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.     

“无责赔付”之匡正——法律解释方法的视角

＂无责赔付＂指保险人对被保险人在道路交通事故中无责任的赔偿,其中＂被保险人在道路交通事故中无责任＂因不能在法律规范上全然以象征性的语言来表达,致使＂无责赔付＂的解释混乱及其规范的合法性遭受质疑。借助法律解释的基本方法,＂无责赔付＂在法律规范上获得了＂无事故责任的赔偿＂解释结果,＂责任＂因此在机动车交通事故赔偿关系中的阐释更加清晰,交强险立法的完善方向更加明确。     

Lender Liability for Environmental Harm: An Argument Against Negligence Based Rules

A firm strictly liable for any harm done will choose an inefficiently low care level if there is a possibility that it goes bankrupt. One possibility to improve care is extending liability to secured lenders, as applied under CERCLA and as currently being discussed in the EU. I compare strict liability, partial liability and vague negligence for lenders in a model with moral hazard and environmental auditing. While auditing is socially valuable only if it increases the firm's care level, the creditor also calculates the reduction in the information rent. Thus, for each possible care level, monitoring is always too high. This effect is aggravated by a vague negligence rule, where the probability that a lender is found liable decreases in the level of auditing. It is demonstrated that partial liability is superior, because the incentive for excessive monitoring is diminished.     

论英美刑法中的严格责任及其借鉴

严格责任是英美刑法中一种特殊的刑事归责方式,是一种无罪过责任,即罪过不是犯罪构成的必要条件。而我国 学者对严格责任的认识各不相同,有的学者认为严格责任就是绝对责任;有的学者认为严格责任不同于绝对责 任,但英美刑法中既有严格责任,也有绝对责任。通过对二者的实质性探讨,从公共政策、诉讼效率及诉讼成本的 视角来考察,严格责任有其存在的必要性,英美刑法中的一些做法就值得我们借鉴吸收,我国刑法应该在一定范 围内确立严格责任犯罪。     

刑法中的推定责任制度

推定责任是严格责任的演进结果。严格责任经历了一个由绝对责任向相对责任的渐进过程。现代意义的严格责任实质上多为符合犯罪构成理论和罪刑法定原则的推定责任。我国刑法的规定是推定责任存在的根据 ,它寓意于法律语境和立法主旨之中。推定责任主要有危险型犯罪、奸淫型犯罪、持有型犯罪和腐败型犯罪。推定责任的刑事制度主要包括举证责任倒置和期待不能的免责理由两项内容。根据刑事法治的需要 ,构建我国刑法的推定责任制度已经势在必行     

我国侵权法上特殊数人侵权责任分担制度立法体例与规则研究——兼评《侵权责任法（二次审议稿）》第14条及相关条文

从法律适用规则、内部责任份额和立法技术规则等角度可以将四种数人侵权责任分担形态区分为两类：一般数人侵权责任分担形态（包括按份责任形态和连带责任形态）、特殊数人侵权责任分担形态（包括补充责任形态和不真正连带责任形态）。立法技术上,在一般规则部分对特殊数人侵权责任形态的基本制度应予以规定,而对适用过错责任或过错推定责任的侵权行为类型的补充责任形态和适用严格责任的侵权行为类型中的不真正连带责任形态应予以全面列举。     

论公平责任的适用——以对《侵权责任法》第24条的解释论研读为中心

《侵权责任法》第24条规定了作为损失分担一般规则的公平责任,其具有不同于其他国家或地区侵权法上公平责任的特征,是可以独立适用的补充性损失分担规则。公平责任的适用条件较为严格,《侵权责任法》第24条的规定应作合理化解释。损失分担时应考虑损害事实以及行为人与受害人双方的经济状况,这两种考量因素具有适用上的顺位性。     

Product Liability in the European Union: Compensation and Deterrence Issues

In Europe a common standard of strict liability has been introduced with the European directive 85/374. The implementation of this Directive has not led to an expansion of product liability cases. Moreover neither the product nor the insurance market has been dislocated as in the United States. Both the fact that most liability cases continue to be discussed under national legislation—even when it is based on liability with fault—and the different price of insurance in Eurpean Countries show that the directive did not reach its harmonisation goals. We discuss the optional provisions that limit strict liability under the directive, but claim that the scarce impact of liability laws—in spite of increasing concerns for product safety—may be due to compensation provided by the Welfare State and to the cost of access to justice in Europe. Compensation by the Welfare State is inadequate with respect to the internalisation of the cost of accidents especially when public institutions do not file claims against liable producers. Product safety regulation should have performed the deterrence function. However we also point out that the threat of reputation losses is a powerful incentive for firms to carefully control product safety, when consumers increasingly care about product quality and accidents are heavily advertised by media.JEL Classification: K13, K41     

过失相抵与无过错责任简

过失相抵是损害赔偿法中的一项基本规则,适用于所有的损害赔偿之债。在适用无过错责任的侵权行为中,除非法律另有规定,可以适用过失相抵,这是法律之公平精神与自己责任原则的要求。在可以适用过失相抵规则的无过错责任中,对该规则的适用也应有一定的限制。首先,只有当受害人对损害的发生或扩大有重大过失时,才能适用过失相抵,减轻侵权人的赔偿责任。其次,如果受害人是不完全民事行为能力人,无论是受害人本人还是其监护人对于损害的发生或扩大有过错,对侵权人赔偿责任的减轻都不得低于全部损失的一定比例。     

通行权益的冲突与平衡--以道路交通事故责任为切入点

在道路交通安全问题上,存在着行人、非机动车一方的通行安全利益与机动车方的快速、畅通利益之间的冲突.立法者应当基于现代法治、人权的理念,通过合理分配道路交通事故的风险责任以平衡双方的利益,最终实现社会利益的最大化,进而达到维护良好交通秩序的目的.     

Social Network Analysis and the Diffusion of the Strict Liability Rule for Manufacturing Defects, 1963–87

This article reports the results of a study that uses social network analysis to compare the persuasiveness of legal precedents in the diffusion of the strict liability rule for manufacturing defects. This new study tests which legal precedents were most influential and also whether certain state judicial variables influenced the diffusion process. The results are striking. The federal circuit regions appear to define an important reference group in the diffusion process, and social network effects dominate economic and political variables. In addition, the de facto separation of powers in the enactment of new state legislation appears to influence courts' propensities to adopt the strict liability rule. When the executive and legislative branches were controlled by the same political party, regardless of whether it was Republican or Democratic, state courts were more inclined to adopt the strict liability rule.     

论矿业法律责任的重构

现行矿业制度几乎没有安全与健康、环境污染、矿业相邻关系以及公权力行政等方面的重要法律责任,因而在矿山企业违法结果发生后则以人治取代法治而治不胜治,这主要是以“矿”为主的财产性《矿产资源法》法律渊源的局限。应制定以“业”为主的管制性《矿业法》,以矿山企业应承担的社会责任为依据设置第一性义务,不履行第一性义务则按第二性义务承担不利后果。第二性义务是以社会性矿业法律责任为主,与经济性、政治性法律责任等构成矿业法律责任体系。社会性矿业法律责任的民事侵权适用严格责任原则、无过错原则、因果关系推定以及并不以违法为条件等。     

严格责任论:以英美刑法为中心

刑法学界有观点认为,严格责任是结果责任、客观归罪的典型,应予彻底否定。刑事严格责任起源于英美法国家,我国《刑法》中并无这一概念。要对刑事严格责任进行评判,应当充分了解其存在的背景、内涵及其价值基础,否则,作出的结论往往是不尽妥当的。英美刑法中,严格责任的适用受到了种种条件的限制,不同于绝对责任,更非结果责任或者客观归罪,有其存在的价值基础。     

Proving liability for highly and fully automated vehicle accidents in Australia

This article considers how liability questions will be resolved under current Australian laws for automated vehicle (‘AV’) accidents. In terms of the parties that are likely to be held responsible, I argue that whether the human driver remains liable depends on the degree to which the relevant AV is automated, and the degree of control the human driver had over the events leading up to the particular accident. Assuming therefore that human drivers would not be held liable for the majority of highly and fully automated vehicle accidents, plaintiffs will have to establish liability on part of those who manufacture, maintain or contribute to the operation of AVs, under the claims available in Australia's product liability regime.This article then turns to the problems of proof that plaintiffs are likely to face in establishing AV manufacturer liability in negligence, or in a defective goods claim under Part 3–5 of the Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’). Firstly, it may be difficult to determine the cause of the AV accident, due to the technical complexity of AVs and due to ongoing concerns as to the explainability of AI-decision making. Secondly, plaintiffs may struggle to prove fault in a negligence claim, or that the vehicle was defective for the purposes of Part 3–5 of the ACL. Essentially, under both actions, manufacturers will be held to a duty to undertake reasonable testing of their AVs. Given that it is currently impracticable to completely test for, and eliminate all AV errors, and due to the broader social utility the technology is likely to offer, plaintiffs may face evidentiary challenges in proving that the manufacturer's testing was unreasonable.     

论法律责任的历史发展

法律责任经历了三个历史发展过程 :从原始行为规则中的某些保护性习惯 ,发展为阶级社会的法律责任制度 ;由客观责任发展为主客观相统一的责任 ;由团体责任发展为个人责任     

The development of care technology under liability law

It is well known that strict liability and negligence induce pareto optimal care in a most restrictive model of unilateral accidents. The paper at hand extends this traditional theorem from its static context to an intertemporal setting where tort law induces progress in care technology. This model provides a methodological framework for a general analysis of the dynamic incentives generated by alternative liability rules. One of the many possible extensions of the basic model is to allow for incomplete information. Particularly, we drop the assumption that the authority setting the due care standard under negligence is able to assess technical progress ex ante. It is shown that the dynamic incentives of the negligence rule are distorted compared to strict liability in this modified framework.     

论道路交通事故损害赔偿责任归责原则的博弈分析

道路交通事故责任分担关系到社会资源配置的公正与效率。从博弈论的研究视角出发,比较了多种不同的责任制度。交通事故责任规则能否达到预期目的,主要取决于该规则对行为人产生的激励和约束效应。     

论单独侵权致同一损害适用按份责任的例外

单独侵权不足以致全部损害时,应适用连带责任还是按份责任并无定论。连带责任将部分侵权人不能清偿的风险转嫁给其他侵权人,有利于保护受害人,却让过错比例较小的侵权人承担过重的责任;按份责任可避免过错程度与责任不相称,却将部分侵权人不能清偿的风险转移给原告。这使连带责任或按份责任作为一般规则设置例外显得必要,由此形成两种模式:连带责任为一般规则、按份责任为例外与按份责任为一般规则、连带责任为例外。多数国家采纳前者,我国采纳后者。排除政策性连带责任,网络服务提供者承担连带责任属于我国"按份责任"一般规则的例外,但其适当性欠妥,司法实践将环境侵权、医疗侵权作为例外情形有其合理性。     

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.     

Victim interdependence in the accident setting

This paper considers the case in which potential victims affect each other by taking care. Analyzing standard liability rules, we show that the rule of strict liability with a defense of contributory negligence is in the best position to induce the efficient outcome, i.e., this liability rule ensures efficiency if victims affect each other negatively, that is care by one victim increases the accident exposure of other victims. This rule also makes attainment likely if victims affect each other positively, that is if care by one victim decreases the accident exposure of other victims. In contrast, other standard liability rules fail to induce first-best care.