论自动驾驶汽车生产者的刑事责任

自动驾驶汽车是人类研发、制造、使用和管理的智能产品,不是犯罪主体或刑事责任主体。在自动驾驶汽车自主控制状态下发生交通事故的,其生产者、使用者和其他人员难以按照我国现有刑法的罪名定罪处罚。除非道路交通安全法和刑法有专门的规定,驾驶位人员不接管汽车或接管后无力改变交通事故结果的,不构成交通肇事罪或其他管理过失犯罪。驾驶位人员的注意义务是阻止自动驾驶汽车自主控制下发生交通事故,其注意义务不应过高。允许的风险、紧急避险理论不能为自动驾驶汽车紧急路况处理算法的生产与应用提供合法、合理的解决方案,生产者遵守算法安全标准仅可以使生产行为合法化。鉴于现行刑法不适应自动驾驶汽车应用的特性,我国应当建立以生产者全程负责为中心的新刑事责任体系,使之在自动驾驶汽车生产和应用两个阶段承担安全管理责任,生产者拒不履行自动驾驶汽车应用安全管理义务且情节严重的,应当承担刑事责任。     

Bonnieview v. Woodmont: Court Sorts out Environmental Liability between Homeowners and Developers

Bonnieview Homeowners Ass’n v. Woodmont Builders, LLC,—F. Supp. 2d—, No. Civ. A. 03CV4317(DRD), 2009 WL 2999355 (D.N.J. Sept. 22, 2009), was a suit brought by a homeowners’ association and its individual members against the developers of the property where their homes were located and the municipality. In a recent opinion, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey made several important rulings applying federal and state environmental statutes and common law. First, the developers were potentially liable to plaintiffs under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), where their soil grading and stockpiling activities distributed previously contaminated soil around the site, which had been used as a fruit orchard. Second, however, the court prohibited plaintiffs from recovering under CERCLA or New Jersey's Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) because they had not incurred any environmental cleanup costs compensable under the two statutes. Third, plaintiffs were innocent purchasers not subject to CERCLA liability under a 2002 amendment to the statute. A negligence claim against the municipality failed, however, because the municipality owed no duty of care to plaintiffs. The court also assessed plaintiffs' other federal and state statutory and common law claims.     

通过现有规范解决自动驾驶汽车肇事之刑事责任归属问题

以自动驾驶汽车为代表的人工智能产品在给我们带来便利的同时也带来了新的法律问题。为了解决自动驾驶汽车肇事的刑事责任问题,学者或是承认自动驾驶汽车的犯罪主体地位,或是建议修改刑法增设罪名。实际上,既有的刑事法律规范足以解决自动驾驶汽车肇事的刑事责任归属问题。自动驾驶汽车的驾驶人未尽到合理注意义务的,承担过失责任;制造单位生产的自动驾驶汽车存在缺陷或者明知有缺陷而未召回的,承担产品质量相关的刑事责任;使用人发现自动驾驶汽车存在缺陷继续使用的,承担监管过失责任;入侵智能驾驶系统或者利用自动驾驶汽车实施犯罪的,承担故意犯罪的刑事责任。现阶段应克服刑事立法冲动,在既有的刑事法律规范体系内寻求解决方案,更具有现实意义。     

Victim or injurer, small car or SUV: Tort liability rules under role-type uncertainty

In this paper we modify the standard tort model by introducing role-type uncertainty. That is, we assume that neither party knows in advance whether she will be the victim or the injurer when an accident occurs. When the standards of care of the two parties are set at the socially optimal levels, only pure comparative negligence and the equal division rule guarantee efficiency, while the rules of simple negligence, contributory negligence, and comparative negligence with fixed division (other than a 50:50 split) may produce inefficient equilibria. Since pure comparative negligence splits liability between negligent parties according to each party's degree of fault, it makes the accident loss division independent of one's role-type. This produces its efficiency advantage.We extend the model to the choice of vehicle size, as a factor determining who will be the injurer and who the victim in motor vehicle collisions. In the extension we analyze various standard negligence-based liability rules, and tax rules, as instruments to mitigate inefficiency resulting from the vehicle size “arms race.” We also examine two strict liability rules, one of which incorporates a comparative negligence feature; this rule prevents inefficiency from both role-type uncertainty and from the “arms race.”     

机动车道路交通事故损害赔偿责任主体的认定

由于机动车损害赔偿事故的多样化和不确定性,很难对赔偿主体进行一致的认定.根据危险责任思想和报偿责任理论,将"运行支配"和"运行利益"两项标准作为确定交通事故损害赔偿责任主体的一般原则,并对在各种具体情形下机动车发生交通事故时责任主体的认定一一作出了分析.     

The liability of medical directors for utilization review decisions

Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) have turned to numerous cost-containment measures to combat rising healthcare costs. One of the most common is the use of utilization review to ascertain whether a recommended mode of treatment is "medically necessary." When the medical director of an MCO determines that care recommended by a patient's treating physician is not medically necessary and not eligible for coverage (and, as a result, potentially unattainable due to cost), the stage is set for litigation. In such situations, medical directors may become potentially liable for disciplinary action by their state medical licensing board as well as lawsuits for malpractice or negligence. However, plaintiffs wishing to recover damages for improper determinations of this nature or state boards trying to discipline these physicians, face the hurdles of the preemptive force of ERISA, and state doctrines to the effect that corporations (and, derivatively, their medical directors) cannot practice medicine and therefore cannot be liable for malpractice. Conflicting decisions and opinions make it impossible at the present time to have a settled expectation regarding the potential liability of medical directors in this context, although the law appears to be moving toward the treatment of utilization review as medical decisionmaking; therefore, it appears likely that the activities of medical directors increasingly will face state oversight--including the imposition of common law liability in appropriate situations.     

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。     

Fat and the law: who should take the blame?

The incidence of obesity in both adults and children is rising at a rapid rate in most developed countries, including in Australia. Some obese people are seeking to place the blame for their condition on the fast-food industry, as demonstrated by the recent litigation in the United States brought by two obese plaintiffs against McDonald's. This litigation was unsuccessful, and on existing Australian negligence principles any similar litigation commenced here is likely to suffer the same fate. Principles of personal responsibility, autonomy and free will should prevail to deny a negligence claim. The risk of obesity and concomitant health problems from eating fast food to excess is an obvious risk which the plaintiff should not have ignored and which he or she has voluntarily assumed. It is for the Australian Government, not the courts, to regulate the behaviour of the fast-food industry. The government should take action by requiring all major fast-food chains to label their products with nutritional information, and by imposing restrictions on the advertising of food to children.     

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.     

Paint It Black: Rhode Island Supreme Court Rejects Lead Paint Nuisance Suit

During the past decade, state and local governments have increasingly brought suits to redress harm caused by products, including cigarettes, firearms, and toxins such as asbestos, lead paint, and even greenhouse gases, based not on the products liability or negligence theories conventionally applied, but on the public nuisance doctrine. Although the public nuisance doctrine potentially offers governmental plaintiffs more lenient standards with respect to issues like product and manufacturer identification, control of the product, proximate cause, and application of statutes of limitation, while limiting manufacturers' defenses, and has generated insurance claims and pressure to enter settlements, nearly all applications of public nuisance law to products claims have ultimately failed when heard by the courts on the merits. In February 2007, however, a Rhode Island trial court, in a groundbreaking decision, entered a judgment on a jury verdict imposing liability on three lead pigment manufacturers for creating a public nuisance, and ordered them to abate the nuisance in Rhode Island at a cost estimated to exceed two billion dollars.

On July 1, 2008, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment against the lead paint manufacturers and held that the state attorney general's complaint should have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The state had not, and could not, allege facts sufficient to support a public nuisance claim, as the doctrine was construed in Rhode Island or nationally. Relief from the serious harms caused by lead paint was available only through specific Rhode Island legislation and products liability law, not the public nuisance doctrine. The Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision is consistent with recent decisions from other state courts, most notably opinions issued by the highest courts of New Jersey and Missouri during 2007, and has already influenced other public nuisance plaintiffs to abandon their lead paint suits.     

Intentional torts claims in medical cases

Civil liability legislation enacted in each Australian jurisdiction following the Ipp Report recommendations created a clear divide between "negligence" and "intentional" torts. The common law action for trespass to the person is to varying extents maintained in the approaches taken by the State and Territory legislatures. This article explores the potential application of intentional torts claims in a medical context in light of recent case law. It identifies advantages for plaintiffs who plead intentional tort claims, including onus of proof, causation, remoteness, the quantum of compensatory damages and the availability of aggravated and exemplary damages.     

交通无过错事故的损害救济问题研究——兼及修订后的《道路交通安全法》第76条的立法疏漏及其弥补

《道路交通安全法》第76条没有对交通无过错事故责任的承担提供具体规则。交通无过错事故中的损害应该在机动车交通事故责任强制保险的责任限额内予以赔偿,不足部分的人身损害可以由道路交通事故社会救助基金支付,仍然未获救济的损害由各方根据公平原则在可救济的范围内按照人身损害优先的顺序合理分担。     

Product Liability in the European Union: Compensation and Deterrence Issues

In Europe a common standard of strict liability has been introduced with the European directive 85/374. The implementation of this Directive has not led to an expansion of product liability cases. Moreover neither the product nor the insurance market has been dislocated as in the United States. Both the fact that most liability cases continue to be discussed under national legislation—even when it is based on liability with fault—and the different price of insurance in Eurpean Countries show that the directive did not reach its harmonisation goals. We discuss the optional provisions that limit strict liability under the directive, but claim that the scarce impact of liability laws—in spite of increasing concerns for product safety—may be due to compensation provided by the Welfare State and to the cost of access to justice in Europe. Compensation by the Welfare State is inadequate with respect to the internalisation of the cost of accidents especially when public institutions do not file claims against liable producers. Product safety regulation should have performed the deterrence function. However we also point out that the threat of reputation losses is a powerful incentive for firms to carefully control product safety, when consumers increasingly care about product quality and accidents are heavily advertised by media.JEL Classification: K13, K41     

Contractor selection problem under extended liability

This paper solves the problem of a principal firm's choice of contracting agents under extended liability, where agents have the possibility of causing an accident and also are at risk of becoming insolvent. The analysis shows that the negligence rule for contracting agents enhances the price competitiveness of the agent who takes proper precautions and thus that the liability rule consisting of the negligence rule on contracting agents that extends liability to the principal firm is superior to other types of liability rules.     

On judgment proofness in the case of bilateral harm

This paper defies the widely held belief concerning the unambiguous superiority of negligence in settings of judgment proofness. We analyze a set-up with bilateral harm, bilateral care, and potential judgment proofness by one party to the accident. We establish that strict liability with a defense of contributory negligence can perform better than simple negligence and negligence with a defense of contributory negligence. It is shown that the former liability rule can better establish a discontinuity in individual costs conducive to inducing efficient care than the other rules.

交通肇事“二次伤害”的对策研究与立法完善——损失的转移与分散

随着人们生活水平的提高和交通运输业的快速发展,人们的汽车拥有量和低驾龄驾驶人数迅速增加,每年的交通事故数量不断攀升。部分肇事者违背道德、泯灭人性,选择"二次伤害"受害人的现象屡次发生,在他们的潜意识中存在"撞残不如撞死"的错误想法。这种可怕的想法形成的原因与当前我国的交通肇事赔偿制度的不合理有关。因此,必须完善立法,除了通过侵权赔偿的途径外,还必须借助于责任保险和社会救助的途径转移和分散损害赔偿,鼓励肇事者在第一时间积极救治受害人,避免逃逸和"二次伤害"。     

Victim interdependence in the accident setting

This paper considers the case in which potential victims affect each other by taking care. Analyzing standard liability rules, we show that the rule of strict liability with a defense of contributory negligence is in the best position to induce the efficient outcome, i.e., this liability rule ensures efficiency if victims affect each other negatively, that is care by one victim increases the accident exposure of other victims. This rule also makes attainment likely if victims affect each other positively, that is if care by one victim decreases the accident exposure of other victims. In contrast, other standard liability rules fail to induce first-best care.     

The Rule of Law in Today’s Africa∗

This article is based on the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in a case involving illness resulting from the consumption of a bottled drink which contained a dead cockroach. The main issues considered were manufacturers' duty of care; the liability of a retailer in negligence; burden of proof; and causation. Evidence showed that the drink manufactured by the second respondent was sold by the first respondent to the appellant in the same condition in which it left the second respondent. The Court held that in the circumstances of the case, only the second respondent was liable to the appellant.     

The development of care technology under liability law

It is well known that strict liability and negligence induce pareto optimal care in a most restrictive model of unilateral accidents. The paper at hand extends this traditional theorem from its static context to an intertemporal setting where tort law induces progress in care technology. This model provides a methodological framework for a general analysis of the dynamic incentives generated by alternative liability rules. One of the many possible extensions of the basic model is to allow for incomplete information. Particularly, we drop the assumption that the authority setting the due care standard under negligence is able to assess technical progress ex ante. It is shown that the dynamic incentives of the negligence rule are distorted compared to strict liability in this modified framework.     

Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.: the function of state of the art evidence in strict products liability

In Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a state of the art defense is unavailable in cases brought under a theory of strict liability for failure to warn. The court indicated that asbestos producers may be held liable for their products' harms even if the health hazards of asbestos were unknown and not discoverable when the products were marketed. In a subsequent case, the New Jersey court held that state of the art evidence is relevant to whether a product is defective. This Case Comment examines these different uses of knowledge evidence in the disposition of products liability cases. It contends that manufacturers should not be held liable for unknowable risks. The Comment concludes that the state of the art defense establishes a logical limit on strict liability and promotes efficient resolution of products liability claims.