论瑕疵器官移植的损害赔偿责任

瑕疵器官移植所产生的损害赔偿责任问题是各国器官移植过程中都可能会遇到的一个棘手问题。学术界存在"医疗特殊责任说"与"产品责任说"两种学说。在这一问题上,应当以过错责任原则为基准,依据不同的情况分别判断瑕疵器官移植损害赔偿责任的主体。但毋庸置疑,由于人体器官移植具有不同于普通医疗行为的特殊性,在该问题上不适用也不应当适用产品责任方面的理论与规则。     

Orphan drugs: the question of products liability

Orphan drugs, essential for the treatment of persons with rare diseases, generally are unprofitable for manufacturers to develop and market. While congressional and administrative efforts to promote the development of orphan drugs have met with modest success, application of products liability doctrine to orphan drug sponsors could subvert those efforts. This Note describes the provisions of the Orphan Drug Act and analyzes products liability law with respect to orphan drug litigation. It argues that the goals of tort law support the imposition of liability for design defect, failure to warn and negligence in testing. Finally, the Note acknowledges that liability costs create disincentives for orphan drug development and suggests mechanisms for reducing manufacturers' liability concerns.     

知情同意原则下医疗过失损害赔偿责任的几个问题--从一起患者知情同意纠纷案说起

知情同意原则所保护的客体是自我决定权.知情同意原则下的损害赔偿责任不同于医疗事故损害赔偿责任.二者不能互相否认.医方违反知情同意原则的责任是一种侵权损害赔偿责任.该责任的构成要件可包括(1)医师存在法定的告知义务;(2)医师未能将对患者的决定产生实质性影响的风险/信息告知患者;(3)在告知不充分的情况下,患者由于选择了当前的治疗方案而受到伤害;(4)医师的义务违反与患者的伤害之间存在因果关系.其中,告知义务是否充分的判断应以处于同样情境的一个理性患者所需作为主要的标准;对信息"实质性"的判定应看一个与患者处于同一位置的合理审慎之人在决定是否对所建议的治疗做出同意时会对某一事实赋加重要性或将该事实作为一"决定性"影响因素加以考虑;在因果关系存无的认定上,则要考虑若患者被充分告知实情他是否会做出不同的选择决定.     

Reallocating liability to medical staff review committee members: a response to the hospital corporate liability doctrine

Under the doctrine of hospital corporate liability, the hospital governing board bears the responsibility for detecting the incompetence of its staff physicians. Since hospital governing boards are generally composed of lay community members, they lack the expertise to evaluate the clinical competence of their staff. Therefore, they must delegate their screening responsibilities to medical staff review committees. After analyzing the development of hospital corporate liability doctrine, this Note examines the respective policing capabilities of review committees and the governing board. The Note contends that the board should not be held liable for aspects of the policing process which it is incapable of controlling. The Note concludes that, given their superior ability to evaluate clinical competency, staff review committees should shoulder the responsibility for the clinical aspects of staff evaluation, leaving remaining aspects to the hospital governing board. The Note proposes that courts should recognize a cause of action for negligence against medical staff review committee members in order to upgrade the effective policing of the medical profession.     

论专利侵权赔偿损失的归责原则

专利授权公告不应具有使公众应知的法律效力。专利侵权赔偿适用一般过错推定说对行为人显失公平,专利侵权纠纷中也不存在特殊过错推定说的法定事由。因此,过错推定责任原则不能作为专利侵权赔偿损失的一般归责原则。专利侵权属于一种特殊侵权,在归责上不应适用过错责任原则。我国应基于无过错责任原则的宗旨、专利权的排他权性及专利侵权判定的复杂性,并借鉴国际公约和国外立法例,区分专利侵权产品首次销售前后的不同侵权行为,分别适用无过错责任原则或过错推定责任原则。     

Paint It Black: Rhode Island Supreme Court Rejects Lead Paint Nuisance Suit

During the past decade, state and local governments have increasingly brought suits to redress harm caused by products, including cigarettes, firearms, and toxins such as asbestos, lead paint, and even greenhouse gases, based not on the products liability or negligence theories conventionally applied, but on the public nuisance doctrine. Although the public nuisance doctrine potentially offers governmental plaintiffs more lenient standards with respect to issues like product and manufacturer identification, control of the product, proximate cause, and application of statutes of limitation, while limiting manufacturers' defenses, and has generated insurance claims and pressure to enter settlements, nearly all applications of public nuisance law to products claims have ultimately failed when heard by the courts on the merits. In February 2007, however, a Rhode Island trial court, in a groundbreaking decision, entered a judgment on a jury verdict imposing liability on three lead pigment manufacturers for creating a public nuisance, and ordered them to abate the nuisance in Rhode Island at a cost estimated to exceed two billion dollars.

On July 1, 2008, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment against the lead paint manufacturers and held that the state attorney general's complaint should have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The state had not, and could not, allege facts sufficient to support a public nuisance claim, as the doctrine was construed in Rhode Island or nationally. Relief from the serious harms caused by lead paint was available only through specific Rhode Island legislation and products liability law, not the public nuisance doctrine. The Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision is consistent with recent decisions from other state courts, most notably opinions issued by the highest courts of New Jersey and Missouri during 2007, and has already influenced other public nuisance plaintiffs to abandon their lead paint suits.     

对动物致害责任归责原则的反思

动物致害责任是一种特殊侵权责任,我国民法通则对此作了明确规定。但是在动物致害责任的归责原则问题上,有待深入探讨。通过对大陆法系与英美法系动物致害责任归责原则的比较考察,结合我国动物致害责任归责原则的现状,有必要对我国的动物致害责任归责原则进行重新定位,应当采纳无过错责任与过错推定二元的归责原则体系。     

医疗管理损害责任与法律适用

医疗管理损害责任是《侵权责任法》规定的医疗损害责任中的一种具体类型,与医疗伦理损害责任、医疗技术损害责任和医疗产品损害责任一道,构成医疗损害责任的类型体系。医疗管理损害责任应当适用《侵权责任法》第54条的规定确定赔偿责任,但与该法第34条第1款规定的用人单位责任构成竞合关系,受害患者可以根据自己的利益选择法律。     

论经济犯罪民事责任的归责原则与构成要件

经济犯罪民事责任是基于经济犯罪行为而派生产生的法律责任形式。经济犯罪及其民事责任的特殊性,决定了经济犯罪民事责任的归责原则不同于一般民事责任的归责原则,而且经济犯罪民事责任的归责原则与其构成要件之间存在密切关系。同时,经济犯罪民事责任的类型不同,其各自的构成要件也各不相同,需要予以具体分析和探讨。     

论医疗产品损害责任

医疗机构在医疗过程中使用有缺陷的药品、消毒药剂、医疗器械以及血液及血液制品等医疗产品,因此造成患者人身损害,医疗机构或者医疗产品生产者、销售者应当承担的医疗损害赔偿责任属医疗产品损害责任。这种医疗产品损害责任适用无过失责任原则,适用《产品质量法》规定的产品侵权责任的一般规则,其基本责任形态是不真正连带责任,在特殊情形下构成连带责任。     

交通事故归责原则与损害赔偿理论研究

《道路交通事故处理办法》与《中华人民共和国民法通则》关于道路交通事故的归则原则完全不同 ,这导致了交通事故损害赔偿的不同。分析比较了各主要国家对交通事故的归责原则 ,并且从法学理论上对之进行研究。认为汽车与非机动车、行人发生的交通事故 ,应采取无过错责任原则 ,才更能体现法的公平与正义     

医疗产品损害责任三论

医疗产品损害责任是《侵权责任法》第59条规定的医疗损害责任类型,关于责任分担的规则规定得不够完善,应当根据产品责任的一般规则以及侵权责任法的连带责任规则进行补充.血液属于准产品,应当适用医疗产品损害责任规则确定医疗机构的赔偿责任.消毒药剂构成医疗产品损害责任,其缺陷的判定有一定特点.     

医疗机构在医药产品侵权中的责任研究——以中外对比研究为重点

由于医药产品在医疗活动得到了广泛应用,医药产品侵权问题也成为一个热点问题。世界各国对医疗机构在有缺陷的医药产品侵权中是否承担责任以及如何承担责任主要有两种做法：一是,医疗机构作为医疗服务的提供者不承担产品责任,而由产品的生产者和销售者按照严格责任原则承担产品责任。这一做法以英国和美国为代表。二是,医疗机构通过提供医药产品获得经济,其行为性质与销售无异,因而与产品的生产者、销售者按照严格责任原则承担连带责任。这一种做法以欧盟为代表。笔者认为,我国《侵权责任法》采第二种做法。本文采用共同侵权的连带责任原理对《侵权责任法》的相关规定进行分析。连带责任产生外部法律效果和内部法律效果。就外部法律效果而言,对医疗机构和生产者同时适用产品责任的严格责任原则,患者既可以向生产者请求赔偿,也可向医疗机构请求赔偿。就内部法律效果而言,对医疗机构和生产者分别适用过错原则和产品责任的严格责任原则,即医疗机构在经患者请求赔偿其损害后,如果对医药产品的缺陷没有过错,可以向生产者追偿。我国《侵权责任法》的规定在倾斜保护患者利益的同时,有可能产生负面影响。医疗机构应当积极应对。     

教育机构侵权责任归责原则的理论争议与解析——以《侵权责任法》为中心

教育机构侵权责任的归责原则,是据以确定教育机构在无民事行为能力人、限制民事行为能力人在教育机构学习、生活期间遭受人身损害时,教育机构是否承担民事责任的根据和标准,对于妥善处理学生伤害事故,平衡教育机构与在校学生的民事权益具有指标性意义。过错责任原则是教育机构侵权责任的基础性归责原则,过错推定责任为例外、公平责任均为相应补充。     

著作权侵权精神损害赔偿的归责原则

有关著作权的精神损害赔偿问题我国相关法律没有做出明确规定，对此，首先要解决其归责原则的问题。著作权精神损害赔偿中的归责原则主要适用过错责任原则，对于争议较大的无过错责任原则则不适用于著作权侵权损害赔偿中。     

使用人责任相关问题探讨

《侵权责任法》第34条第1款规定的使用人责任,在性质上属于自己责任,因而其归责原则应当采取无过错责任原则。从学说上对于使用人责任中的关键要件“因执行工作任务”的认定的发展历程来看,当侵权行为发生在交易领域的,采取行为外观说较为便宜;发生在非交易领域的,则应采取内在关联说。     

论公司有限责任制度

公司有限责任制度的核心是公司责任与公司成员责任的分离,股东作为投资者无须对公司的债务承担除了其投资之外的进一步的责任。该制度的建立与发展对调动潜在投资者投资的积极性、发展规模经济、促进公司法律制度完善等方面功不可没。有限责任制度有其客观存在的价值,但并非十全十美,这主要表现在该制度被不当利用而对债权人和其它利益相关者造成的损害,实践中各国多采用有限责任制度例外适用来补救该制度之不足。由于历史原因,我国公司有限责任制度的设立和实施存在诸多问题,必须采取必要的措施完善我国的有限责任制度。     

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.     

论网络侵权中的通知规则

网络侵权是发生在互联网这一特殊平台上的新型侵权形态,其具有侵权主体匿名性、传播快捷性、影响广泛性和不可逆转性、造成后果严重性等特征。网络侵权通常都涉及直接侵权人和网络服务提供者,而网络服务提供者与侵权行为实施者在主观心态、损害预防能力和效果上都存在重大差异,网络侵权责任承担区别于一般侵权。通知规则作为网络侵权中的一般规则决定了网络服务提供者承担责任的界限,明确通知规则的产生、发展与责任特征以及与此相关的反通知规则及其效力,对于理解网络服务提供者违反通知规则的责任具有重要意义。