国家赔偿责任的民法基础

历史上盛行国家无不法行为能力理论,据此国家不对其公务员履行职务时的侵权行为承担责任,公务员要自己承担赔偿责任。随着法治国家观念的确立,国家开始代替其公务员向受害人承担赔偿责任,即所谓的代位责任。也有国家确立了国家的直接赔偿责任,即自己责任。但无一例外,国家的赔偿义务均建立在民法基础上,以全额赔偿为原则。我国国家赔偿制度确立了独一无二的"个人不赔,国家不全赔"的赔偿模式,偏离了赔偿法所固有的民法属性,无法良好保护受害人。而其根源则在于欠缺对国家赔偿责任的历史与本质的全面理解。有鉴于此,应尽快修订《国家赔偿法》,确立国家的全额赔偿责任,更好地服务法治国家的建设。     

在大学生伤害事故中高校民事责任的认定

学生伤害事故范围的合理界定是高校民事责任认定的前提与基础,对学生伤害事故性质的准确分析是高校民事责任认定的关键,学生伤害事故归责的科学运用是高校民事责任认定的核心。加强对学生伤害事故中高校民事责任认定的研究,有助于积极预防和妥善处理高等学校学生伤害事故,依法维护大学生和学校的合法权益,促进和谐校园的建设。     

先公司民事行为的案型归类及责任分配

“设立中公司”是一类特殊的民事主体,特殊性体现于它是一个处于发起人合伙和成立后公司之间的阶段性存续的、具有有限人格的组织。尽管法律未规定设立中公司的法律行为为必须,但是经济上,设立中公司却可以而且应该从事商业交往。在公司设立阶段签订合同的效力,和合同的主体密切攸关;设立中公司订立的合同责任在发起人、设立中公司、成立后公司之间的分配因为采取“意图推定”和“设立中公司责任”大相径庭。     

Civil liability of private security: Enforcer of moral obligations to right legal wrongs

The private security industry in the United States now has approximately twice as many personnel as does the public police. Private Security personnel have authority over the liberty, and sometimes the lives, of customers and employees. Often they exercise this awesome responsibility with little if any background and training. In most instances private security personnel are not considered law officers or peace officers and are, therefore, not bound by the same rules and regulations that apply to public police. More and more frequently, untrained or minimally trained, and basically unqualified security officers are taking actions against customers and employees which are excessive and unreasonable. Without the Constitutional protections which would be available if the act were committed by a public police officer, the only recourse for a private individual against reckless and wanton conduct on the part of private security personnel is a civil action, seeking compensation for the inconvenience caused or injuries received. The courts have found that companies and their security personnel have an obligation to be reasonable in their investigations of suspected criminal violations by employees and customers. Failure to conduct a proper and reasonable investigation will open the individual directing the investigation, and the company authorizing it, to liabililty for the injury their improper actions have caused. Civil liability suits have become the moral enforcer for improper and excessive conduct by private security personnel.     

Civil liability in the context of the Cartagena Protocol: to be or not to be (binding)?

As with most multilateral environmental negotiations, the on going negotiations for a liability and redress regime in the context of the Cartagena Protocol have proved difficult. While content issues, such as the standard of liability, the scope of the instrument, the nature of the damage and the burden of proof have dominated discussions, the question relating to the nature of the instrument has lurked quietly, but ominously, in the background. This issue came to a head at COP/MOP4 in Bonn - where the instrument was due to be adopted. This paper traces the development of the discussions on the nature of the instrument to be adopted. In particular it considers the slow rise to prominence of the administrative approach to liability at the expense of the civil liability system. This slow rise to prominence of the administrative approach leads to the adoption of a dual approach, meaning a binding instrument on the administrative approach and a nonbinding instrument on civil liability. The paper argues that the positions adopted by the various delegations on the nature of instrument illuminate the complexities of modern international environmental law making and may dispell some closely held beliefs about environmental law making, particularly as it relates to the role of the South.     

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.     

略论会计法律责任

会计法律责任主要是指编造和提供虚假会计信息。在市场经济的条件下提高对改进会计法律责任的认识,明确会计法律责任的承担,对于会计信息质量的提高有很大的裨益。     

The liability of the duressor

Liverpool Law Review - It has been argued that a better understanding of the nature of excuses gives rise to solutions to many problems concerning the liability of secondary parties. The duressor...     

《侵权责任法》背景下医疗损害责任的认定

怎样的责任认定标准才是医疗损害案件裁决中的妥当标准,长期以来社会各界争执不休。《侵权责任法》的出台为消除这种分歧和争执带来了新的曙光。法院作为＂主宰＂案件胜负的关键主体,应如何把握好医疗损害案件中责任认定的标准,才能真正为和谐医患关系保驾护航。本文拟从《侵权责任法》将带来的三项重大调整、附条件的＂推定过错＂能否将患方引向法院和法院审理医疗损害案件责任认定应注意把握好三个结合作一初步探讨。     

漫谈海洋污染的民事责任和刑事责任

简单介绍国际社会关于油轮溢油、燃油溢油及运输有毒有害物质致海洋污染损害的民事责任与赔偿方面的立法努力以及区域性组织等加强船源污染刑事责任方面的立法,认为对海洋污染实行更苛刻的民事责任制度,设立更高的赔偿责任限额或者干脆取消限额,进行更多的刑事立法等是不可取的,指出规制海洋污染必须体现国际性,并最大限度地避免区域性立法。     

海上拖航侵权中连带责任下的海事赔偿责任限制问题探讨

在海上活动中,拖航是一种常见的方式。在拖航过程中若发生海事侵权,承拖方和被拖方应就对第三者造成的损害结果承担连带责任;如果承拖方和被拖方均为《中华人民共和国海商法》意义上的船舶,且对该侵权没有重大过失或故意,承拖方和被拖方均有权享受海事赔偿责任限制。此时就会对连带责任条件下如何适用海事赔偿责任限额产生困惑。通过对整体限额连带、双重限额连带以及按份限额连带三种解决问题思路的分析,找寻一种既符合法律的基本原则,又能平衡各方利益的合理解决方法,并在此基础上就如何设立责任限制基金等问题进行探讨,供立法者在修订法律时参考。