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...     

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。     

The cost of delegated control: vicarious liability, secondary liability and mandatory insurance

Vicarious liability, secondary liability and mandatory insurance are three systems for attaining judgment-proof or disappearing injurers’ precaution through the direct control of a second party (the vicariously liable principal, the secondary liable party, or the insurer). In this way, the legal system delegates control over some injurers to private entities. Such mechanisms generate monitoring costs. In this paper, we consider who bears the cost of such monitoring, and the effect thereof on the equilibrium level of precautions under different liability rules. We use these findings to explain some of the patterns in the coupling of substantive standards of liability and legal regimes of delegated control.     

The idea of autonomy and the foundations of contractual liability

This paper examines a recurrent debate about the rationale of contractual liability: whether the central object of contract law is to facilitate human interaction by respecting individual choices, or if it is in large part to redistribute wealth, power, and advantages generally. The debate between defenders of freedom of contract and those who would use contract law to advance schemes of redistribution is connected to the long-standing issues between natural-law theories and legal positivism. This paper is divided into two main sections. In the first, the notion of individual autonomy is examined in light of the classical view, most recently advanced by Fried, that the rationale for enforcing contracts is connected to the respect for individual autonomy as such. There is also an examination of the notion of a collective concern, and what it is, from a libertarian point of view, that makes some social goals objectionably collective. The second part of the paper argues that the use of collective resources for the enforcement of contracts brings with it the authority to limit and shape enforcement in the interest of redistribution.     

The law and economics of AI liability

The employment of AI systems presents challenges for liability rules. This paper identifies these challenges and evaluates how liability rules should be adapted in response. The paper discusses the gaps in liability that arise when AI systems are unpredictable or act (semi)-autonomously. It considers the problems in proving fault and causality when errors in AI systems are difficult to foresee for producers, and monitoring duties of users are difficult to define. From an economic perspective, the paper considers what liability rules would minimise costs of harm related to AI. Based on the analysis of risks and optimal liability rules, the paper evaluates the recently published EU proposals for a Product Liability Directive and for an AI Liability Directive.     

The genesis of liability in ancient law

This article considers the emergence and evolution of punitiveand compensatory remedies in ancient law. I describe how ancientpractices of retaliation gradually evolved, through four generalphases, into rules requiring victim's compensation. I suggestthat the Biblical lex talionis ('eye for an eye...life for alife') and similar rules that emerged in other ancient legalsystems triggered an important change in the ancient law ofwrongs, marking the end of a system of retaliatory justice andthe emergence of a system based on victim's compensation. Thepaper addresses four related questions. (1) Why was a singlelimit of 1:1 to talionic penalties introduced across all categoriesof wrongdoing, replacing older customary practices that haddifferent multipliers according to the circumstances of thecase? (2) In the presence of imperfect enforcement, did the1:1 limit to retaliation result in underdeterrence? (3) Whydid the practices of literal talionis rapidly fall into disuseafter written formalization? (4) Where the kofer and blood-moneypayments made under a threat of literal retaliation likely togenerate overextraction from the wrongdoer and excessive deterrence?     

论无过错输血感染的责任认定

要输血感染是医疗机构临床用血所面临的一大困境,尤其是因某些危险因素的窗口期导致的无过错输血感染,并非医疗机构及其医务人员的过错,而是受到了当前医疗技术水平的限制,《侵权责任法》对这类输血感染并未做出区分,一律适用了严格责任,并不符合医疗活动的实际状况,也不能真正起到缓解医患矛盾的作用。而对临床输血以是否符合法律、法规和相关诊疗规范为标准进行区分,将窗VI期引起的无过错输血感染排除在医方的责任以外,通过补偿制度或第三方保险来解决,才是实现医患之间实质公平的途径。     

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。     

试论我国未来民法典中的民事责任制度的体例

传统大陆法系的立法体例是将民事责任规定在债法中,责任与债融为一体,在民法典中并没有单独规定民事责任专章。有的学者认为,民事责任的含义可以分两方面来理解,第一种含义是指某人对他人的权利或者利益不法地加以侵害时,应该受到的民法上的制裁,而这种责任是债务成立的原因;第二种意义是指债务人就其债务而应以其财产为之所承担的担保,这种民事责任是债务成立之后的结果。在很多国家的民事立法中,以有债务即由此种民事责任为原则,所以由此产生的结果就是债务与责任两者经常被混为一谈。然而现代民法将民事责任与债相分离已经是一种不可阻挡的趋势。我国《民法通则》一个显著的特点就是单独就民事责任设立了一章,从而突破了传统大陆法系将民事责任纳入执法的立法体例,可以说,这一设定是我国民事立法的一大特色。本文通过阐述《民法通则》民事责任制度的优点和不足,对之加以扬弃,从而为民法典中民事责任制度的构建提出一点看法。     

The development of care technology under liability law

It is well known that strict liability and negligence induce pareto optimal care in a most restrictive model of unilateral accidents. The paper at hand extends this traditional theorem from its static context to an intertemporal setting where tort law induces progress in care technology. This model provides a methodological framework for a general analysis of the dynamic incentives generated by alternative liability rules. One of the many possible extensions of the basic model is to allow for incomplete information. Particularly, we drop the assumption that the authority setting the due care standard under negligence is able to assess technical progress ex ante. It is shown that the dynamic incentives of the negligence rule are distorted compared to strict liability in this modified framework.     

医疗责任保险的潜在缺陷及其弥补

医疗责任保险作为分散和化解医疗职业风险的重要制度．其功能和价值已为我们所认识．但其运行过程中可能出现的潜在缺陷和弊端却为我们所忽视。本文在借鉴保险理论和对国内外有关医疗责任保险实践分析的基础上．总结了医疗责任保险存在的缺陷，并提出了相关的应对措施。     

《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。