Use of 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane as a Tracer to Determine Liability

Both Olin and DuPont owned industrial facilities adjacent to the Solvent property, and Solvent alleged that the chlorinated aliphatic contamination detected in Solvent's groundwater recovery wells was predominately due to releases from the former DuPont chlorinated-solvent production facility. However, Solvent's position was complicated by the fact that during the 1980s, the Solvent property was used as an unlicensed hazardous waste transfer facility by a third-party (Frontenac Environmental Services, Inc.) and had received more than one hundred thousand gallons of chlorinated aliphatics from various entities. Solvent thus needed a method of determining the source for the chlorinated aliphatics in their groundwater recovery wells. One of the methods that Solvent used was based on its knowledge that chlorinated solvent production at DuPont involved certain intermediates such as 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (TeCA) that would likely not be present in any of the waste products stored on the Solvent property. The judge found that Solvent's use of a TeCA tracer was compelling evidence regarding the source of chlorinated aliphatics and largely agreed to Solvent's suggested allocation.     

Use of the Pesticide Intermediate Benzene Hexachloride as a Tracer to Determine Liability

Abstract

Solvent alleged that chlorinated benzene contamination detected in Solvent's offsite groundwater recovery wells was 98% due to releases from the neighboring Olin chlorobenzene production facility and only 2% due to Solvent's nearby chlorinated benzene production facility. However, Solvent's position was complicated by the fact that it had acknowledged that its operations had impacted site contamination levels. Solvent's position was that the onsite contamination was partially due to Olin, but it faced an uphill struggle because the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) had assigned Solvent responsibility for the Hot Spot cleanup at the Olin site. However, Solvent was able to recover virtually the entire amount of its Hot Spot costs attributable to chlorinated benzenes from Olin, as well as the full percentage of allocation they requested from Olin for the Solvent site through the useof chemical tracers such as benzene hexachloride (BHC).     

基于纤维二次转移确定纤维屑作为示踪物质的探讨

目的 考察纤维屑在涉及二次转移案件中作为示踪物质的适用性.方法 根据一个实际案例展开,在该案中,犯罪嫌疑人涉嫌多起入室盗窃案.纤维开始分散于嫌疑人所用车辆,后被嫌疑人“携带”并分散到犯罪现场,最终这些纤维在勘查过程中被收集.设计完善了一个可用于散布纤维的便携式装置,并完成了一系列二次转移的相关实验.结果 设计的装置可在短时间均相的散布纤维,单次接触不能全部转移第一表面的纤维碎屑.只有1-15％的纤维会转移到代表犯罪现场的第三表面.实际转移的纤维数与包括比如表面的材质在内的各种因素都有关系.结论 在所选参数范围内,相对大量的纤维有可能转移到犯罪现场并在现场勘查过程中被提取.     

保证责任不属于民事责任

保证责任的性质在我国《担保法》中没有述及,很多人将保证责任理解为一种民事责任,这从起始便把保证人放于不平衡的位置,有损害保证人权益之虞。从民事责任、义务的关系以及保证责任的自身特征角度来思考,普通意义上所说的保证责任只能是一种特殊的“一般债务”。     

Art as a Means to Disrupt Routine Use of Space

This paper examines the publicly visible aspects of counter-terrorism activity in pedestrian spaces as mechanisms of disruption. We discuss the objectives of counter-terrorism in terms of disruption of routine for both hostile actors and general users of public spaces, categorising the desired effects as 1) triangulation of attention; 2) creation of unexpected performance; and 3) choreographing of crowd flow. We review the potential effects of these existing forms of disruption used in counter-terrorism. We then present a palette of art, advertising, architecture, and entertainment projects that offer examples of the same disruption effects of triangulation, performance and flow. We conclude by reviewing the existing support for public art in counter-terrorism policy, and build on the argument for art as an important alternative to authority. We suggest that while advocates of authority-based disruption might regard the playfulness of some art as a weakness, the unexpectedness it offers is perhaps a key strength.     

Liability for failing to rescue

Should there be civil liability when a person who could easily and without risk rescue another fails to do so? It is argued that the failure to act does not cause the harm that follows, and that the misfeasance/nonfeasance distinction provides no basis for liability. In spite of this, it is maintained that there can sometimes be a duty to rescue, and even a right to be rescued, even in the absence of a voluntary undertaking or an explicit assumption of responsibility. There are convincing arguments for some sort of legal recognition of a duty to rescue, but these arguments do not support tort liability. Nor is a case for tort liability made with the argument that a growth of tort law in this direction would be compatible with the values most centrally involved in the division between torts and contracts. Furthermore, there is a case against tort liability — namely, that the purpose of tort liability is to compensate, that there are certain sorts of situations in which compensation is apposite, and that failure to rescue does not fit into these categories. Criminal liability is the appropriate way for the law to recognize a duty to rescue.     

多车连环致伤责任分析1例

在交通事故中,两车、甚至多车连环致伤的事故常有发生,而在处理此类案件时,车辆司机时有互相推诿或拒不承认责任,给事故处理造成很大困难。分析及认定肇事责任是我们医学司法鉴定工作者的应尽职责。本例泸昆高速公路湖南段一起连环致伤的交通事故中，因不能明确责任，对该事故进行了鉴定，现报道如下。     

Proportionality in the Liability to Compensate

Law and Philosophy - There is widely thought to be a proportionality constraint on harming others in self-defense, such that an act of defensive force can be impermissible because the harm...     

Legal Title to Property May Not Always Result in Liability as an Owner under CERCLA

The meaning of “ownership” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is not as straightforward as most people believe. Although liability under section 107(a)(1) is imposed upon a current “owner” or operator of a facility, CERCLA provides little guidance because it defines “owner” as “any person owning” a facility. In most cases, the issue of who owns the property or a facility is readily apparent and not controversial; however, this article discusses cases in which courts have been compelled to critically examine the specific facts of the case and state law to determine whether a particular party is an “owner” for purposes of establishing liability under CERCLA.     

使用专利权用尽纾解平行进口难题

就专利权用尽的立场而言,TRTPs协定将其交由各缔约国自己处理.在国际分工和国际贸易的快速发展过程中,中国正逐渐成为技术贸易大国.正确理解专利权用尽的真正含意,有助于证明专利权国际用尽的合理性.专利权国际用尽立场,是破解国际贸易中的专利壁垒的利刃,对于推动建立和谐公正的国际新秩序具有特别重要的意义,也有助于带动世界经济的复苏.     

《侵权责任法》规定的医疗损害责任归责原则

《侵权责任法》规定医疗损害责任的归责原则采体系化方法,规定过错责任原则为基本归责原则,辅之以过错推定原则和无过错责任原则。过错责任原则适用于医疗技术损害责任和医疗管理损害责任,过错推定原则适用于医疗伦理损害责任,无过错责任原则适用于医疗产品损害责任。三种归责原则分别调整四种不同的医疗损害责任类型,并决定了这些不同的医疗损害责任的法律适用规则。     

公司设立民事责任归责模式研究——兼评最高法院的司法解释意见稿

设立中公司在其不同的发展阶段,分别具有形式主体资格和实质主体资格,不宜将其拟制为任何其他法律主体。设立中公司的性质更接近于公司,因此其民事责任规则的建立应尽可能依据公司法理。具体而言,应首先以设立中公司自身的财产承担债务,不足清偿的部分,应由全体发起人基于其法定身份以各自的出资额为限承担连带清偿责任;同时,肩负特殊身份的发起人如法定代表人等行为人应承担无限连带责任。这种无限连带责任类似于公司人格否认制度下控制股东的过错行为责任。     

试论缔约过失责任理论在劳动合同制度中的引入与适用

在作为特殊合同的劳动合同制度中引入、适用缔约过失责任理论具有必要性和可行性.但劳动合同缔约过失责任制度与民商事合同的缔约过失责任制度相比,在适用主体、归责原则、行为的类型、赔偿范围和责任承担方式等方面有其特殊性.