Strict liability versus negligence when the injurer's activity involves positive externalities

In this paper, I assert that, if the potential injurer’s activity involves externalities unrelated to accidents, the strict liability rule minimizing only the social cost associated with accidents does not induce the social optimum. I also demonstrate that if the externalities are positive, the negligence rule can perform better than the strict liability rule by selecting the due care appropriately, whereas it cannot if the externalities are negative. This argument can be applied to the product liability law. JEL Classification K13     

Contractor selection problem under extended liability

This paper solves the problem of a principal firm's choice of contracting agents under extended liability, where agents have the possibility of causing an accident and also are at risk of becoming insolvent. The analysis shows that the negligence rule for contracting agents enhances the price competitiveness of the agent who takes proper precautions and thus that the liability rule consisting of the negligence rule on contracting agents that extends liability to the principal firm is superior to other types of liability rules.     

The cost of delegated control: vicarious liability, secondary liability and mandatory insurance

Vicarious liability, secondary liability and mandatory insurance are three systems for attaining judgment-proof or disappearing injurers’ precaution through the direct control of a second party (the vicariously liable principal, the secondary liable party, or the insurer). In this way, the legal system delegates control over some injurers to private entities. Such mechanisms generate monitoring costs. In this paper, we consider who bears the cost of such monitoring, and the effect thereof on the equilibrium level of precautions under different liability rules. We use these findings to explain some of the patterns in the coupling of substantive standards of liability and legal regimes of delegated control.     

论无过错输血感染的责任认定

要输血感染是医疗机构临床用血所面临的一大困境,尤其是因某些危险因素的窗口期导致的无过错输血感染,并非医疗机构及其医务人员的过错,而是受到了当前医疗技术水平的限制,《侵权责任法》对这类输血感染并未做出区分,一律适用了严格责任,并不符合医疗活动的实际状况,也不能真正起到缓解医患矛盾的作用。而对临床输血以是否符合法律、法规和相关诊疗规范为标准进行区分,将窗VI期引起的无过错输血感染排除在医方的责任以外,通过补偿制度或第三方保险来解决,才是实现医患之间实质公平的途径。     

Environmental liability reform and privatization in Central and Eastern Europe

The legacy of severe environmental degradation inherited by the new Central and Eastern European (CEE) economies requires liability reform to aid the cleanup of existing pollution sources and create incentives for future environmental risk reduction. The paper analyzes a host of liability approaches to meet these goals, given economic and institutional characteristics specific to the CEE nations, and explores the impact of environmental liability rules on privatization and foreign investment. A principal conclusion of the analysis is that, for a host of efficiency-based reasons, liability should not be retroactively applied to the new owners of privatized firms. Also, the paper advocates the use of national liability funds to finance the cost of existing liabilities, while highlighting dangers associated with their use. In addition to the desirability of alternative privatization mechanisms, the paper also analyzes altemative liability rules to govern prospective environmental hazards.     

论船舶油污民事责任主体的扩张性

一直以来,中国学界和司法实践中普遍接受和遵循《1992年国际油污损害民事责任公约》船舶所有人责任专属制度,将船舶油污民事责任主体限定为船舶所有人。然而,船舶油污民事责任主体是否具有扩张性,即是否可以及于船舶所有人以外的当事方却鲜有讨论。针对船舶油污民事责任主体的扩张性,通过对国外立法、司法实践中相关案例及理论基础进行详细分析,并结合中国目前船舶油污事故发生的实际情况及相关法律规定,可以认为扩张船舶油污民事责任主体在中国具有必要性和可行性。     

私法责任正当性刍论--在违约责任和侵权责任中求证

私法责任制度设定的直接原因是违反了法定或约定的义务 ,直接目的是要归结出一种法律上的否定性评价。从这个角度来说 ,私法责任制度是为了维护在先的制度权威而产生的后续制度保障。这种后续制度在理性表现和价值体现方面依赖于在先制度 ,但又不完全依托在先制度 ,也表现出本身的制度理性。     

论中小学校园事故中的学校责任

学校是学生学习生活的主要场所,校园事故屡屡发生,学校赔偿责任纠纷不断。学校和学生之间的关系应是一种法定的教育、管理、保护和被教育、管理、保护的关系,校园事故中学校责任承担应适用一般过错责任归责原则。     

海事赔偿责任限制与连带赔偿责任的同时适用

海事赔偿责任限制与连带赔偿责任是立法宗旨根本对立的两项法律制度,由于《中华人民共和国海商法》没有明确何者优先适用,当两项制度同时适用于一个案件时,便会产生互相否定和互相排斥现象,给审判和执行工作带来困惑。在协调两者同时适用冲突、平衡双方当事人利益的前提下,提出两项制度同时适用的方法规则。     

The Role of French Environmental Associations in Civil Liability for Environmental Harm: Courtesy of Erika

Last January, the Tribunal Correctionnel de Paris, in its decisionconcerning the Erika oil spill, clearly recognised the rightof environmental associations to claim compensation for damagedone to the environment per se. Taking the judgment as a startingpoint, this article gives a brief insight into the French regimeof civil liability for environmental harm, with a special focuson the role, as provided in the regime and further developedin the case-law, of French environmental associations. The latterare formally recognised, under certain conditions, as "guardians"of the collective interest to environmental protection. As aresult, they are entitled to bring civil party petitions beforecriminal courts in case of -largely defined- "environmentalcrimes". These procedural rights have been broadly interpretedby (criminal, as well as civil) courts and effectively usedby associations to ensure that the "polluter pays" and thatcivil damages reflect, to the extent possible, the reality ofenvironmental harm, while serving the interests of general prevention.     

浅论注册会计师的法律责任问题

注册会计师的法律责任,是指注册会计师因违约、过失或欺诈对审计委托人、被审计单位或其他有利益关系的第三人造成损害,按照相关法律规定而应承担的法律后果。导致注册会计师法律责任的不仅有会计师事务所和注册会计师自身的原因,还有整个社会环境和市场机制的因素。     

The rise and fall of communal liability in ancient law

In ancient societies, rules of communal responsibility permitted the imposition of retaliatory sanctions on a wrongdoer's clan. These rules followed the collective ownership structure of early communities. Over time, notions of personal responsibility emerged, terminating the transfer of responsibility from one member to the whole clan. This paper intends to provide an economic explanation for this transition.     

从松花江跨境污染事件透视企业环境责任的重要性

1972年《斯德哥尔摩宣言》的签署标志着由联合国主导的世界性环境保护运动的开始。21世纪,人们对企业的社会责任越来越重视,企业社会责任的内涵也从企业对员工的责任延伸到企业对环境、社区以及客户的责任。松花江跨境污染事件提示我们应结合国际环境保护运动的背景,从道义、国内程序法和国际法三个不同角度正确认识企业环境责任的严格性和特殊性,引导企业树立科学的发展观,积极履行环境保护的法律义务和社会责任。     

第三人过错不应作为环境污染民事责任的抗辩事由

本文分析了第三人过错是过错责任侵权案件的抗辩事由,全面梳理了第三人过错在我国环境立法中的地位演变,并就第三人过错是否为环境污染民事责任抗辩事由的理论争议进行了深入的述评。提出在以后修改《海洋环境保护法》及《水污染防治法》,甚至制定专门的环境侵权责任法时,除了明确规定在所有环境污染领域第三人过错都不是抗辩事由外,还需合理地设置第三人过错污染环境民事责任的追究机制和社会化救济机制。     

The welfare courts: A socio-legal analysis of risk management through modern strict liability

The aim of the essay is to offer an adequate theoretical framework for a socio-legal analysis of risk management by the legal system. Law and risk are the two most important concepts to be clarified. Unlike the law, whose function consists in the temporal stabilisation of normative expectations, the perspective of risk is characterised by the possibility of changing the criteria for decisions based upon the evaluation of the consequences of those decisions. In the context of a modern society, characterised by an increasing demand for protection for people injured by new technologies, one observes certain difficulties in the attempt to adopt a risk perspective within the legal system. The result of this process is the new law of tort based upon the modern principles of strict liability. While strict liability can be shown to be effective in managing conflicts relating to technological accidents, its most negative effects are the increasing instability of legal structures and interference with the activities of other subsystems of society, such as medicine and the economy.     

The Design of Environmental Regimes: Social Construction, Contextuality, and Improvisation

While much of the literature on environmental regimes has focused on effectiveness, this article takes a new look at a lesser-studied topic, the evolution of regime design. Understanding how regimes differ in design, and how various factors and processes shape such design, is important if we are to more carefully craft these regimes. We should also pay close attention to the formative role of social construction and context. Focusing on transboundary marine programs, we see that their designs basically follow a common template, namely that of the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) Regional Seas Programme. However, the action of context (i.e., local actors and political processes) can modify these designs away from the common template. The extent to which these programs begin to differentiate from each other may be an important sign of program maturity and responsiveness to context. In this article, we examine a set of transboundary marine programs to uncover what the important dimensions of differentiation are. Then, we focus on one specific program, the SSME (Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion) and closely trace how its specific form and organization came about. The analysis is informed by a model of institutional coherence that portrays institutions as the product of multiple generative mechanisms (e.g., social construction, ecological fit, and others). While it is premature to make definite judgments about the relative merits of competing regime designs, the work provides us with a new mode of analysis that can provide helpful directions for institutional assessment.     

《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。     

由一起碰撞案件看船舶挂靠经营中的侵权责任

在现行法律中很难找到专门针对船舶挂靠经营的规定,这使得关于船舶挂靠经营过程中产生的侵权责任的意见难以得到统一。北海海事法院对2000年发生的一起船舶碰撞纠纷进行了审理,其中涉及对船舶挂靠经营侵权责任的处理,该判决对上述问题的解决提供有益的帮助——船舶挂靠经营是一种合法行为;就挂靠人经营中所致的侵权责任,挂靠人与被挂靠人都是责任主体,并应承担无限连带责任。     

论医疗民事责任的判定--医方承担医疗民事责任的范畴及认定标准

本文指出医方承担医疗民事责任的范围不应仅仅局限于医疗事故,还应包括其他一些因医方医疗行为所导致患者合法权益受损害的民事赔偿责任.从承担医疗违约责任和医疗侵权责任两个方面来讨论医疗民事责任,主张引进"善良注意义务"的医疗判断标准;将医方的告知义务区分为必须的告知义务与一般的告知义务,认为医方只对违反了必须的告知义务才承担相应的民事责任.     

Optimal agency contracts: The effect of vicarious liability and judicial error

Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, a deep-pocket principal is often held responsible for a third-party harm caused by a judgment-proof agent’s negligence. We analyze the incentive contract used by the principal to control the agent’s behavior when a court can make an error in determining the agent’s negligence. We show that (1) reducing the error of declaring the agent not negligent even when he was (pro-defendant or type II error) is better than reducing the error of declaring the agent negligent even when he was not (pro-plaintiff or type I error) and (2) allowing the principal to penalize the agent even when the court declares the agent not negligent improves welfare. The latter supports the argument that causing an accident (or a reliable allegation of misconduct) should be sufficient to justify a “just cause” termination of an employee.