The Uneasy Case for Comparative Negligence

This article questions, and in some contexts disproves, thevalidity of the efficiency justifications for the comparativenegligence rule. One argument in the literature suggests thatcomparative negligence is the superior rule in the presenceof court errors. The analysis here shows the analytical flawin this claim and conducts numerical simulations — a formof synthetic "empirical" tests — that prove the potentialsuperiority of other rules. The second argument in the literaturein favor of the comparative negligence rule is based on itsalleged superior ability to deal with private information. Thisarticle develops a general approach to liability rules as mechanismsthat induce self-selection among actors. It then shows thatself-selection can occur, not only under comparative negligence,but also under every other negligence rule. These conclusionsweaken the efficiency explanation for the growing appeal ofthe "division-of-liability" principle within tort law and beyond.     

Environmental liability and harmonization in the presence of transboundary effects and hidden assets

Within the context of transboundary disputes, this paper seeks to determine which liability concept, negligence or strict liability, performs better when assets are secure against foreign claims for transboundary damages. Our results indicate that, if assets are hidden from foreign claims, strict liability will not implement the socially optimal outcome, but neither will negligence. However, even though the socially optimal outcome is not always achieved, strict liability weakly dominates negligence. These results suggest that the harmonization of statues that deal with transboundary pollution should be based on strict liability not negligence. JEL classification K32 · Q5 Smith and Eckert both thank SSHRC of Canada for financial assistance. We thank two referees for valuable comments that greatly improved the paper and Matt Smith for his research assistance. All remaining errors are our responsibility.     

从法医角度看医疗纠纷及其产生的原因与防范

从医疗纠纷鉴定人角度研究医疗纠纷,为相关机构防范医疗纠纷提供思路。医疗纠纷是多种原因引起的,一般采用诉讼方式解决。法医在医疗纠纷的解决中扮演重要角色。在医疗纠纷鉴定中要判定诊疗行为对患者造成的损害后果,判定诊疗行为是否存在医疗过失,判定医疗过失与损害后果之间的因果关系．正确地进行死因分析和证据的取舍认定。在引起医疗纠纷的原因中,以技术性、责任心、医患交流不足等方面的原因居多。医护人员应提高自身的业务水平、责任心及服务质量;加强医患交流,建立畅通的医患沟通渠道;增强自我法律防护意识,建立健全的医疗规章管理制度。     

Negligence standards and care levels when damages depend on sales prices

In standard models on negligence rules, due care levels can be used for fine-tuning the care levels of potential injurers, and there are good arguments why care levels should vary among different fields. We extend the analysis of the impact of due care on care actually chosen to situations where damages depend on sales prices. This is the case for many contractual relationships, but also for damages on capital markets which are usually calculated as the difference between share prices paid and share prices after the adverse information becomes public. In a model with errors in court, we show that tighter negligence standards may even reduce care levels chosen by potential injurers under reasonable circumstances. Due to this counter-intuitive effect, negligence standards can hardly be applied for fine-tuning the care levels of potential injurers when damages depend on prices.     

Prosecuting 'Gross' Medical Negligence: Manslaughter, Discretion, and the Crown Prosecution Service

This article examines prosecutions of health care professionals for gross negligence manslaughter following fatal errors committed in the course of their work. Unease has long surrounded the use of 'gross negligence' as a form of criminal liability, and particularly as it applies to health care professions operating in high-risk settings. The recent dramatic rise of such prosecutions calls for a closer understanding of the processes by which important prosecutorial decisions are made. In particular, this calls for an investigation into the exercise of discretion by prosecutors in interpreting the loosely defined and contested concept of gross negligence. This article analyses data obtained from a statistical analysis of 'medical manslaughter' cases and also from interviews with crown prosecutors. Discussion of the main findings leads to the conclusion that the offence of gross negligence manslaughter is incapable of any objective and fair measurement and ought to be abolished.     

业务过失的刑法惩处不必重于普通过失

业务过失的刑法惩处重于普通过失是传统过失犯领域中的铁则,但业务范围的持续扩张使得业务过失与普通过失的边界不清,这造成了这一铁则在司法适用上的异议。更为关键的是,这一铁则的正当性在遭受批判后,为之辩解和反驳的观点始终给不出有说服力的理由。业务过失(犯罪)是我国刑法中的重要类型,但我国刑法未遵守这一铁则,立法者根据现代业务过失(犯罪)的特点作出了契合我国实际的规定,这使得它的法定刑轻重有度。因此,以这一铁则为标尺来评判我国刑法中的业务过失(犯罪)规定并不妥当。并且,业务过失的惩处重于普通过失不是我国业务过失犯罪刑事立法的发展方向。     

The Relationship of Alternative Negligence Rules to Litigation Behavior and Tort Claim Disposition

Recently most states have abandoned the traditional tort defense of contributory negligence and substituted a form of comparative negligence. Using an extensive data set of auto accident injury claims, we provide evidence on the relationship between negligence rules and claimants' litigation decisions to retain attorneys, file lawsuits and litigate versus settle out of court. Litigation choices appear to be rational responses to the varying incentives created by alternative tort standards. We find that in contrast to comparative negligence, claims arising under comparative negligence are associated with greater probabilities of attorney involvement, higher average award levels, and longer delays in securing payment. Only 37% of claims involving attorneys in contributory negligence states result in a lawsuit being filed compared to 49% and 47% under the pure and modified forms of comparative negligence, respectively. The study provides the first statistical evidence on the litigation costs of the new forms of comparative negligence.     

日本环境侵权法的发展

日本的环境侵权法并非单纯由过失责任原则直接发展为无过失责任原则 ,而是经历了从客观过失理论到过失推定 ,再从过失推定到无过失责任主义的演进过程。日本法制在环境侵权的私法救济上将损害赔偿与排除侵害分割开来 ,各自开创新说。且排除侵害制度的重心在于权利本身 ,即对何种权利于何种程度上承认排除侵害请求权。     

The Good,the Bad,and the Klutzy: Criminal Negligence and Moral Concern

One proposed way of preserving the link between criminal negligence and blameworthiness is to define criminal negligence in moral terms. On this view, a person can be held criminally responsible for a negligent act if her negligence reflects a deficit of moral concern. Some theorists are convinced that this definition restores the link between negligence and blameworthiness, while others insist that criminal negligence remains suspect. This article contributes to the discussion by applying the work of ethicist Nomy Arpaly to criminal negligence. Although not interested in legal issues herself, Arpaly has a well-developed theory of moral agency that explains moral concern in terms of responsiveness to moral reasons. Introducing her work to the ongoing scholarly debate will be helpful for two reasons. First, while a definition of negligence in terms of moral concern is recognized as one proposed solution to the negligence–blameworthiness problem, authors promoting it have yet to give a systematic account of moral concern and its relation to blame. Borrowing Arpaly's account will help clarify the idea of moral concern so that both proponents and critics of a concern approach to negligence can have a better-defined debate. Second, her theory of blameworthiness is especially suited to defending the blameworthiness of negligent actions, because it does not have recourse to a special quality of choice or self-control that must be active to render conduct blameworthy. To make this second advantage clear, the article argues that reliance on choice or self-control problematizes blameworthiness for negligence. Those who wish to defend blameworthiness for negligent acts should base their work on an account of moral agency that does not rely on either choice or self-control to explain when an action is blameworthy.     

破解疏忽大意过失罪过性的两难之题

对当前流行于世的各种说明疏忽大意过失罪过性的见解进行认真的推敲,充分表明在传统罪过理论的语境中,疏忽大意过失的罪过性实在是一个两难之题.立足于疏忽大意过失是有意识的前提,通过分析其罪过性不在认识因素和意志因素,最终得出,情感因素是疏忽大意过失心理中唯一值得谴责的心理因素.     

渎职犯罪型过失的种类划分

本文以犯罪过失分类方法为基础,突出渎职犯罪型过失的特点,将渎职犯罪型过失划分为职务上的疏忽大意过失与职务上的过于自信过失,职务事实过失与职务法律过失,职务纯正过失与职务非纯正过失。     

Negligence and Human Rights Law: The Case for Separate Development

A number of judges and academics have argued in favour of the convergence of negligence law with human rights law. By contrast, the thesis of this article is that the two legal orders should develop independently, so that for the most part the law of negligence ought not to be affected by human rights considerations. It is argued that the case for convergence is based on two false assumptions, namely that human rights law and negligence law perform similar functions within our legal order and that the norms of human rights law are more fundamental than the norms encapsulated in negligence law. It is also argued that convergence would undermine the coherence of negligence law. Ultimately, the case for separate development rests on the desirability of recognising public law and private law as autonomous normative systems with their own distinctive rationales, concepts and core principles.     

医疗过失简论

传统过失犯理论(旧过失论)实质是以“结果无价值论”为其理论基础的。对医疗过失的认定方式无异于对医务人员课以事实上的绝对责任,不利于医学的发展及社会生活的进步。以容许危险理论为基础的新过失论,不仅重视结果无价值,更引入了行为无价值,从而缓和了过失犯的成立,对医疗事故的责任认定方式具有指导意义。     

Negligence, Belief, Blame and Criminal Liability: The Special Case of Forgetting

Commentators seemingly agree about what negligence is—and how it is contrasted from recklessness. They also appear to concur about whether particular examples (both real and hypothetical) portray negligence. I am less confident about each of these matters. I explore the distinction between recklessness and negligence by examining a type of case that has generated a good deal of critical discussion: those in which a defendant forgets that he has created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm. Even in this limited kind of example, no single perspective on blame and liability proves to be defensible. Nonetheless, a discussion of this type of case is helpful because it enables us to appreciate the difficulties in understanding the nature of negligence and the ensuing uncertainty about whether penal liability for negligence is ever warranted.     

Medico-legal assessment of malpractice under the Austrian penal code

In recent years, Austria has seen some change in the approach to errors in medical practice. The privileged position of the medical practitioner within the meaning of the former penal code, in force till 1974, no longer exists; however, errors leading to insignificant damage to the patient's health may remain free from punishment. In any case, nowadays, the categories of the dogmatics of negligence are applied to the doctor's professional activity. The traditional concept of 'malpractice' as formerly applied has virtually been displaced from the medico-legal assessment of an error in medical practice. The patient-doctor relationship based on trust is increasingly being supplemented by legal norms. Accordingly, the doctor's liability appears increasingly as the doctor's typical professional risk. Yet, in Austria, the doctor's liability is still kept within limits. The situation, with some cases in point, is analysed and described.     

信赖原则及其在过失犯罪中的运用

信赖原则在过失犯罪理论中占据重要的地位 ,它是传统过失犯理论适应发展变化了的现实生活需要的必然结果。信赖原则对过失犯罪的认定、对过失犯罪行为人刑事责任的承担等具有重要的理论和实践意义。     

论英美刑法中的犯罪疏忽

一、犯罪疏忽的概念和特征(一 )犯罪疏忽 (CriminalNegligence)的含义英国法律委员会在其工作文件中对犯罪疏忽是做如下定义的 ,“如果某人没能象作为一个正常人在他的情况下那样 ,对其行为给予注意 ,发挥技能或者进行预见 ,那么 ,他就是疏忽的。”① 也就是说 ,疏忽是行为人有责任履行某种注意标准 ,但没能达到这种标准 ;以及 ,行为人没能像正常人或者谨慎的人那样 ,在法律要求实施合理行为的情况下合理地实施其行为。因此 ,“疏忽是关于行为标准的要求 ,含有疏于思考、而非心理状态的内容 ,很少成为严重刑事犯罪的要素。”②美国法学会在…     

共同过失犯罪中的违反共同注意义务研究

传统刑法理论是否认共同过失犯罪的,理论研究的发展使刑法学界已不能回避共同过失犯罪的存在.明确违反共同注意义务在共同过失犯罪中的核心地位,准确划分违反共同注意义务的判断对象,正确认识违反共同注意义务的共同过失与竞合过失的区别,对纠正传统理论对共同过失犯罪的误解,建立和完善共同过失罪理论体系有重要的意义.     

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。     

论共同过失犯罪

关于共同过失犯罪问题,刑法理论界和司法实践部门聚讼颇多,特别是围绕共同过失犯罪能否成立共同犯罪的问题,国内外刑法理论界更是长期存在着肯定与否定之争,难以形成基本的共识。面对我国现代社会发展的新形势,立足于刑事司法实践,借鉴于前人的研究成果,应从正确贯彻刑事政策、完善刑法理论、正确理解共同过失的构造、正确追究刑事责任、兼顾诉讼便利等方面确认共同过失犯罪应当成立共同犯罪。