析道路交通事故损害赔偿案件当事人达成的调解

为了规范办理日趋增多的道路交通事故损害赔偿案件的审判、执行工作,我国于2004年5月1日开始实施道路交通安全法、道路交通安全法实施条例。另有最高人民法院《关于审理人身损害赔偿适用法律若干问题的解释》(下称《解释》)、公安部的交通事故处理程序规定等配套法律、法规。这使人民法院在审理道路交通事故损害赔偿案件中对诉讼主体的把握、责任承担、法律适用等方面都发生了显著的变化。在此,笔者将对道路交通事故损害赔偿案件当事人之间达成调解的类型、当事人不履行调解协议起诉到人民法院,人民法院如何认定、处理等问题,进行粗浅的分析。     

审理道路交通事故损害赔偿案件的几个问题

近年来，随着我国汽车工业和交通运输业的快速发展，道路交通事故明显增多，起诉到人民法院的道路交通事故损害赔偿案件也越来越多，审理好这类案件已成为人民法院的重要任务。目前，由于立法的相对滞后，人民法院审理此类案件在适用法律上遇到一些困难，在确定责任主体和诉讼主体、归责原则以及赔偿范围等问题上都存在不同认识和做法。本文拟就审判实践中亟待解决的几个问题谈点看法。关于损害赔偿的责任主体在交通事故损害赔偿案件中，确定损害赔偿的责任主体是一个最重要的问题。只有确定了谁应该赔偿、谁是赔偿责任的主体，受害人才知道…     

民事诉讼中保全车辆存在的问题及建议

随着车辆的增加，道路交通事故也随之增加，因交通事故损害赔偿而提起民事诉讼的案件也呈现出增多之势。目前，人民法院审理交通事故赔偿案件往往根据当事人的中请对肇事车辆进行诉讼保全，但保全后对车辆没有进行妥善保管和处置，待案件审理完毕进入执行程序后却没有可执行的价值，同时因为诉讼保全的存在使案件无法委托执行。     

交强险的功能定位及其与侵权责任的关系——审理机动车交通事故损害赔偿案件的制度背景

《道路交通安全法》、《机动车交通事故责任强制保险条例》(以下简称《交强险条例》)、《侵权责任法》共同构成了机动车交通事故损害赔偿案件审理的制度背景。以这些立法为背景,此类案件出现了较为复杂的状态:首先,法律关系多样化。机动车交通事故损害赔偿案件既涉及到强制保险关系、商业保险合同关系,又涉及到侵权责任。其次,由法律关系的多样化带来了法律适用的多层次     

机动车致人身损害赔偿案保险人应参加民事诉讼

目前,在审理被保险的机动车致人身损害赔偿的民事案件中,受害人一般只以机动车的所有人或行为人作为被告提起诉讼,而人民法院也只是把受害人与机动车所有人或行为人作为诉讼主体进行审理。笔者对此有不同观点:在审理因保险的机动车致人身损害赔偿的案件中,除受害人或所有人(行为人)为原、被告之外,应当同时把保险人作为诉讼的第三人参加民事诉讼,一并审理。现仅就此类案件的特点,保险人与投保人的法律责任以及保险人参加诉讼的意义和地位作如下剖析,以期共鸣。     

道路交通安全法实施后道路交通事故损害赔偿案件审理的新变化

道路交通安全法的颁布实施,有利于维护道路交通秩序,预防和减少交通事故,保护人身安全,保护公民、法人和其他组织的财产安全及其他合法权益,提高通行效率。虽然该法的内容主要是道路交通安全行政管理方面的规范,但其中也有交通事故的处理和法律责任方面的规定,而且这些规定在扬弃一些不合时宜的规则的同时,创设了很多新制度,相应地引起道路交通事故损害赔偿案件类型、诉讼主体、诉讼方式以及赔偿项目和标准等方面的变化,对人民法院审理道路交通事故损害赔偿案件有着实质性的影响。     

道路交通事故损害赔偿若干问题的探讨

随着我国交通运输业的发展，道路交通事故的发生呈迅猛增长的势头；受害人因交通事故造成损害而起诉到人民法院要求赔偿的案件也逐年增多。但是，在审理道路交通事故损害赔偿案件中、国立法的不完善和法官对已有法律的理解差异，有几个问题尚需进一步明确，在审判实践中应予以认真对待。一、道路交通事故损害赔偿实件当事人道路交通事故损害赔偿案件，要确定案件当事入，首先必须明确交通事故当事人和交通事故损害赔偿案件当事人的关系。根据钟华人民共和国道路交通管理条例》和们在路交通事故处理办法》，交通事故当事人是指发生交通事故的…     

交通事故赔偿出新规 保险赔偿应留意

随着机动车数量的大幅增长,各类重大道路交通安全事故时常见诸报端。据统计,目前我国道路交通事故已占全国各类事故总量的82.5%,道路交通安全已成为社会关注的热点。2012年12月21日起施行的最高法院《关于审理道路交通事故损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》中首次明确规定,在交通事故纠纷案件中交强险和商业三者险可以同案审理,有效减少了当事人的求偿环节,避免了当事人的诉累。那么,交强险和商业三者险在理赔适用上又有哪些不同和需要注意的地方呢?     

完善回避制度的一点建议

回避制度是指为了保证案件的公正审理，而要求与案件有一定利害关系的有关人员，不得参与本案的侦查、起诉及审理等诉讼活动的一项基本制度。回避制度是保证案件获得公正审理的制度，此项制度主要体现在诉讼过程中，笔者拟从诉讼的角度对如何完善该制度加以论证。这项制度从形式上而言，是法律赋予当事人对公正审理的监督权和审判人员的自我约束；其实质是一种要求司法保护权。在我国各类案件的审判实践中，回避制度在维护当事人的诉讼权利，保障诉讼案件的公正审理，促进社会主义法制建设中发挥了极大作用。但勿庸置疑的是，我国诉讼法律对…     

司法鉴定错误损害赔偿诉讼的法理基础与实证考察

鉴定机构提供司法鉴定时,发生鉴定错误在所难免.诉讼当事人因司法鉴定错误发生损害,对司法鉴定机构提起损害赔偿之诉时,实践中往往不能得到法院的支持.诉讼当事人对司法鉴定机构主张损害赔偿不仅存在侵权责任请求权基础,更存在违约责任请求权基础,发生请求权基础竞合.诉讼当事人对司法鉴定机构提起损害赔偿之诉,应以司法鉴定错误得到确认为前提.受司法既判力的约束,只能在对原案件事实的审理程序中重新进行司法鉴定.因此,诉讼当事人对司法鉴定机构提起损害赔偿之诉在程序上受到严格限制,并以此决定其可主张的损害赔偿范围.     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.