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.     

经济法规的合宪性审查标准——基于对美国联邦最高法院判例的考察

对法律文件的违宪审查是我国合宪性审查体系的重要组成部分。在美国的违宪审查实践中,针对法律所涉及的内容,分别存在着合理审查、中等审查和严格审查等不同的审查标准。对于经济领域的法律,一般采用合理审查标准,但近年来在涉及言论自由的经济领域,其审查标准往往会提高。在我国的合宪性审查制度中,如果法院在个案审判中发现法律存在违宪嫌疑时,可以建立向最高人民法院移送的机制,并通过听证程序进行充分论证以决定是否向全国人大常委会提出合宪性审查请求。在审查中,对于我国的经济法律不宜直接采用合理审查标准,而应提高审查标准。     

Assumption of Responsibility in Corporate Groups: Chandler v Cape plc

In Chandler v Cape plc, the Court of Appeal imposed for the first time liability on a company for a breach of its duty of care to an employee of its subsidiary. In doing so, the court laid out a new four‐part test for ascertaining a parent company's responsibility for the health and safety of individuals employed by group companies. Although liability of parent companies may be justified under the right circumstances, the court's approach in Chandler is problematic in a number of ways and raises more questions than it answers.     

2011年香港海商法判例综述

2011年香港海商法判例,来自香港高等法院原诉法庭和上诉法庭。案件主要涉及海上货物运输责任限额、海运单的法律适用、建造中船舶的所有权、管辖地的选择、船舶碰撞责任等法律问题。这些案件既有实体法律问题,也有程序法律问题,涉及多国法律的选择和管辖地法院的选择,充分体现了海商案件的复杂性和多元性。     

论行政法上的连带责任

《最高人民法院关于审理行政许可案件若干问题的规定》第13条在行政法上确立了一个新的连带责任类型,即行政主体和私人共同承担连带责任。行政法上的连带责任应从行政主体之间的连带责任拓宽到行政相对人之间的连带责任以及行政民事连带责任,应从行政许可与行政赔偿领域拓宽到行政处罚等其它领域。行政法上连带责任的实现有赖于建立或重构行政诉讼和行政赔偿诉讼第三人制度,建立行政案件与民事案件的合并审理机制。行政主体在承担责任后要向作为连带责任人的第三人追偿,则有赖于建立"官告民"的行政诉讼机制,否则只能通过民事诉讼机制去追偿。     

石油公司应该对船舶油污损害负责吗?——评欧盟法院对Erika轮油污案的裁决

从2008年6月欧盟法院就法国最高法院向其"请示"的Erika轮油污案之裁决入手,分析油污民事责任公约的立法背景,指出在民事责任公约的体系之下承担污染损害责任的应该是船东,而不应向作为货方的石油公司进行索赔。欧盟法院所认定的石油公司可被视为欧盟废弃物相关法律之下的废弃物制造者,以及石油公司可能需要就因船舶溢油事故导致的海域石油污染损害负责之观点与现行的油污民事责任公约相悖。     

An economic theory of the regulation of preliminary measures

Preliminary measures adopted early in litigation are crucial for plaintiffs, given existing court delays and changing economic environment, but can also harm a blameless defendant. Therefore, some form of regulation is needed to minimize the harms that can result and discard non-optimal measures. Law and economic scholars have suggested that courts should control requests for preliminary measures, but this form of regulation fails to explain existing legislations, both in civil law and common law countries. This article argues that non-optimal preliminary measures can be more efficiently filtered through a strict liability regime, and that their judicial control should be residual.     

The Bermuda Islands blow ‘sweet & sour’ on employers’ liability for Internet libel

The Bermudian Supreme Court (at first instance) recently ruled in Bermuda Restaurants Limited (t/a “Chopsticks”) v. Jonathan Daspin and ConvergEx Global Markets Ltd. (Civil Jurisdiction 2008: No. 134 (to be reported)) on the issue of whether an employer (here, a company) should be held liable for an allegedly libellous email publication by its employee, the managing director. The Judge was asked by the employer company to determine two issues of law which exposed the company and which centred on its vicarious liability for its employee's actions, including whether the use of the company's email system, during working hours, made it complicit in the publication. The Court held, applying principles of English and Canadian law, that the company was not vicariously liable and by extension that it was not the email's publisher.     

The right to be forgotten: The Israeli version

The right to be forgotten and erase, originally introduced in the well-known case of Google Spain, has caused considerable legal debates on both theoretical and procedural issues. The Israeli Supreme Court has also just recently considered the issue when it was asked to enforce the right to be forgotten of an Israeli advocate, Jonathan Miller, and delist harmful information which appeared in a Google search, and was in truth related to a different adv. Jonathan Miller. The plaintiff relied on the Israeli Prohibition of Defamation Law. Liability was denied on the basis that the information was indeed true, and thus- justified. We suggest in this article that the court should have imposed liability in negligence, an open ended general tort that mainly applies when particular torts fail to supply a reasonable and just solution in new factual situations due to change in social, economic and technological circumstances.     

On the joint use of licensing and liability

Licensing is a widely used technique applied to impose regulations. Firms inducing harm must hold a license issued by a regulatory agency on a case-by-case basis. A firm may also be subject to liability. This paper studies the implications on social welfare of combining licensing with strict liability. Contributions include the study of a joint use and related administrative costs. The latter include costs pertaining to litigation and the issuing and enforcing of licenses. It is established when a joint use is motivated. Regulatory compliance should protect from liability in order to decrease litigation and enforcement costs and associated distortions.     

论量刑根据──兼及刑法第61条的立法完善

量刑根据是量刑的基础。我国刑法中的刑事责任的内涵不同于欧陆刑法中的责任,决定了我国不能照搬欧陆刑法关于量刑根据的规定。我国的量刑根据由行为刑事责任与性格刑事责任所构成,行为刑事责任是基本的量刑根据,性格刑事责任是补充的量刑根据,两者的结合兼顾了报应与预防。行为刑事责任的程度表现为基本法定刑、加重或者减轻法定刑和由犯罪情节所影响的处罚轻重等三个层次。性格刑事责任的程度应由法官具体判断。现行刑法第61条关于量刑根据的规定,存在主旨不明和表述不清的弊端,应当加以完善。     

Juvenile Justice Advocacy: Practice in a Unique Court

The defense attorney must remember that the Juvenile Court is a court and not a social agency. But the fact that it is a court should not obscure the fact that it is a court with social objectives and social techniques. Thus, he must have the knowledge and ability to suggest alternative treatments to court adjudication.     

严格责任论:以英美刑法为中心

刑法学界有观点认为,严格责任是结果责任、客观归罪的典型,应予彻底否定。刑事严格责任起源于英美法国家,我国《刑法》中并无这一概念。要对刑事严格责任进行评判,应当充分了解其存在的背景、内涵及其价值基础,否则,作出的结论往往是不尽妥当的。英美刑法中,严格责任的适用受到了种种条件的限制,不同于绝对责任,更非结果责任或者客观归罪,有其存在的价值基础。     

中国“例制”构建中的法院角色和法官作用

我国案例指导制度中的法院角色和法官作用有着鲜明的特色,案件审理阶段法院和办案法官往往并没有参与案例指导的意识,而是在案件裁判后由审判庭之外的综合部门通过遴选的方式确定典型案例,经编辑后报审判委员会研究讨论,再逐级报最高人民法院确定并发布。指导性案例的产生不是按照管辖制度自然地"涌现",而是被人为地"发现",这一点明显不同于国外的做法。相比较,"涌现"方式符合司法经济原则和司法规律,而"发现"方式充满人为因素,成本高而效率相对较低。案例指导制度不应被管辖制度"牵着鼻子走",而应当通过变更管辖制度,与司法规律相适应。     

HIV-positive person who did not disclose status convicted of attempted aggravated assault

On 18 September 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada released its unanimous decision in Williams. This is the first case on the issue of criminal liability for HIV exposure decided by the court since its 1998 decision in the Cuerrier case. Williams raised the issue of whether persons with HIV who have unprotected sexual intercourse without disclosing their status to a sexual partner who might already have been infected with the virus, can be convicted of aggravated assault or attempted aggravated assault. The Supreme Court decided that only a charge of attempted aggravated assault could stand. The decision is also significant because the Supreme Court's comments on two ancillary issues may lead to a significant extension of the criminal law related to HIV transmission or exposure.     

论会计师事务所不实财务报告的民事责任——兼评上海大智慧公司与曹建荣等证券虚假陈述责任纠纷案

会计师事务所执业过错的认定标准为“职业谨慎”,法律上的“重大性”认定依据主要是信息对决策的影响力和信息对股价的影响力。法院在民事赔偿案件中应该独立对“重大性”进行实质审查。损害因果关系的认定应肯定公司经营风险、行业风险和投资风险等作为阻碍损害因果关系的因素。在计算系统风险时,原则上宜优先选取板块指数为参考数据,计算方式采用分别认定市场风险的相对比值法。责任方式采取有限制条件的连带责任,对第三人的具体赔偿范围由法院综合考量各方因素裁定。     

产品责任:北美视角的比较法评论

美国采纳严格产品责任的主要原因是:早期的法律不能给消费者提供充分的保护;调整保证的法律不是从消费者的角度出发的;美国的社会福利很大程度上不如其他西方国家。当今美国主要对于设计和信息性缺陷适用过失责任制度,严格产品制度仅适用于制造缺陷和非制造缺陷的销售者。欧洲和其他法域的严格产品制度远比美国严格。各种结构化和程序化的事务赋予美国公民更多诉至法院的机会。     

人工智能的可解释性与AI的法律责任问题研究

人工智能(AI)作为类人类智能,无论我们是否赋予其主体资格,在解决其法律责任问题时,都必须对其行为进行解释,为此,探讨人工智能的法律责任问题,应该基于人工智能行为的可解释性的全新路径来推进,而不是纠缠于当下学界关于人工智能主体地位与法律责任的各种主体论与责任理论。人工智能的可解释性,亦即解释人工智能如何在大数据的基础上进行算法决策。然而,在AI领域,虽然以深度学习为代表的人工智能技术已取得了令人瞩目的成就,但如何确保以非技术性的方式向最终用户和其他利益相关方解释算法决策以及任何驱动这些决策的数据,仍是一个无法得到解决的难题,人工智能"黑箱"释明难题决定了人工智能行为的不可解释性。法律责任的本质是答责,不具有可解释性的人工智能不能自我答责,因此其无法承担法律责任;法律责任的目的是预防,不具有可解释性的人工智能无法实现法律责任的预防目的。人工智能法学研究的下一个前沿问题,是人工智能的可解释性问题。     

从the “DG Harmony”案看英美法下海上危险货物托运人归责原则之演进

从the＂DG Harmony＂案中美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院的轰动性判决入手,对英美法有关海上危险货物运输下托运人归责原则和承托双方责任分担的相关立法和司法实践的演进作一梳理,即从《海牙规则》与美国COGSA1936前普通法和一般海事原则下托运人严格责任的确立,到对《海牙规则》及COGSA1936相关条款下托运人严格责任的解析,再到以the＂DG Harmony＂案为代表的英美目前司法实践对突破托运人严格责任的探索。在此梳理的基础上,总结概括出目前英美法下裁判海上危险货物运输纠纷的思路与原则。这种以托运人严格责任原则为基础,以通过＂知识权衡＂与因果分析确定的＂未能提醒＂的过失责任原则为补充的思路,对中国的立法和司法实践具有一定的借鉴意义。     

《侵权责任法》背景下医疗损害责任的认定

怎样的责任认定标准才是医疗损害案件裁决中的妥当标准,长期以来社会各界争执不休。《侵权责任法》的出台为消除这种分歧和争执带来了新的曙光。法院作为＂主宰＂案件胜负的关键主体,应如何把握好医疗损害案件中责任认定的标准,才能真正为和谐医患关系保驾护航。本文拟从《侵权责任法》将带来的三项重大调整、附条件的＂推定过错＂能否将患方引向法院和法院审理医疗损害案件责任认定应注意把握好三个结合作一初步探讨。