Medical malpractice litigation: do the British have a better remedy?

Medical malpractice claims are filed nearly ten times more frequently in America than they are in Great Britain. British patients generally adopt a less adversarial stance toward medical malpractice than do American patients. This Article examines the British malpractice system, as compared with the American system, and explores the differences between the two, in terms of costs and fees, liability rules, statutory provisions, and judicial attitudes toward malpractice litigation. The Article also discusses British social and institutional factors, such as the "taint" of litigation and the National Health Service, and evaluates how these factors affect British malpractice litigation. The Article presents the alternative forums available to British patients in seeking satisfaction for their medical service complaints. The Article concludes with an evaluation of how these factors achieve the three societal objectives of malpractice litigation: reparation, emotional vindication and deterrence.     

医疗产品损害责任三论

医疗产品损害责任是《侵权责任法》第59条规定的医疗损害责任类型,关于责任分担的规则规定得不够完善,应当根据产品责任的一般规则以及侵权责任法的连带责任规则进行补充.血液属于准产品,应当适用医疗产品损害责任规则确定医疗机构的赔偿责任.消毒药剂构成医疗产品损害责任,其缺陷的判定有一定特点.     

论金融产品销售商的投资者适当性义务

金融产品销售商承担适当性义务需以信赖关系的存在为前提。客户风险承受能力的认定要素应包括主观要素和客观要素。对于主观要素的忽视是导致高估客户风险承受能力的重要原因,可采用木桶短板管理理论进行合理评估。对于金融产品风险等级的确定,司法审判中穿透式认定的做法或有违“尊重专长”原则,通过委托独立的第三方进行重新评估不失为一种解...     

De-moralized: Glucksberg in the malaise

Ten years down the road, what is the enduring significance of the "assisted suicide" cases, Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill? The cases reflect an unusually earnest, but nonetheless unsuccessful, attempt by the Supreme Court to grapple with a profound moral issue. So, why was the Court unable to provide a more satisfying justification for its conclusions? This Article, written for a symposium on the tenth anniversary of Glucksberg, discusses that question. Part I examines some of the flaws in reasoning in the Glucksberg and Quill opinions and suggests that these flaws stem from the opinion writers' inability to recognize and articulate their underlying normative assumptions. More specifically, both the Justices and the lower court judges, on both sides of the issue, evidently attributed normative significance to something like a "natural course of life" (even when they denied doing so), but none were willing or able to make this attribution explicit. Part II discusses the modern separation of moral reasoning from the metaphysical or theological perspectives that might once have endowed "nature" with normative significance, and it suggests that the deficiencies in Glucksberg-Quill are evidence of how that separation renders moral reasoning problematic. The Conclusion wonders whether in this situation, a renewed emphasis on formalism or tradition might make legal reasoning less unacceptable.     

论过度医疗侵权责任及其法律救济

过度医疗侵权责任是过度医疗侵权行为中患者合法权益救济与过度医疗侵权行为法律规制的核心问题。《侵权责任法》第63条法律适用中最大障碍性因素,是法律意义上的过度医疗如何界定与过度医疗侵权责任构成明晰问题。对过度医疗内涵法律界定与过度医疗侵权责任构成分析,应综合侵权行为一般本质、医疗侵权行为特殊本质以及过度医疗行为性质及其固有属性来进行。过度医疗侵权应适用过错推定责任进行归责,并应适用全面赔偿原则。过度医疗中由于医师履行告知义务的违法性与患者知情同意侵权行为产生竞合,在过度医疗侵权法律救济中,两种诉由皆可适用。应对《侵权责任法》第63条进行立法扩充解释,对过度医疗及认定标准进一步作出司法解释。     

安全保障义务:属性识别与责任分配——兼评《民法典侵权责任编(草案第三次审议稿)》第973条

《侵权责任法》第37条第1款是违反安全保障义务的过错责任之规范基础,其设置于该法第6条第1款过错责任一般条款之后是过错责任从一般到具体的规范逻辑范式。侵权法的功能主要为救济与预防,故宜将第37条"造成他人损害"修改为"侵害他人民事权益",从而为停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险等责任方式的司法适用提供通道。为充分救济损害,宜认可安全保障义务具有法定义务与合同义务的双重属性。根据补充责任制度的内在逻辑,第37条第2款的适用范围应限缩为"第三人的主观故意+安全保障义务人的主观过失",进而在立法上明确补充责任人承担责任后可向第三人追偿的法权结构。对《侵权责任法》第37条的检讨,可以作为完善《民法典侵权责任编(草案第三次审议稿)》第973条的基础。     

Incompatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 subscriber appeal process provisions with Article 6 of the ECHR

Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) subscriber appeal process provisions (Section 13 of the DEA) with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Drawing on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom's Initial Obligations Code (the Code), and the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, this paper focuses on the three Strasbourg Court principles of equality of arms, admissibility of evidence, and presumption of innocence, in an effort to determine whether Section 13 of the DEA infringes them, and whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. The paper examines these three ECtHR principles. It contrasts such principles with the Code's provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 13 of the DEA with Article 6 of the ECHR. It concludes that the DEA subscriber appeal process provisions do indeed infringe these principles, thus constituting a violation of subscribers' right to a fair trial. It also recommends that the UK government start taking seriously human rights in general, and Article 6 of the ECHR in particular.     

民法典高空抛物致害责任规则的体系性解读:局限与克服

高空抛物致害责任自入法之日起即饱受批评,又因司法适用中存在一定漏洞而引发质疑。将高空抛物致害责任置于不确定加害人责任框架下进行体系性解读,有利于重新认识和评估立法上设定这一责任规则的正当性和局限性。不确定加害人责任既不符合固有侵权责任构成理论的预期,也未遵循传统诉讼理论在证明责任上的一贯立场,为了缓和其内在局限和避免发生泛用,须就不确定被告的范围、责任形式及举证负担等适用条件作出限制。立法上设定高空抛物致害责任规则时亦应注意其局限克服。我国民法典第1254条通过修正和完善其适用条件,深化了侵权责任法第87条确立的限制观念,具有明显的进步性。然而,民法典作为一部基本法,其规定难以包罗万象,高空抛物致害责任规则的适用漏洞仍需要通过司法解释、基于法官的个案经验进行填补。     

A moment in human development: legal protection, ethical standards and social policy on the selective non-treatment of handicapped neonates

Selective non-treatment decisions involving severely handicapped neonates have recently come under renewed judicial and legislative scrutiny. In this Article, the Author examines the legal, ethical and social considerations attendant to the non-treatment decision. In Part II of this Article the Author discusses the predominant ethical viewpoints relating to this issue and proposes a new moral standard based on personal interests. Part III presents a survey of the jurisprudence relating to selective non-treatment decisions. Parts IV and V of this Article provide a critical examination of the recently enacted Child Abuse Amendments of 1984, a federal legislative initiative designed to regulate treatment decisions relating to handicapped infants. The Author suggests that the ethical standards and treatment criteria proposed in this Article may prove useful to courts seeking to balance the handicapped neonate's constitutional right to privacy with the requirements of the new federal law.     

商誉及其侵权损害赔偿的理论和实践

本文以北京市高院首例商誉侵权纠纷案件为素材,从理论和司法实践两方面就商誉的法律概念和特征、商誉侵权的构成要件、归责原则和商誉侵权民事责任的确定进行了探讨。     

《民事诉讼法》修改与不予执行仲裁裁决——以北京仲裁委员会为对象的实证分析

目前学界和仲裁界对《民事诉讼法》第213条规定的不予执行仲裁裁决的条件是否修改及怎样修改存在较大争议。为了给相关讨论提供有益素材,有必要取得来自仲裁及司法实践的第一手资料并作实证性的考察。通过对北京仲裁委员会1995-2010年仲裁裁决被不予执行的裁定进行分析发现,影响不予执行的因素是多元的。从实务的视角出发,至少应把第213条第(四)款牵涉事实认定的事由统一到《仲裁法》第58条作为撤销仲裁裁决事由的"伪造或隐瞒证据"的规定上去。     

Cybersecurity in a post-data environment: Considerations on the regulation of code and the role of producer and consumer liability in smart devices

Smart Devices ‘cross the streams’ of both the physical and virtual worlds and can benefit their users greatly as well as society in general. However, with the growth in popularity of these devices, there is a corresponding growth in risks, both to the user and to the internet at large.This paper outlines the scope of threats which are posed by the hacking of Smart Devices and how these risks can now be physical in nature. The paper then proposes a novel methodology to apportion liability to either the manufacturer or the user, where appropriate. This methodology is based on the principle of negligence, although consumer rights and products liability are also examined from both an American and European perspective.Finally, legislative and judicial shortcomings in relation establishing liability are identified and remedies are proposed, with the intention of establishing a solid legal basis and treatment for cybersecurity.     

Daubert and the Exclusionary Ethos: The Convergence of Corporate and Judicial Attitudes towards the Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Tort Litigation*

The article traces the way admissibility jurisprudence following Daubert has come to emphasize the importance of strict judicial gatekeeping; making it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in tort and product liability litigation. This exclusionary ethos appears to have been shaped by a range of values and interests which appear closely aligned to the perspectives promoted by corporate-sponsored proponents of tort and evidence reform. The effects of the exclusionary ethos are explored through an example of judicial gatekeeping in recent mobile telephone litigation and a review of judicial surveys of post- Daubert attitudes toward expert evidence. The role of corporate-sponsored amicus briefs in the influential Supreme Court Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v Carmichael appeal, extra-legal mobilization by conservative think tanks in litigation around electric and magnetic fields (EMF), and a qualitative citation analysis of federal court judgments, are then used in a preliminary attempt to trace the influence of corporate lobbying and social problem rhetorics on judicial attitudes and practice.     

PUNITIVE DAMAGES,CHINESE TORT LAW,AND THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE

In a country such as China, with abundant consumer products and the inevitability of product defects, claims for punitive damages are sure to arise under Article 47 of the new Chinese Tort Law. Article 47 provides that “(w)hereany producer or seller knowingly produces or sells defective products, causing death or serious damage to the health of others, the injured party may request appropriate punitive damages.” As Chinese jurists and scholars interpret Article 47, they may wish to consider whether lessons can be drawn from the American experience. During the past two decades, few areas of American law have changed more radically than the law on punitive damages. While there were once few restraints on the ability of a judge or jury to impose punitive damages in a case involving egregious conduct, today there are a host of limitations embodied in American state and federal law. In many American states, statutes or judicial decisions restrict the ability of a court to award punitive damages by narrowly defining the types of conduct that will justify a punitive award, raising the standard of proof, capping the amount of punitive damages, requiring a portion of a punitive award to be forfeited to the state, or limiting vicarious liability for punitive damages. In addition, under federal constitutional law, the principle of due process limits the imposition of punitive damages by scrutinizing the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages and prohibiting an award to be based on harm to persons other than the plaintiff. An examination of these developments from a comparative law perspective may prove useful to the implementation of Article 47.     

个体工商户之主体性质与责任承担问题研究——以民事诉讼法司法解释第59条为中心展开

个体工商户已成为我国民营经济的重要组成部分。司法实务中个体工商户之主体性质及责任认定难以统一,既与实体法上对个体工商户主体性质界定的不甚明确有关,更有程序法上对个体工商户诉讼资格的观点转变影响。主要是民事诉讼法司法解释第59条与修订前的司法解释作了相反的规定,个体工商户应以登记的字号为当事人。司法解释对个体工商户诉讼资格的态度转变,引发司法实务上对个体工商户主体性质与责任承担的不同理解。在当前我国立法语境下,个体工商户分为登记起字号和无字号两种形态,应当根据《民法总则》及相关司法解释之规定内涵,对是否起有字号加以区分,尊重当事人意思自治和程序自治,准确列明当事人主体及进行责任认定。     

民法典离婚损害赔偿制度法律适用的疑难问题

离婚损害赔偿在性质上属离异损害赔偿,与夫妻间侵权责任彼此独立但存在一定的交叉。《民法典》第1091条新增"其他重大过错"的范围应以是否严重违反家庭义务或家庭伦理,以至于威胁到共同生活的可能性作为判断标准。重大过错行为与离婚之间因果关系的认定应采推定原则。离婚赔偿范围仅指因离婚造成的精神损害,而不包括财产损害;离婚精神损害赔偿金数额的确定应将与婚姻家庭有关的特殊因素纳入考量范畴。为避免双重赔偿与过度惩罚,在司法实践中,应注意离婚损害赔偿制度与离婚财产分割之照顾无过错方原则以及夫妻间侵权责任制度的协调适用。     

股东违反出资义务应向谁承担违约责任

关于公司成立之后,股东未履行出资义务的责任承担,我国《公司法》相关规定存在不明确之处,值得进一步探讨。《公司法》第28条、第31条和第84条、第94条的规定,均涉及股东违反出资义务的责任,但存在体系上不一致及逻辑上的不严密之处,其中股东违反出资义务应当向其他股东承担违约责任的规定殊值质疑。显然,股东出资义务之性质是股东因违反出资义务而承担违约责任的理论基础。从公司设立协议、公司章程、公司法人性等方面对股东出资义务的性质进行分析,可以得出股东违反出资义务应当向公司而非股东承担违约责任的结论。     

Comment: litigation involving manufacturers' liability for defective medical products: judicial perspectives.

In this Comment, Judge Rosenn discusses, from a judicial perspective, the development of manufacturer's liability for defective medical products, with particular attention to the evolution of the strict liability doctrine, the courts' willingness to apply that doctrine to medical manufacturers, and recent suggestions for seriated trials as a means of more effective resolution of the complex litigation that arises in cases of alleged faculty design of medical products.     

侵权纠纷中夫妻共同债务认定的困境与立法回应——以机动车交通事故责任纠纷为研究对象

侵权纠纷中夫妻共同债务的认定在裁判结果、法律适用、举证责任分配以及债务清偿方式等方面均存在诸多龃龉。对此,"数人侵权的侵权法进路"与"责任承担的婚姻法逻辑"均无法提供系统合理的解决方案。司法实践中的诸多困境渊源于既有立法规范混淆责任成立、责任承担与责任实行,缺失相应的立法原则、认定规则以及清偿规则。着眼于"民法典婚姻家庭编"的编纂,在区分责任成立与责任承担的维度上,夫妻共同债务认定应锁定于责任承担的范围内,遵循弱者保护原则,将夫妻一方的侵权之债认定为夫妻共同债务;在区分责任承担与责任实行的维度上,夫妻共同债务清偿应厘清共同债务与连带债务的区别,以夫妻共同财产承担清偿责任,不足部分以侵权人个人财产承担。在立法技术上,侵权纠纷中夫妻共同债务的认定规则应采兜底性条款形式,同时配套以夫妻共同债务的清偿规则。     

触电损害赔偿责任性质研究

依据《侵权责任法》颁布前的有关法律法规及司法解释,高压输电线路产权归属一直被各地法院作为确认高压触电损害赔偿责任主体的依据。其实质是将此类损害赔偿责任视为物件致害责任。《侵权责任法》第73条虽然作出了与以前的法律法规不一样的规定,将此类责任定性为高度危险作业致人损害责任,但是其颁布后,该法规定的意旨和精神却没有得到很好的贯彻和落实。其原因在于,不论是实务界还是理论界,均没有真正明确触电赔偿责任的性质,也没有弄清这两种责任定性的本质区别所在。基于此,实有必要对触电赔偿责任的性质进行细致研究并予以明确,对这两种责任定性孰优孰劣进行权衡比较,以真正落实《侵权责任法》第73条之立法意旨及精神。