医疗机构因医院感染应承担的法律责任探讨

医院感染是影响病人安全、医疗质量和增加医疗费用的重要原因。当患者因医院感染受到损害时,医疗机构是否应当承担赔偿责任,医患双方可能各执一词。本文根据《侵权责任法》与《医院感染管理办法》分析、讨论医疗机构因医院感染而应承担的法律责任。     

论船舶经营人在船舶碰撞中的责任主体地位

针对应当如何确定船舶经营人在船舶碰撞中的责任主体地位这一难点问题,从界定船舶经营人的概念入手,分析船舶经营人在海上运输中的法律地位,归纳、总结认定船舶碰撞损害责任主体应遵循的三个基本原则,并在此基础上展开分析、论证,提出船舶在委托经营期间发生碰撞事故,船舶经营人应当作为责任主体承担损害赔偿责任的结论。     

民事责任与义务的界分问题再思考

民事责任是违反民事义务的法律后果之通说不能妥当解释责任的强制性问题,而将义务与责任划分的界线确定在裁判文书生效时,方可将责任与强制性直接联系起来。裁判文书生效之前当事人所负担者均应定性为义务,对此还应当以义务违反时为界再划分为原本义务和后发义务。违反原本义务所直接产生的后果只是对其更不利益的后发义务,而尚非得被强制承担的责任,经生效司法裁判确定后方可谓之责任;违反原本义务者在经生效司法裁判确认之前仅是＂责任嫌疑人＂,之后才可谓之＂责任人＂。因此,民事责任应界定为：民事主体确定地违反民事义务或者在法律有特别规定的情况下得被强制承担的法律后果。     

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.     

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。     

私法责任正当性刍论--在违约责任和侵权责任中求证

私法责任制度设定的直接原因是违反了法定或约定的义务 ,直接目的是要归结出一种法律上的否定性评价。从这个角度来说 ,私法责任制度是为了维护在先的制度权威而产生的后续制度保障。这种后续制度在理性表现和价值体现方面依赖于在先制度 ,但又不完全依托在先制度 ,也表现出本身的制度理性。     

论经济法调制主体及其工作人员的责任追究模式与分担方式

对经济法调制主体及其工作人员进行责任追究时,应以其违反了法定的调制程序而不是行为造成了实体损害为前提。调制主体本身不应当对其工作人员实施的普通违法调制行为承担责任,但基于实际需要,应代位承担赔偿责任,这种赔偿责任应纳入传统的国家赔偿责任。     

油污损害赔偿中非漏油方的责任主体地位探析

应用侵权法中的归责原则和连带责任理论,对两船碰撞一船漏油时非漏油方是否承担赔偿责任存在的三种不同观点及案例进行了分析;基于民法中的补充责任原则和实证的方法,提出不论非漏油方对船舶碰撞的发生是否有过错,应当由漏油方首先对油污受害人承担责任,只有在漏油方不能承担全部赔偿责任时,非漏油方才承担补充责任,以此保障油污受害人得到充分赔偿。对完善我国船舶污染损害赔偿立法及海事司法实践有参考、借鉴作用。     

Does Control Make a Difference? The Moral Foundations of Shareholder Liability for Corporate Wrongs

The doctrine of limited liability, as traditionally understood, prevents shareholders from being held personally liable for corporate wrongs. Several authors have recently argued that the doctrine should be modified to make some or all shareholders individually liable for torts committed by corporations in which they hold shares. This article distinguishes three types of argument that might provide a moral basis for shareholder liability in such cases. I contend that while these arguments support holding at least some shareholders liable for corporate torts, they fail to justify a general regime of unlimited pro rata shareholder liability. The level of control shareholders exercise over a company makes an important difference to their moral duties to compensate victims of corporate wrongdoing.     

重思民事责任能力与民事行为能力的关系——兼评我国《侵权责任法》第32条

民事责任能力在本质上是广义民事行为能力的一种,与狭义民事行为能力即法律行为能力并列,它是当事人对其过错行为承担民事责任的法律前提。广义民事行为能力概念具有深厚的历史根基,我国民法学者对其进行批判是因为对其历史脉络缺乏了解。民事责任能力的认定应采抽象标准与具体认定相结合主义。我国《侵权责任法》第32条存在诸多缺陷,应通过法律解释或修订予以完善。     

特殊普通合伙企业:游走于无限与有限责任之间

特殊普通合伙企业制度设计虽然对无辜的合伙人以提供有限责任保护方式,使之具有了促进专业服务业发展的优势,但是,同时也加大了交易相对人的风险和司法成本。它的责任二元化构造中,所确立的二元责任在合伙人之间具有不确定性、交替互换性。二元责任既有纵向又有横向配置,其立足点是执业合伙人有无过错。     

You've been warned: Consumer liability in Internet banking fraud

This contribution provides a critical analysis of the treatment of consumer liability in cases of Internet banking fraud. Whereas generally banks refund the financial losses associated with Internet banking fraud to the individual victim, exceptions do occur, at least in certain EU jurisdictions. These, however, are rarely spoken about, but do indicate a number of (legal) problems. The main problems are lack of clarity and lack of consistency as to when a consumer can be held liable. These problems also maintain potential negative consequences such as increase in perceived risk, loss of trust and demands for better security, which may be suboptimal from an economical perspective. This article concludes by reflecting on the potential benefits of the introduction of zero liability as an alternative.     

海事赔偿责任限制与连带赔偿责任的同时适用

海事赔偿责任限制与连带赔偿责任是立法宗旨根本对立的两项法律制度,由于《中华人民共和国海商法》没有明确何者优先适用,当两项制度同时适用于一个案件时,便会产生互相否定和互相排斥现象,给审判和执行工作带来困惑。在协调两者同时适用冲突、平衡双方当事人利益的前提下,提出两项制度同时适用的方法规则。     

Repositioning the corporate criminal: comparing and contrasting corporate criminal liability in Canada and Finland

ABSTRACT

Over the past two decades, a number of states in the Global North have introduced laws aimed at holding corporations criminally liable. While there is an important literature examining these legal regimes there is a paucity of comparative work interrogating the different political struggles and processes leading to corporate criminal liability (CCL) legislation. This paper addresses this lacuna by comparing and contrasting the development of CCL in Canada and Finland. By scrutinizing the law reform processes in each jurisdiction, the paper documents how CCL emerged under different conjunctures in each country, yet were shaped similarly by hegemonic beliefs in the non-criminal status of corporation, the importance of advancing private enterprise and established jurisprudence. Of particular note are the ways in which dominant notions of legal individualism and the universal legal subject constrained legislative efforts to hold corporations criminally to account therein preventing corporate misconduct from being processed as “real” crimes.     

由一起碰撞案件看船舶挂靠经营中的侵权责任

在现行法律中很难找到专门针对船舶挂靠经营的规定,这使得关于船舶挂靠经营过程中产生的侵权责任的意见难以得到统一。北海海事法院对2000年发生的一起船舶碰撞纠纷进行了审理,其中涉及对船舶挂靠经营侵权责任的处理,该判决对上述问题的解决提供有益的帮助——船舶挂靠经营是一种合法行为;就挂靠人经营中所致的侵权责任,挂靠人与被挂靠人都是责任主体,并应承担无限连带责任。     

海上强制责任保险研究

强制责任保险在国际海上保险领域中已广泛存在,但中国在该领域的立法仍不完善,对其基本理论的研究也稍显不足。分析了强制责任保险的性质及中国目前强制责任保险投保现状,论证了我国设立强制责任保险制度的必要性,并对构建我国水路液货危险品运输及旅客运输的强制责任保险制度提出建议。     

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。     

论海事赔偿责任限制程序与产生海事赔偿责任限制的海事请求程序间的关系

海事赔偿责任限制程序是保护责任人的法定程序 ,可被视为一个独立的诉 ,不仅具有所需要的三个要素 ,而且也具有其自身的管辖权。本文从上述几个方面论述了海事赔偿责任限制程序与产生海事赔偿责任限制程序间的关系     

瑞克麦斯热那亚航运公司、瑞克麦斯轮船公司诉CS海运株式会社船舶碰撞损害赔偿纠纷案——论海事赔偿责任限制“先抵销、后限制”的具体适用

海事赔偿责任限制制度有着悠久的历史,在实践中也发挥了重要作用。《中华人民共和国海商法》对海事赔偿责任限制也有明确的规定,但在具体适用上,还存在着一些不足之处。《中华人民共和国海商法》规定救助款项不属于可限制性债权的范围,但这仅针对被救助方而言。当被救助方将自己所支付的救助款项作为己方损失要求对方赔偿时,因该救助款项是碰撞所致损害的一部分,对方可以主张适用海事赔偿责任限制。如果一次海难事故一方存在非人身伤亡的赔偿请求,另一方存在人身伤亡的赔偿请求,两类不同性质的赔偿请求不能依据民法债的一般原理先行抵消,应依法适用各自的责任限额,最后再实现债的抵消。保险人取得代位求偿权后,向责任方主张其应承担的赔偿责任时,应视为＂就同一事故向请求人提出反请求＂,因此在被保险人享受责任限制的情况下,保险人的请求金额应当适用＂先抵销、后限制＂的规定。     

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.