美国侵权法(中英文)

例如诽谤，

最近就在宪法判例法中得到

显著的修 改。

判例法也增加了一些传统的普通法所未包含的新的侵权行为；

其中

特别重要的是侵犯隐私权的行为和产品责任侵权行为。

Part Three: Liability for Negligence

过失侵权责任

Tort

liability

for

negligence

presupposes

causality

between

the

negligent

act

and

the

injury

to

person

or

property.

A

person

is

negligent

if

he

has

not

complied

with

his

of

care

and,

seen

objectively,

has

not

acted

as

reasonable

and

prudent

man.

The

latter

test

takes

into

account

the

special professional qualification of the tortfeasor. Thus, different

criteria

apply,

say, to

an

architect

than

for

a

construction

worker,

the

case law has given a restrictive interpretation to the concept of

of care

”

. The duty must be owed toward the particular plaintiff: there

is no duty of care to the public at large. Thus, a lesser duty of care

is owed to him who trespasses on property than to an incited guest. Some

State statutes go even

further and exclude,

for instance, a

duty of care

by the driver of a motor vehicle--toward passengers whom he transports

gratuitously (guest statutes).

Even if a duty of

care exists and has not

been

observed,

the

injured

party

may

still

not

have

a

claim

for

compensation.

This

will

be

the

case,

for

instance,

when

he

has

been

guilty

of contributory. This will be the case, for instance, when he has been

guilty

of

contributory

negligence

or

has

assumed

the

rise,

the

harshness

of

the

contributory

negligence

defense,

the

result

of

which

would

not

only

be

a

deduction

from

the

compensation

but

exclude

any

liability

on

the

part

of the tortfeasor has been softened in some States by adoption of the

negligence

doctrine.

It

requires

that

the

respective

degree

of negligence of both parties be determined and compensation assessed

accordingly.

The

bar

of

the

contributory

negligence

defense

to

a

recovery

may furthermore be excluded by the doctrine of the

according to which even the contributory negligent plaintiff will be

compensated

if

he

can

prove

that

the

defendant

had

the

clear

chance

to prevent the damage.

过失侵权责任以过失行为和对人身或财产的侵害之间的 因果关系为前提要

件。

一个人若没有尽到其注意义务就被认为是 有过失的。

客观地讲，

他没有像一

个理 性且谨慎的人那样行为。

最新的修正案中包含了特殊行业侵权行为所该承担

的责任。

这样，

比方说对一名建筑师就要适用不同于 一名建筑工人的标准。

判例

法已经对

“ 注意义务”

给出了限制性解释。

这种责任必定属于特殊的原告而 非普

通的社会大众。

这样，

一个人对于 非法进入其土地者所负有的照看义务就小于其

邀请的客人。

一些 州的侵权立法发展得更加迅速，

例如，

对于免费搭乘乘客的司< /p>

机的照看义务做出了规定。

即使司机未尽到小心与观察的义务，< /p>

受害一方仍不能

主张赔偿请求。

下面就是 一个因共同过失或承担风险而获罪的案例。

共同过失辩

护的严格 性，

其结果并不是减少赔偿数额而是完全排除侵权行为人的责任，

已经

因一些州采用了

“比较过失”

原 则而得到减弱。

比较过失原则又可译为相对过失

原则，

即通过比较双方的过失来确定双方的责任。

该原则要求共同过失的双方基

于造成的损害程度来确定赔偿数额。

该法令的贡献在于过失侵权 的赔偿责任可能

因为“最后明显机会”原则得到排除，有过失的原告可能得到赔偿，如果 它能够

证明被告因“最后明显机会”原则而避免损害。

The extraordinarily complex law of negligence--with its difficulties

of proof in a jury trial and the possibility that a jury sympathetic to

the plaintiff will let him win despite his contributory negligence but

consider the latter in its calculation of damages--today leads to two,

sometimes inconsistent, efforts of reform. One would provide for strict

liability

in

many

cases,

the

other

would

introduce

a

system

of

compensation for the injured without regard to fault, resembling a form

of insurance. The following section briefly reviews these two trends.

过失侵权法极其复 杂，

因为在庭审过程中很难避免陪审团对原告产生同情从而不

考 虑原告的过错也不考虑接下来的损失计算。

如今对此现象可以从两方面努力进

尽管有时这两者不相一致。

一方面可以在 很多案件中规定严格责任，

另

一方面可以创设一种不考虑过错的 赔偿制度，

例如类似保险制度的形式。

下面的

< br>章节将简要评论这两种立法趋势。

Part Four: Tort Law Reform: Strict Liability and

“

No- Fault

”

侵权法改革：严格责任和无过错责任

a. Strict Liability

严格责任

Originally, strict liability existed only in a few special cases, for

instance

with

respect

to

the

maintenance

of

dangerous

animals,

defamation,

and

by

way

of

a

rebuttable

presumption,

known

as

the

doctrine

of

res

ipsa

loquitur,

which

deduced

fault

or

negligence

from

the

nature

of

the

thing

or act itself, such as defective construction or negligent use.

首先，严格责任只存在于几种特殊情形，比如饲养危险 动物、诽谤，通过一个被

称之为

“不言自明法则”

的可反驳之推定，

从事实或行为本身的性质推定过错或

者过失，例如施工缺陷或者是疏忽使用。

Beginning with the use of contract law concepts, particularly that of

warranty which permits

suit

either based on contract

or on tort

and thus

obvious

the

need

to

show

negligence,

the

more

recent

case

law

recognizes

strict liability in the area of product liability. This new tort claim

no longer derives from contract law notions but has become independent;

the liability of a seller today extends to all

”

,

without regard to whether the issue concerns the product itself or its

packaging.

”

Dangerous products

”

include products

”

in a defective

condition

”

which

are

dangerous

to

the

user

or

consumer

or

to his property

”

, In this context,

does

not

meet

the

reasonable

expectations

of

the

ordinary

consumer

concerning the safety of the product. Everyone is protected whom the

seller

”

.

In view of the extensive interstate commerce in the United States, this

formula,

for

all

practical

purposes,

extends

protection

to

the

public

in

general.

从合同法概 念的作用说起，尤其是在合同或侵权中提供担保可以避免出现过失，

更多的近期判例法承 认在产品责任领域的严格责任。

这一新的侵权主张不再依据

合同 法主张从而独立存在：销售商的责任如今扩大到所有“危险产品”，而不在

乎是产品本身 的问题还是包装问题。“危险产品”包括产品“在有缺陷的条件”

下对使用者或消费者或 其财产有不合理的危险。在此，

“缺陷”一词意指该产品

未达到 一般消费者关于该产品安全性能的合理期望标准。

销售商

“应该 预见到会

由于对该产品的恰当使用而带来危险的”

每一个人均受 保护。

纵观美国各州，

在

所有现实目的 中这个定律总体扩大了对社会公众的保护。

b. No-Fault

无过错责任

The trend to strict liability in the area of products liability should

be

contrasted

with

another

reform

endeavor

which

seeks

to

find

more

just

solutions for ordinary claims based on negligence, particularly with

respect

to

the

great

number

of

automobile

accidents.

These

reform

endeavors which are based,

in the main,

on the plan

of Professors Keeton

and

O'Connell

seek

to

abolish

the

fault

principle

in

tort

law

and

to

award

compensation without proof of fault according to insurance principles.

This notion has already proved very successful in those States which so

far have adopted No Fault statutes. Experience in those jurisdictions

shows

persons

could

be

compensated.

Nevertheless,

compensation

for

losses

resulting from automobile accidents and products liability remains a

problem of overwhelming dimensions: losses amount to over five billion

dollars a year but only 800 million dollars in insurance proceeds are

available for their compensation. As claims arising out of products

liability have steadily increased, the cost of liability insurance to

manufacturers also increased from 25 million in 1950 to 125 million in

1970.

Further

reform

movements,

albeit

at

this

time

only

in

their

infancy,

seek to extend the No-Fault principle to almost all claims, principally

to

products

liability,

but

also

to

other

kinds

of

liability

such

as

medical

malpractice. In a No-Fault system, a manufacturer agrees--and insures

himself accordingly to grant compensation for certain injuries without

proof of fault.

”

in this context means compensation for

actual losses, but not for intangible damage. Thus, liability will be

limited for the manufacturer and will therefore require a relatively

lesser

insurance

premium

to

cover

the

rise.

On

the

other

hand,

the

injured

person

will

be

in

a

better

positon,

compared

to

traditional

tort

law,

since

he

will

be

entitled

to

receive

immediate

compensation

for

his

actual

loss

(expenses

loss

of

profits

or

wages)

without

lengthy

litigation

or

difficult proof of fault.

产品 责任适用严格责任的趋势应当与另外一种改革努力相比较，

就是为了因过失

提起的主张，

特别是大量的机动车事故，

力求寻找更 多解决措施。

这些主要建立

在基顿和奥康内尔两位教授之方案基 础上的改革努力试图取消侵权法中的过错

责任原则并按照保险原则在不要过错证明（“无 过错”）的情况下给予与赔偿。

在目前采用无过错责任制度的国家，

已经证明了这一主张非常成功。

司法实践表

明，