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.     

英美法对医疗过失的判定原则及对我国的启示

过失是医疗损害责任认定中最为重要的条件,如何确定过失是医疗纠纷和诉讼中最为关键的问题。我国在该问题上的研究及实践均存有欠缺之处,而英美国家在过失判定原则中,其注意义务标准的设定和认定具有一定的合理之处,对我国医疗过失理论研究和司法实践均有借鉴作用。     

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。     

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。     

注册会计师的过失责任:连带责任抑或比例责任

对于注册会计师的过失责任应适用连带责任还是比例责任,目前理论界存在争议,而这一问题对于注册会计师的法律风险具有相当大的影响。从西方来看,更多地采用连带责任,但近年来,以美国为代表,正表现出逐渐从连带责任向比例责任的转变的趋势。我国目前有关法律亦采用连带责任,但从我国注册会计师的执业环境来看,连带责任将使注册会计师承担过高的法律风险,因此,对于注册会计师的过失责任采用比例责任可能更为合适。     

法国法上的重大过错——兼论对中国法的参照意义

法国法上的重大过错包括重大过失、不可原谅之过失以及故意或欺诈性过错。重大过失主要意义在于部分场合下排除责任限制条款的适用;不可原谅之过失主要适用于劳动事故及职业病、运输损害、交通事故领域,用以加重行为人责任或削减受害人权利;故意或欺诈性过错之意义在于一般性地排除责任限制条款的适用。三种过错的识别,从侧重客观因素的考察到侧重主观因素的考察。基于法国法的相关经验,我国《合同法》第113条及《工伤保险条例》相关规定均有值得检讨之处。     

Scope of liability: the vanishing distinction between negligence and strict liability

The duty-of-care requirement cannot be used anymore as the touchstone to differentiate negligence from strict liability because it can be found in many forms of the latter. Duty of care is smuggled into strict liability hidden under the scope of liability requirement (traditionally called “proximate causation”). As far as the scope of liability requirement is common to negligence and to many forms of strict liability, there is a fairly large common ground to both liability rules, and consequently the marginal Hand formula is applied to both rules. Indeed, under a negligence rule, the marginal Hand formula is applied twice: first to assess whether or not the defendant did breach his or her duty of care, and, second, to delimit whether or not the defendant’s behavior was a proximate cause of the harm suffered by the victim. However, under a strict liability rule, the Hand formula is applied only once when the proximate causation question is raised. Traditional law and economics analysis has almost always taken the normative question raised by the causation requirement as given, which is a potential major problem due to the importance of scope of liability or proximate causation in legal practice. Defining the scope of liability, that is to say, the boundaries of the pool of potential defendants, is the basic legal policy decision for each and every liability rule. In the normative model presented in this paper, the government first chooses efficient scope of liability, and given the scope of liability, the government then decides the liability rule and damages that guarantee efficient precaution. In the article, most known scope of liability rationales developed by both common law and civil law systems are discussed in order to show the substantial common ground between negligence and strict liability.     

The challenge of public law law reform: reflections on a failed Law Commission project

This article reviews the history of the Law Commission project on administrative law and the citizen from 2003, a project which the Law Commission essentially substantively ended in 2010. The project provides lessons both about the initiation and design of law reform projects and on the prospect of law reform being institutionally capable of contributing to the development of core areas of public law.     

共同过失命题之证伪

共同过失这个命题是共同侵权制度据以扩张解释的一个理论假设。然而目前所有关于共同过失的观点及其论证都是不成立的。共同过失就其实质而言,属于无意思联络的数人过失侵权,按照目前侵权责任法的规定,数人应对受害人承担按份责任。然而共同过失这个理论假设不适当地扩张了共同侵权行为的范围,并导致了连带责任制度被滥用。     

通过现有规范解决自动驾驶汽车肇事之刑事责任归属问题

以自动驾驶汽车为代表的人工智能产品在给我们带来便利的同时也带来了新的法律问题。为了解决自动驾驶汽车肇事的刑事责任问题,学者或是承认自动驾驶汽车的犯罪主体地位,或是建议修改刑法增设罪名。实际上,既有的刑事法律规范足以解决自动驾驶汽车肇事的刑事责任归属问题。自动驾驶汽车的驾驶人未尽到合理注意义务的,承担过失责任;制造单位生产的自动驾驶汽车存在缺陷或者明知有缺陷而未召回的,承担产品质量相关的刑事责任;使用人发现自动驾驶汽车存在缺陷继续使用的,承担监管过失责任;入侵智能驾驶系统或者利用自动驾驶汽车实施犯罪的,承担故意犯罪的刑事责任。现阶段应克服刑事立法冲动,在既有的刑事法律规范体系内寻求解决方案,更具有现实意义。     

现代侵权行为法中过错责任原则的发展

过错责任原则是侵权行为法中一项基本归责原则,但是随着社会的发展,从近代侵权行为法到现代侵权行为法的发展中,过错责任原则也出现了一些值得注意的新发展,主要表现为过失的客观化、过失推定以及违法视为过失。     

Reforming Liability for Psychiatric Injury in Scotland: A Recipe for Uncertainty?

It is widely acknowledged that the common law rules governing liability for psychiatric injury in the United Kingdom are in an unsatisfactory state. The Scottish Law Commission has now published a report, Damages for Psychiatric Injury (Scot Law Com No 196, 2004), which recommends wholesale statutory reform of this area of the law. In this paper, the report is summarised, and its recommendations subjected to detailed critical analysis. It is concluded that, while the proposed statutory scheme is both coherent and imaginative, the Commission's consistent preference for flexible, fact-oriented rules means that implementation of the report's recommendations could give rise to an unacceptable degree of uncertainty.     

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.     

Judicial review,litigation effects and the ombudsman

Abstract

Judicial review is widely understood to be a remedy of last resort, but there remains little research on the extent to which the process can achieve meaningful redress. This article applies the results of a study into ombudsman judicial review to chart the outputs of the various stages of the process at which an outcome can be secured. The claim is made that ombudsman judicial review does secure a small level of success for claimants both in and out of court but that the rate of such success is lower for citizen claimants than the norm in all judicial review cases. The explanation provided for this pattern is that organisationally ombudsman schemes have learnt lessons from being repeat players in judicial review and are better equipped to integrate rule of law values than many other public bodies. Citizen claimants, by contrast, include a high proportion of inexperienced litigants-in-person for which the judicial review process is ill-designed to facilitate.     

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。     

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。     

缔约过失责任概念辨析

通过对缔约过失责任传统理论的探讨,从缔约过失责任适用的空间、时间范围,结合我国法律的有关规定,阐明了对缔约过失责任的理解,界定了我国现行法律中规定的缔约过失责任的概念。并就概念的效力确定、法定性及相对性的理解等诸多方面做了论述,阐明了缔约过失责任对民法理论发展的理论意义及实践意义。     

公共政策、医疗行为与责任配置——关于医疗损害责任制度绩效的观察和评论

从法政策学的角度对侵权责任的制度绩效进行观察和验证,是后侵权责任立法时期中国民法学的重要学术使命之一。本文以医疗损害责任为分析对象,竭力展示公共政策与责任配置之间的微妙关系。研究表明,现阶段公共卫生政策的实质是通过加强管制约束来提高医疗服务的质与量。在此背景下,医疗损害责任的功能定位只能是激励而非补偿;且由于医疗服务自身的特性,相关责任配置的隐性激励作用更加突出。我国现行医疗损害责任在归责原则、责任形态和损失分摊方面分别存在激励不足、不当管制和风险无关的缺陷,极有可能导致制度失灵、立法目的落空,亟需加以改进。     

Can Strict Criminal Liability for Responsible Corporate Officers be Justified by the Duty to Use Extraordinary Care?

The responsible corporate officer (RCO) doctrine is, as a formal matter, an instance of strict criminal liability: the government need not prove the defendant’s mens rea in order to obtain a conviction, and the defendant may not escape conviction by proving lack of mens rea. Formal strict liability is sometimes consistent with retributive principles, especially when the strict liability pertains to the grading of an offense. But is strict liability consistent with retributive principles when it pertains, not to grading, but to whether the defendant has crossed the threshold from noncriminal to criminal conduct? In this essay, I review the two most plausible arguments supporting an affirmative answer in the context of the RCO doctrine. First, perhaps this doctrine reflects a rule-like form of negligence, akin to a rule that prohibits selling alcohol to a minor. Second, perhaps this doctrine expresses a duty to use extraordinary care to prevent a harm. Neither argument is persuasive. The first argument, although valid in some circumstances, fails to explain and justify the RCO doctrine. The second argument, a duty to use extraordinary care, is also inadequate. If “extraordinary care” simply means a flexibly applied negligence standard that considers the burdens and benefits of taking a precaution, it is problematic in premising criminal liability on ordinary negligence. If instead it refers to a higher duty or standard of care, it has many possible forms, such as requiring only a very slight deviation from a permissible or justifiable standard of conduct, placing a “thumb” on the scale of the Learned Hand test, identifying an epistemic standard more demanding than a reasonable person test, or recognizing a standard that is insensitive to individual capacities. However, some of these variations present a gratuitous or incoherent understanding of “negligence,” and none of them sufficiently explain and justify the RCO doctrine.     

环境犯罪归责的主观要件分析

刑法惩罚和预防犯罪的功能决定了刑法中所谓的严格责任实质上是过错推定,而不是完全的"不问过错",环境刑法也不例外。环境犯罪是一类罪名,其归责的主观要件因具体罪名的不同而不同。抗拒环保监管罪的主观方面多为直接故意;破坏自然资源罪的主观方面多为间接故意;污染环境犯罪的主观方面则多为过失,且这种过失应当以结果规避义务为基础。