论海事赔偿责任限制制度与海上侵权连带责任的协调适用

我国现行《海商法》以及其他法律和司法解释均没有规定如何处理海上侵权行为所产生的连带责任与责任人享有的海事赔偿责任限制权利之间的关系,而这一关系问题却是处理相关案件所必须面对和解决的。笔者提出无论在连带责任内部关系抑或外部关系中,责任方所享有的海事赔偿责任限制权利均不应因承担连带责任而受影响;在一方享有海事赔偿责任限制时,所有连带责任方对受害方承担的连带赔偿数额也应相应限缩。     

船舶碰撞连带责任与海事赔偿责任限制的冲突与协调

因船舶碰撞而成立连带责任时,如果各涉案船舶的海事赔偿责任限额不同,可能产生该限额与受害人要求连带赔偿的数额以及与先行赔付一方的追偿数额之间的冲突问题。从比较法看,有三种协调方案,其中对受害人的索赔数额自始限缩而责任人的责任限制或免责权利不受影响的方案较为合理。《最高人民法院司法解释(征求意见稿)》第22条与该方案基本一致,但其适用情形应予扩大,且不应影响责任限制规范的适用。     

海事赔偿责任限制优先适用原则研究——兼论海事赔偿责任限制权利之属性

海事赔偿责任限制在外部关系上体现优先适用原则,即船舶优先权、船舶抵押权、船舶碰撞以及船舶扣押制度等都不影响海事赔偿责任限制的优先适用;海事赔偿责任限制在内部关系上体现优先适用原则,除并行于海事赔偿责任限制的责任限制制度外,所有其他责任限制制度,要么受制于海事赔偿责任限制,要么共享海事赔偿责任限制的限额,而与海事赔偿责任限制并行的责任限制制度,则互不影响,不存在优先适用的问题,即在同一事故中,可能并存独立的互不影响的几个责任限制的限额,如海事赔偿责任的限额、油污损害赔偿的限额、有毒有害物质赔偿限额.海事赔偿责任限制的权利主体相对于自身关系的相对人来说,其权利属性不是抗辩权,也不是请求权,而是形成权的特殊类型;海事赔偿责任限制的权利主体相对于自身关系之外的其他关系的相对人,其权利属性仍然是形成权的特殊类型,本文称之为"海事优位权".     

设立海事赔偿责任限制基金的管辖

海事赔偿责任限制是海商法中独有的一项特殊的法律制度,是一种限制性赔偿制度,适用海事赔偿责任限制直接导致责任人向法院申请设立海事赔偿责任限制基金。由于各国国内法有关海事赔偿责任限制的规定不尽相同,在处理海事赔偿责任限制的诉讼时就会产生法律适用上的冲突,海事赔偿责任限制的法律冲突集中表现在申请设立海事赔偿责任限制基金的管辖冲突,因此申请设立海事赔偿责任限制基金的管辖在海事赔偿责任限制制度中就显得尤为重要。下面笔者从三个重要的责任限制冲突案件的最终判决结果,结合我国新颁布的《海事诉讼特别程序法》第九章…     

海事赔偿责任限制优先适用原则研究——兼论海事赔偿责任限制权利之属性

海事赔偿责任限制在外部关系上体现优先适用原则,即船舶优先权、船舶抵押权、船舶碰撞以及船舶扣押制度等都不影响海事赔偿责任限制的优先适用;海事赔偿责任限制在内部关系上体现优先适用原则,除并行于海事赔偿责任限制的责任限制制度外,所有其他责任限制制度,要么受制于海事赔偿责任限制,要么共享海事赔偿责任限制的限额,而与海事赔偿责任限制并行的责任限制制度,则互不影响,不存在优先适用的问题,即在同一事故中,可能并存独立的互不影响的几个责任限制的限额,如海事赔偿责任的限额、油污损害赔偿的限额、有毒有害物质赔偿的限额。海事赔偿责任限制的权利主体相对于自身关系的相对人来说,其权利属性不是抗辩权,也不是请求权,而是形成权的特殊类型;海事赔偿责任限制的权利主体相对于自身关系之外的其他关系的相对人来说,其权利属性仍然是形成权的特殊类型,称之为＂海事优位权＂。     

论行政民事侵权连带责任及其司法认定

行政民事侵权连带责任是指基于共同的事实原因或法律原因,行政主体违法行使职权侵权与个人侵权相结合造成他人合法权利损害,侵权行政主体和侵权个人对受害人共同承担赔偿损失、恢复原状等形式的责任。其构成要件为侵权主体的复数性、侵权行为的复合性、侵权人过错意思的共同性或各侵权行为结合的特定性以及损害结果的同一不可分性。该类连带责任应用于司法实践具有必要性和可行性。法官可通过"主体、行为、结果"三重标准在个案中识别行政民事侵权连带责任。在诉讼程序上,原则上可采用行政附带民事诉讼的模式合并审理行政民事侵权连带责任案件。对于赔偿数额,侵权个人就全部损害对外承担连带责任,侵权行政主体以侵权造成的直接损害为其承担连带责任的最高限额。此外,各侵权主体的追偿路径与传统民事连带责任制度亦有所区别。     

浅析海事赔偿责任限制的性质

海事赔偿责任限制是一种特殊的抗辩权,不同于民法中的其他抗辩权。海事赔偿责任限制抗辩权对抗之请求权所涉及的法律关系是多样的。法律就海事赔偿责任限制抗辩权的成立不仅规定了积极条件,还规定了消极条件,其所防御或对抗的对象并非单个请求权,而是特定海损事故中全部限制性债权的总和。海事赔偿责任限制权利本身应识别为实体权利,但如何保障该权利的实现,则属于程序性问题。     

海事赔偿责任限制的几个问题

海事赔偿责任限制是我国海商法中的一项重要法律制度。本文试就海事赔偿责任限制的意义、在内河运输中的适用以及法律冲突问题作一初步探讨,以求教于法学界同仁。 一 所谓海事赔偿责任限制,是指船舶发生海难事故,给他人造成重大人身伤亡或财产损失时,将船舶责任人的赔偿责任限制在一定限度内的一种赔偿制度。海事赔偿责任限制亦称船东     

浅析船舶承租人对出租人的责任限制权利

在海事赔偿责任限制制度中,船舶承租人不仅面临着法律规定的特定海事请求人的赔偿请求,而且还面临被船舶出租人等追索船舶损失的情况。在前一种情形下,船舶承租人享有法定的海事赔偿责任限制权利,但在后一种情形下,船舶承租人是否也应当对出租人提出的所有追索享有海事赔偿责任限制权利是一个未知数。同时,此处的船舶承租人的范围也是争议较多的问题。     

海事赔偿责任限制制度的补充赔偿机制

阐述海事赔偿责任限制制度的历史动因,基于海上风险的相对变迁,借鉴船舶油污损害的双重赔偿机制,《中华人民共和国海商法》应在海事赔偿责任限制制度之外,确立补充赔偿制度,采用海事赔偿基金机制,对船舶侵权的受害人提供补充性救济,从而适度修正责任限制制度下的权益失衡格局,引导海事赔偿制度从海运政策保护性趋向法律公正性.     

Absolute liability in contract

Kingship, Law and Society: Criminal Justice in the Reign of Henry V. Edward Powell. Oxford. 1989. Clarendon Press, xii + 319 pp. (incl. index). £35.00 cased.

Sir Henry Maine: A Study of Victorian Jurisprudence. R.C.J. Cocks. Cambridge. 1988. Cambridge University Press, viii + 224 pp. (incl. index). £25/$49.50 cased.

The Birth of the English Common Law (2nd ed). R. C. Van Caenegem. Cambridge. 1988. Cambridge University Press, xviii + 160 pp. (incl. index). £27.50/ $39.50 cased, £9.50/$13.95 limp.

Inventing the Industrial Revolution. The English Patent System 1660–1800. Christine Macleod. Cambridge. 1988. Cambridge University Press, xii + 302 pp. £25 cased.

The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. D.P. KOMMERS. Duke University Press. 1990. xxxvi + 590 pp. (incl. index). £29.25 paperback.

Sokrates. Johannes Irmscher. (3rd ed.) Leipzig. 1989. Verlag Phillip Reclam jr. 120 pp. (inch index).

The Welsh Laws. T.M. Charles‐Edwards. Cardiff. 1990. The University of Wales Press for the Welsh Arts Council. 106pp. £3.50 limp.     

漫谈海洋污染的民事责任和刑事责任

简单介绍国际社会关于油轮溢油、燃油溢油及运输有毒有害物质致海洋污染损害的民事责任与赔偿方面的立法努力以及区域性组织等加强船源污染刑事责任方面的立法,认为对海洋污染实行更苛刻的民事责任制度,设立更高的赔偿责任限额或者干脆取消限额,进行更多的刑事立法等是不可取的,指出规制海洋污染必须体现国际性,并最大限度地避免区域性立法。     

Current issues in medical liability

Currently, liability discussions are being dominated by AIDS and the legal problems associated with birth and death. The introduction of routine AIDS tests without the knowledge of those concerned is disputed heatedly and, in fact, may well constitute bodily assault and render those responsible liable to prosecution. In AIDS cases, the apparent breach of the Hippocratic oath of secrecy by Physicians can be justified on the grounds of both the extraordinary circumstances prevailing and conflicting duties. The transmission of AIDS could give rise to prosecution for causing bodily injury or manslaughter. The drawing up of a law to protect embryos is designed to establish legal constraints in the fields of reproduction and gene technology. In reframing section 168 StGB, which provides protection to the dead embryo, legislators assume that the head of a medical clinic is the lawful custodian of the corpse of a person who has died in his institution. This should help to resolve many of the problems arising from post-mortem examinations. The questions of euthanasia and medical assistance in cases of suicide were raised at the 1986 Conference of German Lawyers. Whereas medical treatment that could be considered as interference with the natural process of dying may be withdrawn in the case of irreversible terminal suffering, active euthanasia, i.e. the deliberate killing of a terminal patient, was rejected. With regard to noninterference in a suicide attempt by a third party, the free decision of the person wishing to commit suicide should be respected. In general, however, the maxim in dubio pro vita should be respected and where any doubt exists, an attempt should be made to save the person's life.     

Scope of liability: the vanishing distinction between negligence and strict liability

The duty-of-care requirement cannot be used anymore as the touchstone to differentiate negligence from strict liability because it can be found in many forms of the latter. Duty of care is smuggled into strict liability hidden under the scope of liability requirement (traditionally called “proximate causation”). As far as the scope of liability requirement is common to negligence and to many forms of strict liability, there is a fairly large common ground to both liability rules, and consequently the marginal Hand formula is applied to both rules. Indeed, under a negligence rule, the marginal Hand formula is applied twice: first to assess whether or not the defendant did breach his or her duty of care, and, second, to delimit whether or not the defendant’s behavior was a proximate cause of the harm suffered by the victim. However, under a strict liability rule, the Hand formula is applied only once when the proximate causation question is raised. Traditional law and economics analysis has almost always taken the normative question raised by the causation requirement as given, which is a potential major problem due to the importance of scope of liability or proximate causation in legal practice. Defining the scope of liability, that is to say, the boundaries of the pool of potential defendants, is the basic legal policy decision for each and every liability rule. In the normative model presented in this paper, the government first chooses efficient scope of liability, and given the scope of liability, the government then decides the liability rule and damages that guarantee efficient precaution. In the article, most known scope of liability rationales developed by both common law and civil law systems are discussed in order to show the substantial common ground between negligence and strict liability.