The reasonable person standard: a new perspective on the incentive effects of a tailored negligence standard

This paper compares the effects of a uniform reasonable person standard to a due care standard that is tailored to individual capabilities. This is done in a framework in which potential injurers can invest in developing greater capability. I show that the uniform reasonable person standard may induce better or worse investment incentives, depending on whether greater capability is represented by reduced precaution costs or reduced accident costs. In so doing, I show that recent results showing that the reasonable person standard creates better investment incentives are not general, but depend on the model of injurer capacity used. I go on to show the availability of “over-tailoring” of the negligence standard as a novel form of subsidy for investment in care technology. In some circumstances, holding an injurer to a lower standard of care than would be optimal in a perfectly static world can result in a trade-off between dynamic and static efficiency that is superior to that generated by either a uniform or tailored standard of care.     

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.     

私法中理性人标准之构建

他人内心世界的无法直接获知性,决定了个案裁判中理性人标准的不可或缺.司法实践中,需要运用理性人标准来完成相应的评价工作.理性人标准的运用包括三个阶段:理性人建构、场景重构、透过认知图式得出结论.个案中,通过设想一个具有特定知识结构和能力水准之人,在具体的场景下会形成什么样的认识,来完成对行为人的评价任务.理性人的内部结构主要包括知识结构、认知能力和行动能力,理性人的具体化即表现为理性人的知识结构和能力水准的具体确定.理性人的具体化、场景的重构,均需在价值指引下进行.对此,认为理性人标准系为单一价值服务的观点不可取.理性人标准所要实现的价值,必须结合其所要解决的问题领域具体地加以确定,不同领域中理性人标准所要实现的价值也会不同.价值实现的基本途径是,将价值取向作为确定理性人能力水平和具体知识状况的标准,并指引场景的重构.理性人标准在私法中有着非常广泛的适用空间,并可扩展到公法领域.     

Reasonable Care: Equality as Objectivity

The most compelling defense of the standard of reasonable care in negligence law casts itself in terms of equality. This commitment to equality may paradoxically turn out to be flatly inegalitarian. This is because it discriminates against the less capable through ignoring their deficient capabilities (and so against their chances of meeting the standard of reasonable care successfully). A promising, though still unfamiliar, way to revive the egalitarian aspirations of reasonable care would be to show that imposing the standard of reasonable care even on the less competent expresses, rather than inhibits, a true devotion to equality. I seek to make this showing, and thus to reclaim for this standard of care its egalitarian foundations more adequately than has so far been proposed.     

Collection from third party payers of reasonable costs of healthcare services--DoD. Final rule

This final rule establishes a new rule under the Third Party Collection program for determining the reasonable costs of health care services provided by facilities of the uniformed services in cases in which care is provided under TRICARE Resource Sharing Agreements. For purposes of the Third Party Collection program such services will be treated the same as other services provided by facilities of the uniformed services. The final rule also lowers the high cost ancillary threshold value from $60 to $25 per 24-hour day for patients that come to the uniformed services facility for ancillary services requested by a source other than a uniformed services facility. The reasonable costs of such services will be accumulated on a daily basis. The Department of Defense is now implementing TRICARE, a major structural reform of the military health care system, featuring adoption of managed care practices in military hospitals and by special civilian contract provider networks. Consistent with TRICARE, as part of the Third Party Collection Program, DoD is transitioning to a billing and collection system in which all costs borne by DoD Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) will be billed by the MTF providing the care. Thus, all care performed within the facility, plus an added amount for supplemental care purchased by the facility, will be billed by the MTF. Conversely, care provided outside the MTF under other arrangements will be billed by the provider of that care.     

Against Personifying the Reasonable Person

One way in which fact finders are supposed to determine the reasonableness of a defendant is via a counterfactual test that personifies the reasonable person. We are to imagine the reasonable person being in the defendant’s circumstances. Then we are to determine whether the reasonable person would have done as the defendant did. This paper argues that, despite its prevalence, the counterfactual test is a hopeless guide to determining defendant reasonability. In brief, the test is of the wrong sort to give fact finders the requisite guidance. What we are after is not a counterfactual judgment (what the reasonable person would do) but instead is a question of possibility (what could the reasonable person do). However, since the only thing impossible of the reasonable person is being unreasonable, personifying the reasonable person cannot offer any useful guidance on this question.     

Perceptions of Sexual Harassment: The Effects of Gender,Legal Standard,and Ambivalent Sexism

This research tests the possibility that the reasonable woman as compared to the reasonable person test of hostile work environment sexual harassment interacts with hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs and under some conditions triggers protectionist attitudes toward women who complain of sexual harassment, We administered to a sample of undergraduates the ambivalent sexism inventory along with the fact patterns in two harassment cases and asked them to make legally relevant decisions under either the reasonable woman or person standard. We found that those high in hostile sexism, and women, found more evidence of harassment. However, those high in benevolent sexism did not exhibit the hostile sexism effects. Although men were less sensitive to the reasonable woman standard than women, under some conditions the reasonable woman standard enabled both genders to find greater evidence of harassment. The results are discussed from the perspectives of law and psychology.     

论侵权过失判定标准的构造与适用

过失客观归责以信赖原则为其基础,所以过失系依附载信赖价值的合理人标准来判定.依拟制之合理人,使其处于与行为相同的情境,结合过失的法律构造,通过法官心理机制在确认合理人可合理预见损害风险的基础上,再判断合理人通常会实施什么行为以回避损害,以此作为合理人的“当为”,并与行为人之“实为”相对照,从而判定过失之有无.该判定模式中,合理人的具体型构最为重要,因为这在很大程度上决定了行为人的合理注意标准.     

Social analytic investigation of hostile work environments

This paper presents a brief psycholegal analysis of hostile work environment sexual harassment law especially as it distinguishes between the reasonable person and reasonable woman tests of severity and pervasiveness. We tested two hypotheses: (1) women (but not men) would show stronger judgments of harassment when using the reasonable woman standard, and (2) this relationship would be strongest for women who identified with harassed victims and men who did not. We presented to a sample of undergraduates an in-group identification measurement task followed by the fact patterns in two cases and asked them to make legally relevant decisions under either the reasonable woman or person standard. Although we found gender and in-group identification effects, we found no legal standard effects. The results are discussed from the perspectives of law and psychology.     

Technology and torts: Memory costs, nondurable precautions and interference effects

This article examines the influence of nondurable precaution technologies on the expansion of tort awards. We provide four contributions to the literature. First, we present a general, formal model on durable and non-durable precaution technology that focuses on memory costs. Second, because liability exposure creates interference, we argue that tort law perpetuates the expansion of awards. Third, because plaintiffs do not consider the social costs of interference effects, private litigation induces socially excessive suits. Fourth, while new harm-reducing technologies likely increase accident rates, such technologies also raise the ratio of trial costs to harm, leaving undetermined the overall effect of new technologies on the rate of litigation.     

论失踪损害赔偿之诉的法律适用——以马航客机失踪事件切入

自然人的失踪通常都会给其近亲属造成严重的精神损害和一定的财产损害,依据我国法律现有规定及其解释,在失踪是因可归责于他人的事由所致时,失踪者近亲属应独立享有对相关责任人的损害赔偿请求权。肯定此类损害赔偿请求权,不仅符合分配正义原则,而且能更好地实现权益保护与行为自由的平衡。在单纯的失踪损害赔偿之诉中,失踪者近亲属可以请求赔偿精神损害、寻亲费用和扶养费损失等,在失踪者已被宣告死亡时,还可请求死亡赔偿金。     

The Homophobic Sexual Harassment Claim and Sexuality Discrimination

In sexual harassment law scholarship, it is often argued that the reasonable person standard should give way to a reasonable victim (woman) standard. Yet, this latter standard may unintentionally invite homophobic employees to attempt to use a reasonable homophobe standard to charge gay supervisors with harassment merely for being openly gay at work. In response, I argue that we currently act on an unjustifiable distinction whereby we treat sexuality behavior (behavior that indicates one's sexuality) as necessarily sexualized only for GLBTQ behavior. By disallowing this discriminatory treatment, we can preserve the reasonable victim standard and undermine the homophobe's warrantless charges.     

论民法上的注意义务

无论在英美法系还是在大陆法系,注意义务都是过失判定的基准。民法上的注意义务是义务主体谨慎地为自己一切行为(包括作为和不作为)的法律义务,其核心内容包括行为致害后果预见义务和行为致害后果避免义务。注意义务的产生依据包括制定法、技术规范、习惯和常理、合同或委托、在先行为。在注意义务的体系中,特别要重视以内容为标准的体系构成,还要理清作为注意义务与不作为注意义务,更要突出高度注意义务的地位。在注意义务存在冲突的情况下,其解决规则为依据注意义务的优先性。注意义务有着程度的差异,应当构建“注意程度标准人”以替代“合理人”。我国侵权行为立法应当明确规定注意义务。     

A revised model of unilateral accidents

This paper suggests and justifies a revised formulation of the unilateral accident model based on relaxing two assumptions of the standard model: the precaution function and the harm function. The revised model is, therefore, more general and corresponds better to various situations. A resulting trait of the generalized model is its account for the interaction between the injurer’s care and activity levels, which was implicitly assumed away so far. The revised model is examined using a few standard issues in tort and the analysis brings new results and insights for the unilateral accident case. For example, the view that, under a negligence regime, due care can be defined regardless of the optimal level of activity holds under very restrictive assumptions. In general, due care must be defined simultaneously with the optimal activity level. In addition, the common view suggests that underestimation of the level of actual damages under strict liability would induce injurers to take insufficient care and to engage excessively in a risky activity (and vice versa, for overestimation). This paper shows that underestimation of actual damages may counter-intuitively lead to insufficient activity or excessive care levels. Similarly, the results of underestimating harm under a negligence regime prove to be different than commonly thought. In addition, the revised model questions the intuitive similarity between the underestimation of harm and the judgment-proof problem, and provides some new results for the latter problem.     

The Reasonable Woman Standard: Effects on Sexual Harassment Court Decisions

Some federal courts have used a reasonable woman standard rather than the traditional reasonable man or reasonable person standard to determine whether hostile environment sexual harassment has occurred. The current research examined the impact of the reasonable woman standard on federal district court decisions, controlling for other factors found to affect sexual harassment court decisions. Results indicated that there was a weak relationship between whether a case followed a reasonable woman precedent-setting case and the likelihood that the court decision favored the plaintiff. The implications of our findings for individuals and organizations involved in sexual harassment claims are discussed.     

对赌协议的法律构造与定性观察

对赌协议虽有赌博的字眼与表征,但与零和博弈的赌博存在本质的分歧与泾渭分明的界限。对赌协议是私法上财产自我估值机制的一种形式,是私募股权投资中常用的估值调整机制。作为一种金融创新工具,即可降低投资方的代理成本,又可降低融资方的融资成本。对赌协议作为一种非典型合同,与附生效条件合同貌合神离,可归结为射幸合同,在我国现行法律框架下,私募股权投资中对赌协议的运行不存在任何合法性障碍。     

The Impact of Psychological Injuries on Sexual Harassment Determinations

Although a plethora of studies focus on jury decision making in sexual harassment cases, few studies examine damage award assessments in such suits, and even fewer explore the impact of psychological injury on jurors’ liability and damage award assessments. In the present study, 342 undergraduates read a hostile environment sexual harassment case that manipulated the plaintiff’s psychological injury level (severe vs. mild vs. control) to investigate whether males and females made different damage decisions. Males using a reasonable person standard found more liability as the severity of the plaintiff’s psychological injury increased. However, males using a reasonable woman standard found less liability with the addition of any psychological injury information. Similarly, for mild and severe injuries, males using the reasonable woman standard awarded lower damages than males using the reasonable person standard. Females tended to find more harassment than males, but psychological injury and legal standard had little impact on females’ legal decisions. We discuss these findings in light of the positive relationship often observed between the plaintiff’s injury severity level and pro-plaintiff verdicts.     

Setting the legal standard of care for treatment and evidence-based medicine: a case study of antenatal corticosteroids

This article argues that liability for negligent medical treatment should be predicated upon a standard of care reflecting what is medically and scientifically reasonable. Legal science (jurisprudence) and medical science (evidence-based medicine) should be reconciled to improve patient care and outcomes. The use of antenatal corticosteroids in obstetrics during the 1990s illustrates how most jurisprudence for setting the standard of care for treatment is ill equipped to meet the fundamental aims of tort law. The proliferation of evidence-based medical practice provides a unique opportunity for the law to encourage best medical practice when setting the standard of care for treatment. It is argued that, eventually, the law should recognise clinical practice guidelines as the prima facie standard of care for treatment. This will provide legal certainty, appropriate medical practitioner accountability, and ultimately improve patient care and outcomes.     

Collection from third party payers of reasonable costs of healthcare services--DoD. Final rule

This final rule would amend the DoD regulation that implements 10 U.S.C. 1095. This statute generally provides for collection by the United States from third party payers of reasonable costs of healthcare services provided in facilities of the Uniformed Services to DoD beneficiaries who are also beneficiaries under the third party payer's plan. This final rule also implements recent legislative amendments that expanded their third party collection authority to cover outpatient services, automobile liability and no-fault insurance policies, and Medicare supplemental insurance plans. Active duty members are included in collections from automobile liability and no-fault insurance carriers. In addition the final rule revises methods for determining reasonable costs for inpatient care services.     

论会计师事务所不实财务报告的民事责任——兼评上海大智慧公司与曹建荣等证券虚假陈述责任纠纷案

会计师事务所执业过错的认定标准为“职业谨慎”,法律上的“重大性”认定依据主要是信息对决策的影响力和信息对股价的影响力。法院在民事赔偿案件中应该独立对“重大性”进行实质审查。损害因果关系的认定应肯定公司经营风险、行业风险和投资风险等作为阻碍损害因果关系的因素。在计算系统风险时,原则上宜优先选取板块指数为参考数据,计算方式采用分别认定市场风险的相对比值法。责任方式采取有限制条件的连带责任,对第三人的具体赔偿范围由法院综合考量各方因素裁定。