On the Tort of Negligence in Common Law Legal System

It is difficult for judicial practitioners to determine the liability of tort of negligence due to the fact that it has not been specially stipulated in the provisions of the Tort Liability Law or other civil laws and regulations in China. On the contrary, the principles of tort of negligence in common law legal system have been refined in judicial practice and provided the corresponding solution for determining the liability of tort of negligence. The author believes that the empirical research on the tort of negligence in common law legal system will help us to further strengthen the understanding and application of the Tort Liability Law in China. This article thus comprehensively surveys and researches the tort of negligence from the perspective of common law legal system.     

再议“合一论”与“复合罪过说”

德国关于间接故意与有认识过失的合一论的主张与我国学者所提出的复合罪过的概念各有特定含义,“合一论”的罪过形式的出现有其特定的类型划分和观念为前提。复合罪过现象的原始含义不同于合一论。应该结合我国《刑法》分则的具体罪名来进行真正复合罪过形式的研究。     

论德国法中的第三人缔约过失责任

德国法中长期由判例发展出的由第三人承担缔约过失责任的做法已借助新债法的修订正式纳入民法典中,这一对传统意义上理解的缔约过失责任的突破昭示了该责任信赖保护的宗旨,可以对正确认识缔约过失责任提供启示。     

论农村土地承包经营权的可继承性

土地承包经营权性质为用益物权,多个承包人是准共有的关系。《继承法》的规定为纳入新的遗产种类预留了制度空间,土地承包经营权也符合遗产特征,具备作为遗产的可能性。从顺应遗产范围不断扩大的发展趋势、避免法律体系冲突、维护农民利益等角度出发,应当承认土地承包经营权可以继承。在土地承包经营权继承的实施上,不应对继承人作身份条件限定,遗产的分割应遵循继承法的通常方法。     

“过失严重度”及其在医疗事故处理中的应用

目的建立“过失严重度”这一描述医疗事故或纠纷综合严重程度的量化指标。方法“过失严重度”以事故级别系数乘以责任大小系数表示。结果经计算,共产生了15个级别的“过失严重度”,从最重的1到最轻的20。结论“过失严重度”可对不同等级、不同责任程度医疗事故的严重程度进行排序,按照这一排序,可使医疗事故与纠纷的处理更具操作性与合理性。     

重大过失理论的构建

传统大陆民法理论关于重大过失的解说既无法提供明确的认定方法,又内在地欠缺解释力。重大过失应当是一种有认识的过失,但同时须在客观上制造了巨大的危险。它是一种偏主观的、行为人很大程度上可避免的过错,是一种具有较强道德可责难性的过错。它是介于故意与普通过失之间、更接近于故意的一种独立过错类型。有认识的认定应坚持知道与有理由知道两级分类,并有效运用司法推论和立法推定。危险巨大性的认定主要涉及损害可能性与损害程度两方面判断。重大过失的法律效果原则上与故意相同,但有例外。     

我国雇主替代责任制度之反思与重构

我国现行的雇主替代责任立法仍有不尽完善之处。按所有制类型区分适用雇主替代责任的主体和适用法人侵权责任的主体,这种立法模式既没有比较法上的依据,也缺少独特的制度价值。我国雇主替代责任应以保护受害人利益为立足点,危险分担理论为支撑,并契合责任之实质内涵。理顺雇佣关系和劳动关系,以雇主替代责任涵盖法人侵权责任。在责任形式上,雇主雇员应承担有限制的连带责任,即雇主承担第一顺位责任,并在诉讼程序上对传统连带责任的实现方式作出限制。     

侵犯商业秘密罪罪过形式探讨

97刑法修订后,新增加了侵犯商业秘密罪,但是关于侵犯商业秘密罪的罪过形式,是故意还是过失,争议较大,从而直接影响到司法实践中对本罪的正确认定和处理,妨碍了刑法社会保障功能的正常发挥。本文在比较分析各种学说后认为,无论是从法律逻辑,还是从过失犯罪罪行法定的角度,该罪的罪过形式只能是故意而不能包括过失。     

论职务侵占案件中国家工作人员共同犯罪的定性

职务侵占案件中国家工作人员共同犯罪的类型比较复杂，其中国家工作人员与单位工作人员相互勾结，各自利用职务便利将单位财物占为己有的，其定性最具争议。对于该情形，仍然应当依照身份者的实行行为决定共同身份犯的性质这一原则定为职务侵占罪，而不能分别定罪、以主犯定罪或定贪污罪。     

Conduct and its Consequences: Attempts at Debiasing Jury Judgments

Jurors in negligence cases are supposed to judge a defendant by the reasonableness of his or her conduct and not by the consequences of that conduct. But several studies have shown that a cognitive heuristic known as hindsight bias can skew post hoc judgments of some prior behavior. Thus, jurors who must evaluate the actions of a defendant may be influenced inappropriately by the consequences of those actions. A complementary problem arises when jurors must evaluate the injuries incurred by the plaintiff. Here, jurors' knowledge about the defendant's allegedly negligent conduct can proactively influence their assessment of the plaintiff's injuries and determination of damages. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effectiveness of two procedural techniques intended to reduce or eliminate the impact of hindsight bias in negligence cases—multiple admonitions from a judge about the proper use of evidence—and bifurcation (actually withholding irrelevant evidence from jurors). We presented a re-enacted automobile negligence trial to 355 jury-eligible adults drawn from the community, varied the evidence and instructions that they heard, and measured liability judgments and damage awards from individual jurors both before and after deliberating, and from juries. Results showed that admonitions were generally ineffective in guiding jurors to the proper use of evidence but that bifurcation was relatively more effective. Deliberations had no curative effect on jurors' misapplication of evidence.