable the subject makes herself by deferring. This results in an instrumentalist conception of practical authority that can be favorably compared to Joseph Raz’s influential service conception. The relational conception’s main advantage is that it focuses on the authority as much as the subject, requiring that the authority accept responsibility for the relationship and be sufficiently trustworthy. This allows the relational conception to avoid problems that the service conception faces and illuminates institutional authority.     

'Caparo Under Fire': a Study into the Effects upon the Fire Service of Liability in Negligence

This article discusses a research project which aimed to analyse the relationship between judicial pronouncements over the likely effects upon a defendant of the imposition of a duty of care in negligence, and any effects in practice. Empirical research was carried out to ascertain the effect upon the fire service of the Court of Appeal decision in Capital and Counties and Digital Equipment v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004. This decision imposed a duty of care upon fire services to avoid making mistakes whilst fighting fires which might cause the fire to become more serious. The findings of the project are drawn upon to make observations regarding how the courts presently apply the third limb of the three stage test of duty of care derived from Caparo v Dickman, which asks whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.     

论人与自然关系的法律化

当代人与自然关系存在阻碍生产力发展的趋势,不符合社会正义原则,违背了国家在人与自然关系上必须承担的国家契约义务;第三次法律革命的直接结果就是人与自然关系成为法律调整的对象。在此基础上,本文论证了法律调整人与自然关系的正当性和必要性。     

权利本位的理论逻辑——与童之伟教授商榷

童之伟教授《权利本位说再评议》一文对于深化法本位问题和权利本位问题的研究具有重要的学术价值 ,但他指责权利本位说没有给予权力问题以应有的关注 ,只关照到私法领域 ,而不能适用于公法领域 ,其理论框架是过时的和不切实际的等 ,是偏颇的和有失公允的。他认为权利本位只存在于权利与权力关系领域 ,在权利与权利、权力与权力关系中不存在法本位的问题 ,具有独断论的色彩。实际上 ,权利本位说已经充分关注到了权利与权力的关系问题 ,并且坚持在这一领域应当坚持权利本位 ,反对权力本位 ;不能认为权利本位仅存在于权利与权力关系中 ,而应当从三个方面全面把握权利本位的基本内涵和理论逻辑 ,即在权利与义务关系中坚持权利本位 ,在权力与权力 (职权与职责 )关系中坚持职责本位 ,在权利与权力关系中坚持权利本位     

知情同意理论中医生说明义务的构成

医疗损害赔偿范畴内的知情同意理论是从医患关系之利益依赖模式为基础而建立的 ,具有医学伦理和医疗法律、消级性和积极性等不同层面的功能。知情同意作为医患之间的权利义务关系具有整体性 ,可构成责任基础和权利请求的独立根据。而知情同意范畴内医生说明义务 ,应以其作为有效同意之逻辑前提为宜 ,将“知情同意。作为一整体性独立义务施加于医疗机构。医生的说明义务履行充分性的判断应以理性医生标准为基础 ,并充分平衡病人标准对病人利益为保护     

Much Obliged: Volunteering,Normative Activities,and Willingness to Serve on Juries

Although compulsory, many people treat jury duty as voluntary. This article examines the conceptual and empirical links between participating in voluntary activity and stated willingness to serve on a jury. We also consider the role of engaging in other normative behaviors. Analysis of 1,304 US citizens in the Survey of Texas Adults showed an initial relationship between volunteering and willingness to serve, net of personal resources, prior jury service, and prosocial attitudes. However, indicators of normative activities (voting, contacting elected officials, keeping up with medical appointments, and avoiding bars) largely eliminated this relationship. People who volunteered some, but not too much, were more willing; an analysis of domains of volunteering showed that engaging in public service work predicted willingness. Results suggest that the public service and duty‐based nature of jury participation should be emphasized to understand willingness to serve and to consider novel ways to increase summons responses.     

刑事证明责任制度若干问题新探

在中国一元制法庭构造和审判方式中,一般应当采用行为责任与结果责任作为证明责任类型划分的基本概念。在审判空间中发挥作用的证明责任,将会延伸到审前程序中,从而形成侦查人员的辅助性证明责任、被告人的延伸性责任,以及弹劾制侦查构造中侦查机关的证明责任。应当协调检察官客观义务与证明责任关系,以客观义务统制证明责任,同时需防止客观义务论的负面影响。被害人作为公诉案件的当事人,是起辅助作用的控方,应当适度承担证明责任,与检察官的证明责任具有主、辅关系。     

论微信群主的民事责任承担

微信群主与群成员之间是一种法律调整之外的情谊关系,两者行使微信平台赋予的比如建群、退群或移除群聊等功能权限的行为属于情谊行为。但这并不意味着微信群不受法律调整,法规范层面已对群主和群成员权利义务作出规定。对于群主而言,因其对微信群负有法定管理职责,若群成员之侵权行为损害他人合法权益,则群主应当承担共同侵权责任。群主对于微信群内可能产生的风险具有较强的控制力,其管理职责本质上属于一般注意义务的范畴,这与以一般注意义务为理论基础的安全保障义务具有内在关联性。微信群内的群聊行为与《侵权责任法》第37条规定的群众性活动性质上均属于不特定多数人参加的活动。因此,当群成员侵害他人合法权益时,群主应当承担补充侵权责任。但如果群主已经在功能权限范围内采取了必要措施,则认为其尽到了管理义务,应予免责。     

Abortion, breast cancer, and informed consent

The purpose of this article is to show that the current level of scientific evidence linking induced abortion with increased breast cancer risk is sufficient to support an ethical and legal duty to disclose fully the risk to women who are considering induced abortion. The article examines the relationship between this evidence and the elements of a medical malpractice claim alleging failure to obtain informed consent. The first part focuses on the elements of informed consent, which require the plaintiff to establish that the physician had a duty to disclose information, which he failed to disclose, that this failure to disclose was a legal cause of the plaintiff's decision to undergo the procedure, and the procedure was a legal cause of the plaintiff's injury. The second part compares two prevalent standards for determining which risks a physician has a duty to disclose. Part three reviews the scientific evidence of the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link and explains why it survives both the Frye and the Daubert tests for admissibility of expert testimony. The fourth part assesses the materiality of the risk posed by the ABC link. Parts five and six discuss evidentiary issues and the possibility of punitive damage awards.     

身分与法律义务、法律义务冲突

身分是人们在法律上所居的地位,该种地位决定其在特定情况下的权利和义务。它与法律义务的产生、分配与运行存在不可分割的关联。因此从身分角度去认识和理解法律义务、法律义务冲突具有重要的意义。法律义务冲突实质上是义务人具有法律意义上的身分之间存在无法取舍的困境。那么身分就可以为法律义务冲突的解决提供一定的信息。     

权利与责任——浅谈舆论监督中的法律关系问题

权利与责任始终是一对相互依赖又相互矛盾的概念。而在新闻媒介这个敏感的领域中,权利与责任更是一个让人欲罢不能的问题。在我国的法律中有明确规定,“人民有知晓重大事件的权利”。获得这种“知晓权”的渠道就是大众传播。但媒介在行使这种舆论监督的权利时却往往遭遇尴尬,有时法律上的援助也显得那么苍白无力。本篇文章就舆论监督中的法律关系问题是从三个方面来讨论的。最后作者认为,权利和责任的平衡不是单方面的事情,是全社会努力才能达到的。     

A hospital's non-delegable duty of care

Visiting, honorary and staff medical practitioners, to name but a few, provide medical treatment and services to a variety of "patients", including private, public, in-patients and out-patients. The legal implications arising from the often complex fact situations created by the interactions of these participants and the relationship between hospitals and these participants can lead to hospitals both incurring and avoiding liability for injuries sustained by patients from negligent medical treatment. This article discusses the legal principles governing hospitals' liabilities in this context on the more onerous non-delegable duty of care ground.