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.     

Victim or injurer, small car or SUV: Tort liability rules under role-type uncertainty

In this paper we modify the standard tort model by introducing role-type uncertainty. That is, we assume that neither party knows in advance whether she will be the victim or the injurer when an accident occurs. When the standards of care of the two parties are set at the socially optimal levels, only pure comparative negligence and the equal division rule guarantee efficiency, while the rules of simple negligence, contributory negligence, and comparative negligence with fixed division (other than a 50:50 split) may produce inefficient equilibria. Since pure comparative negligence splits liability between negligent parties according to each party's degree of fault, it makes the accident loss division independent of one's role-type. This produces its efficiency advantage.We extend the model to the choice of vehicle size, as a factor determining who will be the injurer and who the victim in motor vehicle collisions. In the extension we analyze various standard negligence-based liability rules, and tax rules, as instruments to mitigate inefficiency resulting from the vehicle size “arms race.” We also examine two strict liability rules, one of which incorporates a comparative negligence feature; this rule prevents inefficiency from both role-type uncertainty and from the “arms race.”     

论不作为过错的侵权责任

作为过错与不作为过错的区分是现代过错侵权行为法的基础 ,因为 ,过错侵权行为法不应要求他人承担积极作为的义务 ,而仅能要求他人承担消极不作为的义务。因此 ,法律可责令行为人就其积极作为的过错承担侵权责任 ,而不应责令行为人就其不作为的行为承担侵权责任。在确立不作为不承担过错侵权责任的原则的同时 ,现代法律亦对这一原则作某些例外的限制 ,认为在这些例外情况下 ,行为人应当承担积极作为的义务 ,如果他们违反这些义务并导致他人损害 ,应当承担侵权责任。     

On judgment proofness in the case of bilateral harm

This paper defies the widely held belief concerning the unambiguous superiority of negligence in settings of judgment proofness. We analyze a set-up with bilateral harm, bilateral care, and potential judgment proofness by one party to the accident. We establish that strict liability with a defense of contributory negligence can perform better than simple negligence and negligence with a defense of contributory negligence. It is shown that the former liability rule can better establish a discontinuity in individual costs conducive to inducing efficient care than the other rules.

美国侵权法中的纯粹经济损失解读

纯粹经济损失问题是美国侵权法领域的热点问题之一,它的解决主要依据一般过失侵权规则和经济损失规则两种方法。作为占主导地位的规则,经济损失规则源于法院对缺陷产品引起纯粹经济损失案件的判决,现在已经广泛适用于一般过失侵权领域。经济损失规则的理论依据主要包括维持侵权法与合同法的界限、合同优先理论、＂诉讼洪闸＂理论和社会成本理论。经济损失规则在服务合同、过失误述等特殊情况下的适用例外,在不同的州得到不同程度的承认。总体而言,美国侵权法在纯粹经济损失问题上达成了尚不稳定的一致,相关的判例及学说仍在不断发展之中。     

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.     

论我国立法和司法对法定外在标准的过度依赖——以我国医疗损害责任鉴定与诉讼实践为例

我国法中存在着在侵权法问题的判定上过度依赖"法律法规"、"行业标准"和"诊疗规范"的倾向。这些"外在"标准替代了法官对法律"内在"规则的审视和适用。行业标准替代了法律标准。比如,在医疗过失判定标准上,法官过度依赖"诊疗规范",忽视了基本法律标准——注意义务违反说和"合理医生"标准——的探寻和适用。我国法应纠正此种现象,注意对法律规则,比如医疗过失和因果关系判定规则的细心构建,以给法官具体指导。"法律法规"、"行业标准"和"诊疗规范"在侵权法中是判定过失的重要标准,但不是终局性和根本性标准。     

The Principle of Full Compensation in Tort Law

According to the principle of full compensation, tort law seeks to put the victim in the position he was in before the tort. This position is generally considered to be the situation where the victim does not suffer any harm at all. We consider an alternative interpretation. If an injurer takes due care, the victim is faced with expected harm. This can be considered the victim's expected harm in the situation he was in before the tort. Thus conceived full compensation requires a negligent injurer to pay damages which bring the (potential) victim ex ante in the same position as the victim was in the case where the (potential) injurer takes due care. We investigate the consequences of this restated negligence rule. For due care levels larger than efficient care, the standard negligent rule may lead to excessive care, whereas the restated negligent rule always leads to efficient care. Furthermore, the activity level under the restated negligent rule is greater than the activity level under the standard negligent rule, which itself is greater than the efficient activity level. Social welfare under the restated negligence rule can either be higher or lower than social welfare under the standard negligence rule.     

On Two Distinct and Opposing Versions of Natural Law: “Exclusive” versus “Inclusive”

Abstract. This paper takes the dichotomy between “exclusive” and “inclusive” positivism and applies it by analogy to natural‐law theories. With John Finnis, and with Beyleved and Brownsword, we have examples of “exclusive natural‐law theory,” on which approach the law is valid only if its content satisfies a normative monological moral theory. The discourse theories of Alexy and Habermas are seen instead as “inclusive natural‐law theories,” in which the positive law is a constitutive moment in that it identifies moral rules and specifies their meaning. The article argues that inclusive theories of natural law are better suited to expressing an authentic “republican” attitude. *

相似文献   

Deduction and Justification in the Law. The Role of Legal Terms and Concepts

Abstract. Legal terms, such as “ownership,”“contract,”“validity,”“negligence,” are used as middle terms in legal deduction. The paper distinguishes two problems regarding this use. One is the logical function of terms for deduction within a normative system. Specific problems dealt with in this connection are meaning, definition, and economy of expression. The other problem connected with middle terms is the “moulding” and possible manipulation of the meaning of legal terms, for arriving at desired conclusions in a given scheme of inference. It is indicated how the moulding of contested legal concepts, if not restricted, will obscure the ratio of legal rules. This problem is relevant, inter alia, to arguments ex analogia in the law.     

Contributory Negligence in the Twenty‐First Century: An Empirical Study of First Instance Decisions

In this article we report the results of an empirical study of 368 first instance decisions on the contributory negligence doctrine handed down in England and Wales between 2000 and 2014. The two central questions at which we looked were: how often a defendant's plea of contributory negligence was successful; and by how much a claimant's damages were reduced when a finding of contributory negligence was made. We also considered the extent to which the answers to these questions depended on the following variables: the claimant's age; the claimant's gender; the type of damage suffered by the claimant; the contextual setting of the claim; and the year of the decision. Our study uncovered several important truths about the contributory negligence doctrine hidden in this mass of case law, some of which cast significant doubt on the accuracy of widely held views about the doctrine's operation.     

Toward a moral theory of negligence law

This paper explores how the widely acknowledged conception of tort law as corrective justice is to be applied to the law of negligence. Corrective justice is an ordering of transactions between two parties which restores them to an antecedent equality. It is thus incompatible with the comprehensive aggregation of utilitarianism, and it stands in easy harmony with Kantian moral notions. This conception of negligence law excludes both maximizing theories, such as Holmes' and Posner's, and Fried's risk pool, which combines Kantianism with distributive rather than corrective justice. Central to the Kantian approach is the impermissibility of self-preference. The two types of self-preference, self-preference in conception and self-preference in action can respectively account for the objective standard and the Learned Hand test, which are the two most characteristic features of negligence and which are generally (and wrongly) considered to be inescapably aggregative. This corrective justice conception of the negligence standard can then be compared to Epstein's corrective justice conception of strict liability, and arguments can be offered in favour of the superiority of the former.     

医疗损害责任的规制逻辑与适用路径——以《民法典》与“医事法”的协调为视角

为推进对《民法典》的规范阐释,促使其与医事法的衔接、互补,应对"医疗损害责任"的规制逻辑与适用路径进行明晰。"医疗损害责任"整体延续了《侵权责任法》的概念体系和框架结构,在说明义务、责任主体以及责任构成等方面加以创新。其作为《民法典》的具体规范,对总则编之规定予以遵从,是侵权责任编一般规定的特别法;其作为医事法的基本范畴,处于上位效力层级之中,与其他规范条文形成条件关系和并列关系。鉴于此,应遵循"从民法典到医事法"的适用路径,藉由内外在规范的自足与互助,明确规范条文之间的内在关联,实现规范概念的阐明和规范内涵的拓补,以推动《民法典》相关规则的贯彻实施,促进我国医事法学的蓬勃发展。     

Putting fault back into products liability: A modest reconstruction of tort theory

This paper postulates that the proper function of tort law is to provide protection from, and redress of, non-consensual invasions of individual rights of person and property. It then proceeds to analyze and criticize, in that context, several theories of the law of unintentional torts including traditional English negligence law and the models of Posner, Fletcher and Epstein. That analysis proceeds in terms of the answers of each theory to a uniform set of questions which must be answered by any theory of the law of unintentional harms. The paper concludes that none of the theories examined is rights-based or, indeed, consistent with the existence of individual rights of person and property.The paper goes on to elucidate a theory of liability which is rights-based. That theory turns out to be variant of traditional English negligence law in which reasonable foreseeability of harm to legally recognized rights or interests is the sole criterion of liability, the burden of precautions on the agent of the harm being explicitly excluded from consideration.Finally, the rights-based theory is applied to the area of products liability. It is demonstrated that this area of the law of unintentional harm does have the same moral foundations as the general law of negligence so that resort to the anomalous, and amoral, constructs of fictitious warranties, strict liability, enterprise liability and the deep pocket is neither appropriate nor necessary.     

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。     

The Use of the Biblical Oath and Its Development

The use of the oath in Jewish law reflects the religious nature of this system of law: in case a litigant cannot receive justice from the human judges s/he is entitled to call on God by swearing an oath. I begin this survey of the use of oaths in Jewish law with a discussion of the nature of “swearing an oath” based on biblical stories and biblical rules that regulate the use of oaths outside court. I then focus on the use of the oath in court; I survey the domain of circumstances in which an oath is accepted by Jewish law as evidence according to the Bible, the Mishna, Gemara, and codifications. Finally, I exemplify how the oath is used in practice in the 20th century by one case from Rabbi Saul Ibn Dannan’s responsa book “Hagam Shaul”.     

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。     

Limited Liability and Imperfect Information—On the Existence of Safety Equilibria Under Products Liability Law

In the literature on the economics of tort law the Cournot-Nash equilibrium concept has been undisputed. In particular, the existence of a Cournot-Nash safety equilibrium has been taken for granted, given the usual convexity assumptions. In this paper a simple model of strict liability with the defence of contributory negligence is considered. Liability is assumed to be limited. It is shown that for a certain range of liability limits no Cournot-Nash safety equilibrium in pure strategies exists. A mixed strategy equilibrium exists but it turns out to be suboptimal.     

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。     

Toxic Torts,Politics, and Environmental Justice: The Case for Crimtorts*

The borderline between criminal and tort law has been increasingly blurred over the past quarter century by the emergence of new “crimtort” remedies which have evolved to deter and punish corporate polluters. Punitive damages, multiple damages, and other “crimtort” remedies are under unrelenting assault by neo‐conservatives principally because, under this paradigm, the punishment for wrongdoing can be calibrated to the wealth of the polluter. If wealth‐based punishment is eliminated by the “tort reformers,” plaintiffs’ victories in crimtort actions such as those portrayed in the movies Silkwood, A Class Action, and Erin Brockovich will become an endangered species.