On the Tort of Negligence in Common Law Legal System

It is difficult for judicial practitioners to determine the liability of tort of negligence due to the fact that it has not been specially stipulated in the provisions of the Tort Liability Law or other civil laws and regulations in China. On the contrary, the principles of tort of negligence in common law legal system have been refined in judicial practice and provided the corresponding solution for determining the liability of tort of negligence. The author believes that the empirical research on the tort of negligence in common law legal system will help us to further strengthen the understanding and application of the Tort Liability Law in China. This article thus comprehensively surveys and researches the tort of negligence from the perspective of common law legal system.     

论“认罪态度”在量刑情节中的定位

传统刑法和司法实践将"认罪态度"定位于酌定量刑情节,由于立法的模糊性和司法人员的认识差异,造成了量刑时空上的不平衡。本文认为,随着"自首"、"立功"和"坦白"的逐步法定化,将"积极退赃"和"赔偿损失"升格为法定量刑情节的条件已经具备。它不仅没有违背罪刑法定原则,而且依赖于刑罚改造理论和人身危险性理论的理论支撑,还有相关法律和司法解释作为法律基础及外国立法提供的参考和借鉴。因此,应将"积极退赃"和"赔偿损失"升格为法定量刑情节的条件和从宽处罚的具体标准,实现"认罪态度"在量刑情节中法律地位的转变及司法的公平与公正。     

帮助犯的因果关系

从不同的共犯处罚根据学说的立场出发,对帮助犯的因果性问题会有不同认识。但是,站在修正引起说的立场上,可以得出要求共犯行为也必须与通过正犯行为引起的法益侵害结果之间的因果关系的结论。在具体判断共犯行为与犯罪结果之间的因果关系时,要特别注意存在心理的因果性的情况。     

从客观归因到主观归责

在中国现行刑法的明文规定和犯罪构成四要件的解说体系下，对因果关系及刑事责任的确定应遵循从客观归因到主观归责的分析进路。所谓客观归因，即对因果关系的判断只是确定行为人承担刑事责任的客观基础，故采用“条件说”即能以最简捷方法予以解决，不需要引入见仁见智的各式规范判断学说；至于由此而导致的责任范围过于宽泛的问题，则可以通过对主观罪过的精确界定予以解决，在主客观相统一的更高层面最终解决对行为人是否归责的问题。     

存疑不起诉规范适用的思考

存疑不起诉是我国不起诉制度中的一个重要组成部分，体现了疑罪从无的司法理念。在司法实践中存疑不起诉被滥用、误用的情况比较普遍，原因既有立法规定不健全、不完善等问题，也有办案人徇私、徇情的问题，而对证据审查判断的偏差，把握的不一致、不统一是导致存疑不起诉适用不规范的重要原因。存疑不起诉的正确适用对于保障人权、实现诉讼公正与效率的双重价值具有重要意义。为了更好地维护公平正义，正确履行检察职责，准确行使存疑不起诉权，本文对甘肃省检察机关2003年至2007年存疑不诉案件的数据进行了统计和分析，对典型个案进行了专项调查和研究，分析出全省检察机关五年来存疑不诉案件的特点，进而从立法、侦查、检察等环节总结了办理存疑不诉案件中存在的问题，多层面、多角度的进行了原因分析，针对存在的问题和原因提出了相应的解决对策，以期对提高办案质量、正确适用存疑不起诉有所裨益。     

刑法因果关系的判断标准及其在不作为犯中的运用

如何判断因果关系是刑法因果关系理论所应解决的核心问题。大陆法系和英美法系国家关于认定因果关系的理论对于我国具有重要的借鉴意义。从刑法规范的立场来看,条件说较好地解决了因果关系的判断标准问题,采用条件说不会不当地扩大处罚范围。在此基础上,就如何判断不作为犯的因果关系提出了具体的判断标准和方法。     

论船舶碰撞损害赔偿中的责任比例认定

在分析、比较英美法系、大陆法系因果关系理论的基础上,提出在船舶碰撞损害赔偿责任比例认定过程中,可采用＂两分法＂,即首先运用＂相当因果关系理论＂认定事实上的因果关系,即认定船舶从相遇到碰撞发生的整个过程中的过失行为对碰撞事故发生及碰撞损害后果的作用力的大小;然后采用＂直接结果理论＂和＂可预见理论＂认定船舶过失行为与损害后果之间的法律上的因果关系,而法律推定因果关系方法则不应当适用。     

What does it mean to suffer loss? Haxton v Philips Electronics

In Haxton v Philips Electronics the Court of Appeal considered whether a widow could recover the diminution in value of her dependency claim following the defendant's tortious reduction of her life expectancy. The note outlines the development of the common law, demonstrating that Haxton is novel but not unorthodox, and tests whether Haxton's principles can provide a sound foundation for future cases. Positing three hypothetical scenarios, it argues that the disparity in outcome, rather than indicating a lack of unifying principle, as was suggested in Jobling v Associated Dairies, may be explained by combining Austin's division between primary and secondary rights with Gardner and Stevens' contributions as to how they are protected. Restitutio in integrum requires consideration of the reasons and values underlying the right in question and these are discernible in the jurisprudence. The note also considers whether Haxton could have been decided on the basis that a defendant should not profit from its own wrongdoing.     

‘Factual causation’ and ‘scope of liability’: What's the difference?

According to a dominant view, for the negligent defendant to be held liable for the plaintiff's harm the plaintiff must establish first, that the breach was the ‘factual cause’ of the harm, and second, that the harm is within the ‘scope of liability’. On this view, factual causation is purely factual, while scope of liability is normative and non‐causal. This article accepts the basic two‐step approach, but argues that the distinction is overstated. A close analysis of the principles shows that factual causation may require value judgment, and that scope of liability often involves an assessment of the strength and nature of the causal connection between breach and harm.     

刑法因果关系理论巡历与新思考

刑法因果关系是刑法理论研究中的一个复杂且对实践具有十分重要意义的问题。本文通过对大陆法系及英美法系的因果理论巡历及我国目前论争的焦点,即纠缠于“必然性”和“偶然性”等哲学迷障,提出自己的新思考,再现了因果关系研究思路不应当复杂化,以便益于指导司法实践,使刑法理念得到更科学的体现。