Criteria for Allocation of Responsibility under State Law

Numerous state statutes provide guidance for allocating responsibility and response costs among potentially responsible parties at environmentally contaminated sites. Twenty-eight states explicitly or implicitly address joint and several liability; thirty states address allocation criteria; and two states identify how orphan share costs are shared. Of the thirty states that address allocation criteria in their statutes, twenty-four specify one or more criteria that may be applied to avoid joint and several liability, and twenty-nine permit the allocation of responsibility using unspecified equitable factors. The state allocation criteria tabulated and discussed in this article can be used by counsel and their technical consultants and experts to assess which, if any, state-specific criteria are most applicable to a particular site, given the technical, historical, financial, and regulatory information that may be available for that site.     

The Gorilla in the Closet: Joint and Several Liability and the Cleanup of Toxic Waste Sites

The use of the tort law doctrine joint and several liability (JSL) to Superfund, the federal program to cleanup inactive toxic waste sites, has been controversial since, its inception. Despite this controversy, the underlying assumptions for utilizing JSL have gone largely unexamined. We look at four rationales for applying joint and several liability in this setting: (a) a fairness rationale; (b) a settlement rationale; (c) a deep pockets rationale; and (d) an incentives effects rationale. We find that it is unclear whether JSL has had the desired effect of encouraging swift site clean ups. At a minimum it seems clear that unexpected and undesired consequences accompany its use warranting further research on this important public policy question.     

我国《公司法》修订中商事连带责任的重构——基于“连带”的历史发展脉络

我国《公司法》存在用连带责任替代连带之债、连带责任与无限责任、补充责任混同使用的现象,给理论与司法实践造成困扰。究其原因是对商事连带责任与民事连带责任的关系界定不清,对公司法中的商事连带责任制度缺乏体系化思考与精细化设计。连带之债起源于罗马法的整体之债,形成于中世纪注释法学的理论抽象,发展于近现代民法。近现代商法将法定原因连带责任引入商事规范,构建了商事连带责任制度。商事连带责任与民法连带之债共同具有给付与清偿的整体性特征,但商事连带责任也具有自身的商事特性。由于商事信义义务的道德标准高于民事诚信义务,商事法定连带责任相对于民事连带责任的适用范围更为广泛。基于商事领域的公司股东有限责任制度,商事连带责任可为有限连带也可为无限连带。我国《公司法》未来的修订应在我国《民法典》连带之债规定的基础上对商事连带责任进行体系化贯通,谨慎设定法定连带责任,厘清连带责任与无限责任的关系,对有限连带责任与无限连带责任、连带清偿责任与补充清偿责任进行细化区分。     

共同危险侵权责任之法律重构———按份责任对连带责任的替代简

尽管受害人无法确定共同危险侵权的具体加害人，但从对危险行为人进行惩罚和重点保护受害人理念出发，法律应规定由所有危险行为人对受害人的损害承担责任。在确定共同危险侵权人承担责任前提下，需要进一步研究哪种责任承担方式更为合理。共同危险侵权承担连带责任客观说将危险侵权人承担责任的基础当做危险行为人承担连带责任的基础，混淆了二者的区别。共同危险侵权入主观上不存在共同故意，也不存在共同过失，行为人承担连带责任主观说理论依据不足。危险侵权入承担按份责任有利于受害人和行为人利益保护的平衡，应当成为法律之选择。共同危险侵权人责任份额确定的因素主要有行为人过错的强弱、致害几率的大小等，无法确定情况下应该承担均等份额的责任。     

论单独侵权致同一损害适用按份责任的例外

单独侵权不足以致全部损害时,应适用连带责任还是按份责任并无定论。连带责任将部分侵权人不能清偿的风险转嫁给其他侵权人,有利于保护受害人,却让过错比例较小的侵权人承担过重的责任;按份责任可避免过错程度与责任不相称,却将部分侵权人不能清偿的风险转移给原告。这使连带责任或按份责任作为一般规则设置例外显得必要,由此形成两种模式:连带责任为一般规则、按份责任为例外与按份责任为一般规则、连带责任为例外。多数国家采纳前者,我国采纳后者。排除政策性连带责任,网络服务提供者承担连带责任属于我国"按份责任"一般规则的例外,但其适当性欠妥,司法实践将环境侵权、医疗侵权作为例外情形有其合理性。     

The incentive effects of settlements under joint and several liability

Several recent articles have examined the effects of joint and several liability on settlement. But these settlement effects also have a significant impact on primary behavior. This paper will examine these effects under the most frequently analyzed paradigm of joint and several liability, in which plaintiff's probabilities of success against the defendants are perfectly correlated and any settlements are applied to future awards under a pro tanto set-off rule (i.e., the award is reduced by the amount of the settlement).Section I will present the basic model of settlement under joint and several liability. Section II will draw the implications of settlement on primary behavior. As others have noted, the settlement effects of joint and several liability increase the expected recovery to the plaintiff and the expected damages payable by defendants. However, this does not mean that they increase defendants' incentives to take care ex ante. Rather, as I will show, the settlement effects of joint and several liability can either increase or decrease incentives to exercise care, depending on the nature of the uncertainty regarding defendant's liability and on the level of care that would prevail otherwise.     

论无意思联络数人侵权行为

无意思联络数人侵权行为的研究意义主要在于廓清其是否应归于共同侵权行为，即行为人是否应承担连带责任这一问题。根据结合的时间和空间，可以将无意思联络数人侵权行为划分为同时空结合和异时空结合两类行为。由于难以给出一个统一的、科学的、确定的划分数行为与损害结果之间的原因力的标准，并且无辜的受害人相对于实施了侵权行为的加害人应受到更多的保护，因此虽然无意思联络，只要数个侵权行为互相结合造成同一损害的，行为人应向受害人承担连带责任，即无意思联络数人侵权行为构成共同侵权行为。     

我国侵权法上特殊数人侵权责任分担制度立法体例与规则研究——兼评《侵权责任法（二次审议稿）》第14条及相关条文

从法律适用规则、内部责任份额和立法技术规则等角度可以将四种数人侵权责任分担形态区分为两类：一般数人侵权责任分担形态（包括按份责任形态和连带责任形态）、特殊数人侵权责任分担形态（包括补充责任形态和不真正连带责任形态）。立法技术上,在一般规则部分对特殊数人侵权责任形态的基本制度应予以规定,而对适用过错责任或过错推定责任的侵权行为类型的补充责任形态和适用严格责任的侵权行为类型中的不真正连带责任形态应予以全面列举。     

论行政法上的连带责任

《最高人民法院关于审理行政许可案件若干问题的规定》第13条在行政法上确立了一个新的连带责任类型,即行政主体和私人共同承担连带责任。行政法上的连带责任应从行政主体之间的连带责任拓宽到行政相对人之间的连带责任以及行政民事连带责任,应从行政许可与行政赔偿领域拓宽到行政处罚等其它领域。行政法上连带责任的实现有赖于建立或重构行政诉讼和行政赔偿诉讼第三人制度,建立行政案件与民事案件的合并审理机制。行政主体在承担责任后要向作为连带责任人的第三人追偿,则有赖于建立"官告民"的行政诉讼机制,否则只能通过民事诉讼机制去追偿。     

共同危险行为的侵权责任承担——《侵权责任法》第10条之解构与重构

《侵权责任法》第10条并非一个纯正的共同危险行为法条,依据加害人是否确定,在结构上可将其分为两个部分。但其中前一部分与该法第11、12条相关的责任设置并不合理。一般责任和连带责任的归责基础和免责事由均不相同。共同危险行为人承担责任的基础是行为人的主观可责难性和行为的客观危险性,承担连带责任的基础是具有客观危险性的行为之间存在的关联共同。行为与损害之间不存在因果关系只能免除连带责任,如果行为人不能证明其行为不具有客观危险性,仍需承担均等份额内的按份责任,其余不能举证证明行为与损害不存在因果关系的行为人对剩余份额承担连带责任。     

侵权连带责任的现实类型

侵权连带责任可分为"一般类型"和"特殊类型"。《侵权责任法》上的一般侵权连带责任以共同侵权为中心,而特殊侵权连带责任的适用范围则变动不羁。全面考察侵权连带责任的现实类型,可以发现:一般侵权连带责任不限于共同侵权,还可基于合同或"侵害行为直接结合"而生;特殊侵权连带责任是政策衡量的产物,可广泛适用于控制危险致害、提供场所者责任、惩治挂靠经营、提升信用者责任以及独立责任之衡平等场合。     

注册会计师的过失责任:连带责任抑或比例责任

对于注册会计师的过失责任应适用连带责任还是比例责任,目前理论界存在争议,而这一问题对于注册会计师的法律风险具有相当大的影响。从西方来看,更多地采用连带责任,但近年来,以美国为代表,正表现出逐渐从连带责任向比例责任的转变的趋势。我国目前有关法律亦采用连带责任,但从我国注册会计师的执业环境来看,连带责任将使注册会计师承担过高的法律风险,因此,对于注册会计师的过失责任采用比例责任可能更为合适。     

共同危险行为争议问题探析

共同危险行为属于责任者不明型共同侵权,其与份额不明型共同组成客观共同侵权之类型。此类共同侵权中连带责任的正当化基础为可能因果关系,故当行为人证明自己的行为与损害间不存在因果关系时,便可免于承担责任。共同危险行为制度同样可以适用于无过错责任领域。共同危险行为与共同过失型共同侵权的区分,主要看行为人是否具有共同过失,共同过失表现为基于一致的行为安排而作出一定行为,而该行为中含有可预见并可避免的致害可能性。     

Proactive Evaluation of PRP Status at Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites

Two keys to avoiding potentially responsible party (PRP) status at future Superfund sites are to manage all waste with appropriate care and to perform appropriate inquiries into the history of new properties prior to acquisition. However, corporations can become PRPs because of their ownership and/or operation of historically contaminated property, their historical waste management practices, or their historical disposal of hazardous substances at nonowned disposal sites, such as landfills. This article describes a method by which insurance companies, waste producers, and property owners can proactively evaluate their potential liability associated with environmental response action costs at contaminated sites.     

共同侵权之“共同”标准：反思与重构

我国《侵权责任法》以意思联络作为确定共同侵权的“共同”标准。该法选择的进路并无充分的价值依据且悖于侵权法的发展方向。其他现有的替代标准未能弥补该缺陷。妥当的进路是附条件的损害共同说。在受害人无辜的场合,只要数人致同一或不可分的损害。各加害人均应负连带责任。在受害人具有过错的场合,只要某加害人责任份额比受害人责任份额大,该加害人即应负连带责任。过错程度和风险比例规则是确定当事人责任份额的妥当标准。     

Identifying Successor Corporations Liable under CERCLA and Pursuing Insurance Coverage for That Liability

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) imposes liability well beyond general corporate successor rules. A company can allocate liability to other Potentially Responsible Parties as more culpable, taking advantage of CERCLA's joint and several liability. Often a source of recovery must be teased from a complex corporate history somehow connected to the site. This article examines the basis for attributing environmental liability to entities within a corporate history, before addressing how even a bankrupt or dissolved target may still have insurance that can be tapped. Similarly, CERCLA's strict liability enables recovery from insurance with some connection to either the target's or the company's corporate history, notwithstanding insurers' non-assignment arguments.     

论金融产品销售商的投资者适当性义务

金融产品销售商承担适当性义务需以信赖关系的存在为前提。客户风险承受能力的认定要素应包括主观要素和客观要素。对于主观要素的忽视是导致高估客户风险承受能力的重要原因,可采用木桶短板管理理论进行合理评估。对于金融产品风险等级的确定,司法审判中穿透式认定的做法或有违“尊重专长”原则,通过委托独立的第三方进行重新评估不失为一种解...     

证券虚假陈述赔偿中审计人责任构成要件与责任限缩

作为审计人的注册会计师事务所具有信息输出的不独立性、信用输出的独立性和责任承担的不独立性。我国《证券法》对审计人设定了基于积极防范义务的过错推定责任,这种责任模式重于以美国为代表的中介机构仅在知情、实质性地参与虚假陈述时承担责任的模式。当发行人和审计人存在实施虚假陈述的共同故意,或一为故意一为重大过失时,应视为主观的共...     

The National Practitioner Data Bank: coping with the uncertainties

The National Practitioner Data Bank is a database of adverse events involving physicians and other practitioners. Querying the database is mandatory for hospitals in several situations. So too, hospitals are required to report specified adverse events. Thus, hospitals need to be able to identify incidents that are reportable events, events that require them to update the databases, and any possible liability issues that may surround the hospital's reporting duties. The author argues that the regulations are unclear in addressing these issues. Likewise, he notes that practitioners should be aware of other problems with the reporting system, including the lack of sufficient Data Bank security.