Strict Liability for Police Nonfeasance? The Kinghan Report on the Riot (Damages) Act 1886

The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 imposes a no‐fault obligation on police forces to compensate owners of property damaged in rioting. Following the riots across England in 2011 an independent Home Office review, the Kinghan Report, concluded that the fundamental principle of the Act should be retained, while the machinery should be modernised. The Report conceives of the Act as a useful, if highly unusual, compensation scheme that may ease socio‐economic problems in riot‐prone areas. This article questions that position. Strict liability offers potential advantages in contentious claims against public authorities, providing an incentive for the police to perform their duty to keep the peace while averting the questioning of police decision‐making that claims in negligence would inevitably require. The best alternative to negligence liability might not be ‘no liability’ (the general position now at common law), or liability based on ‘serious fault’ (as the Law Commission proposed in 2008), but liability without fault.     

Many Duties of Care--Or A Duty of Care? Notes from the Underground

In the course of attacking the idea that the concept of theduty of care can be dispensed with and replaced by a view ofnegligence that deals only with fault and causation, criticshave revived the notion that there are many duties of care.This article argues that the idea of many duties of care isunworkable, but that there is no need to revive such an ideato avoid falling into the view that the whole concept of theduty of care can be discarded. It argues instead for a unifiedview of the duty of care as a single duty. It also argues fora new analysis of negligence, facilitated by the one-duty view,which does see fault as central to negligence but which, insteadof discarding duty, sees arguments about duty as about whetherthe defendant should be permitted to act unreasonably. The articledefends the one-duty view and the new analysis of negligenceagainst the relational view of negligence and against chargesthat it is motivated by a desire for unity between English andFrench law, that it would be incompatible with the conventionaleconomic analysis of tort law (in the course of which it suggestsan economic analysis of the duty of care), and that, unlikethe no-duty view or the many-duties view, it fails to articulatea coherent view of the relationship between freedom and community.     

Bonnieview v. Woodmont: Court Sorts out Environmental Liability between Homeowners and Developers

Bonnieview Homeowners Ass’n v. Woodmont Builders, LLC,—F. Supp. 2d—, No. Civ. A. 03CV4317(DRD), 2009 WL 2999355 (D.N.J. Sept. 22, 2009), was a suit brought by a homeowners’ association and its individual members against the developers of the property where their homes were located and the municipality. In a recent opinion, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey made several important rulings applying federal and state environmental statutes and common law. First, the developers were potentially liable to plaintiffs under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), where their soil grading and stockpiling activities distributed previously contaminated soil around the site, which had been used as a fruit orchard. Second, however, the court prohibited plaintiffs from recovering under CERCLA or New Jersey's Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) because they had not incurred any environmental cleanup costs compensable under the two statutes. Third, plaintiffs were innocent purchasers not subject to CERCLA liability under a 2002 amendment to the statute. A negligence claim against the municipality failed, however, because the municipality owed no duty of care to plaintiffs. The court also assessed plaintiffs' other federal and state statutory and common law claims.     

Legislating Dangerously: Bad Samaritans,Good Society,and the Heroism Act 2015

The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 is a troublesome statute. The Act requires that, when considering a claim brought against a defendant in negligence or for breach of statutory duty, the court must assess whether that party was ‘acting for the benefit of society or any of its members’ (section 2), or ‘demonstrated a predominantly responsible approach towards protecting the safety or interests of others’ (section 3), or was ‘acting heroically’ (section 4). However laudable the Coalition Government's attempts to foster a ‘Big Society’ might have been, this enactment was not the proper vehicle to achieve it. Some provisions merely repeat longstanding common law principles. Others may have been intended to amend the common law to encourage ‘good citizenship’, but fall well short of that aim. And some aspects of the Act's drafting have the (perhaps unintended) potential to sit uncomfortably with established common law negligence principles.     

Decriminalisation of abortion performed by qualified health practitioners under the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Vic)

In 2008, the Victorian Parliament enacted the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Vic) and amended the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) to decriminalise terminations of pregnancy while making it a criminal offence for unqualified persons to carry out such procedures. The reform legislation has imposed a civil regulatory regime on the management of abortions, and has stipulated particular statutory duties of care for registered qualified health care practitioners who have conscientious objections to terminations of pregnancy. The background to, and the structure of, this novel statutory regime is examined, with a focus on conscientious objection clauses and liability in the tort of negligence and the tort of breach of statutory duty.     

行政法规范之违反与过失实行行为之认定——基于新过失论的阐释

讨论行政法规范之违反与过失实行行为之认定的关系,对于我国过失犯罪,特别是业务过失犯罪的认定,有重大意义。对此,应当从不同的过失犯构造理论出发,做体系性思考。立足于行为无价值的新过失论,将过失实行行为定义为违反结果回避义务,不仅能合理限制过失不法的范围,理论立场上也更为首尾一贯;而且通过注意义务的类型化,更能贯彻刑法的自由保障功能和法益保护功能。在新过失论的框架下,行政法规范上的义务和刑法上的注意义务在范围、性质上均有不同,但也存在相同之处:前者的危险防止义务是以定型的危险为前提而课予一般人的义务,后者则是以个案事态为前提而课予(处于行为人地位的)一般人的义务。违反不以避免构成要件结果为指向的行政法规范上的义务,并不构成对刑法上注意义务的违反。而违反以避免构成要件结果为指向的行政法规范上的义务,如果该义务对于个案中的结果回避是必要的或不足的,则构成对刑法上注意义务的违反;如果该义务对于个案中的结果回避是不必要的、可替代的,或者会起消极作用,则不违反刑法上的注意义务。     

论医学人体试验中的侵权责任——以比较法为视角

当前我国立法与司法未对医学人体试验侵权责任与医疗损害责任加以区分,对其归责原则和因果关系也有不同认识。在美国,法院渐趋认可人体试验侵权责任为独立诉因,在过错和因果关系的认定上,则分别有主观说和客观说等不同的观点。大陆法系国家中,法国将人体试验侵权责任作为一种特殊侵权,并区分治疗性试验和非治疗性试验分别适用过错责任原则和无过错责任原则。德国将人体试验作为一般过错侵权,并在涉及药品的案件中适用产品责任。荷兰将人体试验侵权责任作为一种独立的侵权责任,并适用过错责任原则。晚近的立陶宛《生物医学试验法》规定了人体试验侵权的无过错责任。我国应当构建独立于医疗侵权责任的人体试验侵权责任,其归责原则为过错责任原则。在因果关系问题上,应当采取相当因果关系、疫学原理因果关系以及因果关系推定理论来进行综合判断。     

A shot in the arm for the military: consent to immunisation against biological warfare agents

The risk to Britain's Armed Forces from Biological Warfare (BW) is low but without protection their use would be devastating. Available protective measures include immunisation. The Government owes a legal duty of care to Servicemen to provide protection against a range of hazards, including those of BW. The State also owes Servicemen a duty of care to allow free and informed consent or free and informed refusal to medical procedures, including immunisation. However, refusal by key personnel to accept BW immunisation could degrade operational capability. Resolution between these two, potentially conflicting, duties of care may be controversial. To override a soldier's expressed interests would rank society's needs higher than those of the individual. Yet there are circumstances, such as exposure of Servicemen to BW used by an aggressor, where this would be ethically acceptable. The State's interests, combined with the best interests of the Servicemen, provide adequate ethical argument for both occupational immunisation (where it is an entry criterion for the Armed Forces) and mandatory immunisation (where disciplinary action may be taken against the non-compliant). Historically, both approaches have been used for public health immunisations and the legal framework already exists for both.     

The negligence of prison authorities and the protection of prisoner’s rights

This article looks at the potential for legal action brought by prisoners (and their dependants) who have suffered from the alleged neglect of the prison authorities. The article will examine the case law in this area to assess the success of prisoners’ negligence claims and whether such claims are unduly fettered by judicial attitudes and other more practical issues such as the difficulty in establishing a breach of duty. In particular the article will consider whether the law and its application has been, or should be, modified in the light of new obligations imposed on public authorities, including the courts, by the Human Rights Act 1998 and by the developing case law of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Convention rights such as the right to life and freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment.     

我国医疗损害责任中医务人员注意义务的标准

医务人员的注意义务是衡量其在医疗活动中是否存在过失的前提，我国即将实施的《侵权责任法》对医务人员的注意义务的标准未作详尽规定，本文通过比较普通法系国家和日本相关的规定，从而指出我国医务人员的注意义务的标准。     

美国无救助义务规则的修正

无救助义务是美国传统侵权法上的一项重要规则。由于社会组织结构的精细化使人与人之间的关系更加紧密了,容易出现牵一发而动全身的局面,如果还任由人们对他人的困境无动于衷可能会造成无法挽回的严重后果,加之作为与不作为的区分越来越小,故美国选择了一条侵权过失责任的改良道路,主张不作为不应该成为被告承担过失责任的障碍。而美国的司法判例和立法经验也告诉我们,一般无救助义务规则正经受两方面的侵蚀:一是扩大特殊救助义务的范围;二是通过制定法律承认一般救助义务。     

共同过失犯初论

所谓共同过失犯是指 ,在具有共同注意义务的场合 ,二人以上的行为人由于过失违反自己的注意义务 ,共同引起基本内容相同的违法结果的一种犯罪形态。共同过失犯的成立 ,除了要具有共同犯罪的主体条件外 ,还必须符合一定的客观条件和主观条件。同时 ,必须注意共同过失犯与“过失共同犯”的不同。     

注意规范保护目的与交通过失犯的成立

交通过失犯的本质应是结果回避义务,判断该义务之有无应以预见因果关系为内容的结果预见可能性为前提;注意规范保护目的是判断此种因果关系成立与否的理论,只有当行为人违反了注意规范保护目的而致损害法益结果发生时才能成立交通过失犯。注意规范保护目的是以作为刑法规范下位规则的交通法规为基础的可普遍适用于交通过失犯的判断标准,它属于交通过失犯中的违法要素,使用它无须通过客观归责理论。注意规范保护目的理论能合理限定交通过失犯的成立范围,有效克服我国司法实践中普遍存在的以交通事故责任书直接作为刑法上交通过失犯成立依据的不妥做法。     

战争罪的国内立法研究

战争罪是在战争或者武装冲突中发生的违反战争法规、严重侵犯人权的罪行。战争罪主要是国际法上的罪行,但国内法院也承担着追究战争罪罪犯刑事责任的重要任务。将我国缔结的国际公约里规定的战争罪转化为国内刑法上的犯罪,是我国作为缔约国应当履行的条约义务。但我国《刑法》只有第446条和第448条规定的两个犯罪才基本符合国际法对于战争罪的定义。我国《刑法》应当专章设立“危害人类和平与安全罪”,使其包括战争罪等核心罪行,这样可以更好地维护我国的刑事管辖权,有效地避免我国公民受到国际刑事法庭的审判,以便享受《国际刑事法院规约》补充管辖原则提供的益处。     

医疗过失鉴定需遵循的原则

医疗纠纷解决中的核心问题是医疗过失的技术鉴定问题,在鉴定实务中,确立判定医疗过失的原则,则是此核心中的核心。本文旨在探讨医疗过失评判的基本原则,以期规范和指导相关鉴定工作。作者认为,这些原则应包括:(1)遵循专业性判断的原则;(2)以注意义务作为医疗过失判断基准的原则;(3)以是否尽到与当时的医疗水平相应的诊疗义务为审查原则;(4)对医疗紧急处置行为的宽泛性原则;(5)告知-知情-同意的原则;(6)并发症的审查原则;(7)医疗意外的免责原则等。     

Reasonable Care: Equality as Objectivity

The most compelling defense of the standard of reasonable care in negligence law casts itself in terms of equality. This commitment to equality may paradoxically turn out to be flatly inegalitarian. This is because it discriminates against the less capable through ignoring their deficient capabilities (and so against their chances of meeting the standard of reasonable care successfully). A promising, though still unfamiliar, way to revive the egalitarian aspirations of reasonable care would be to show that imposing the standard of reasonable care even on the less competent expresses, rather than inhibits, a true devotion to equality. I seek to make this showing, and thus to reclaim for this standard of care its egalitarian foundations more adequately than has so far been proposed.     

论医疗事故罪的主观方面

本文从医务人员的注意义务、注意能力以及法学理论与司法实践的冲突三个角度论述了医疗事故罪的主观方面。对医务人员诊疗中注意义务及其程度的制定标准应当综合考量多种因素 ;在认定医务人员的注意能力时 ,应采用客观说 ;并建议在医疗事故罪的主观定性方面 ,应以危害结果的发生不违背行为人的本意作为区分故意与过失的界限     

'Caparo Under Fire': a Study into the Effects upon the Fire Service of Liability in Negligence

This article discusses a research project which aimed to analyse the relationship between judicial pronouncements over the likely effects upon a defendant of the imposition of a duty of care in negligence, and any effects in practice. Empirical research was carried out to ascertain the effect upon the fire service of the Court of Appeal decision in Capital and Counties and Digital Equipment v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004. This decision imposed a duty of care upon fire services to avoid making mistakes whilst fighting fires which might cause the fire to become more serious. The findings of the project are drawn upon to make observations regarding how the courts presently apply the third limb of the three stage test of duty of care derived from Caparo v Dickman, which asks whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.     

Payment method for health care services under the Supplemental Health Care Program for Active Duty Members of the Uniformed Services; adoption of CHAMPUS procedures--DoD. Final rule

This final rule partially implements 10 U.S.C. 1074(c), as amended by section 729 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, Public Law 101-189. The recent amendment authorizes the Department of Defense to establish for the active duty supplemental care program payment rules similar to those used under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS). The supplemental care program is the program which provides for the payment to civilian (non federal-governmental) health care providers for care provided to active duty members of the uniformed services. This final rule would adopt CHAMPUS payment amounts for the supplemental care program.     

Deemed duration of marriage for widows/widowers and removal of restriction on benefits to children of military parents overseas. Final rules

We are issuing these final rules to reflect in our regulations changes to the Social Security Act (the Act) made by two provisions in the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA), enacted on March 2, 2004. One provision added a new situation in which the 9-month duration-of-marriage requirement for surviving spouses under title II of the Act is deemed to have been met. The other provision removed a restriction against payment of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, under title XVI of the Act, to certain blind or disabled children who were not eligible for SSI benefits the month before their military parents reported for duty outside the United States.