侵权法Word下载.docx
- 文档编号:17826928
- 上传时间:2022-12-11
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:15
- 大小:28.88KB
侵权法Word下载.docx
《侵权法Word下载.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《侵权法Word下载.docx(15页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
∙1.OverviewofTortLawandTortTheory
o1.1TortLaw:
BasicFeatures
o1.2TheDifferencebetweenStrictLiabilityandFaultLiability
o1.3TheoreticalPerspectivesonTortLaw
∙2.TheoriesofTortLaw:
EconomicAnalysis
o2.1TheEconomicInterpretationofFaultLiability
o2.2TheEconomicInterpretationofStrictLiability
o2.3ObjectionstoEconomicAnalysis
∙3.TheoriesofTortLaw:
Justice,Rights,andDuties
o3.1CorrectiveJustice
o3.2CivilRecourseTheory
∙Bibliography
∙OtherInternetResources
∙RelatedEntries
1.OverviewofTortLawandTortTheory
1.1TortLaw:
BasicFeatures
Atortsuitenablesthevictimofsomeinjurytomakeherproblemsomeoneelse'
sproblem.Unlikeacriminalcase,whichisinitiatedandmanagedbythestate,atortsuitisprosecutedbythevictimorthevictim'
ssurvivors.Moreover,asuccessfultortsuitresultsnotinasentenceofpunishmentbutinajudgmentofliability.Suchajudgmentnormallyrequiresthedefendanttocompensatetheplaintifffinancially.Inprinciple,anawardofcompensatorydamagesshiftsalloftheplaintiff'
slegallycognizablecoststothedefendant.(Itiscontroversialwhethertortreallylivesuptothisprincipleinpractice;
seeRoss1970.)Onrareoccasions,aplaintiffmayalsobeawardedpunitivedamages,definedasdamagesinexcessofcompensatoryrelief.Inothercases,aplaintiffmayobtainaninjunction:
acourtorderpreventingthedefendantfrominjuringherorfrominvadingoneofherpropertyrights(perhapsharmlessly).
Thelawdoesnotrecognizejustanyinjuryasthebasisofaclaimintort.Ifyoubeatmeintennisorincompetitionfortheaffectionsofanother,Imaywellbeinjured.YetIhavenoclaimintorttorepairmybruisedegoorbrokenheart.Sinceyoulackalegaldutynottobeatmeintennisorincompetitionfortheaffectionsofanother,youdonotacttortiouslywhenyousucceedatmyexpense.
Tortdistinguishesbetweentwogeneralclassesofduties:
(i)dutiesnottoinjure‘fullstop’and(ii)dutiesnottoinjurenegligently,recklessly,orintentionally.Whenyouengageinanactivitythelawregardsasextremelyhazardous(e.g.,blastingwithdynamite),youaresubjecttoadutyofthefirstsort—adutynottoinjure‘fullstop.’Whenyouengageinanactivityofordinaryriskiness(e.g.,driving),youaresubjecttoadutyofthesecondsort—adutynottoinjurenegligently,recklessly,orintentionally.Yourconductisgovernedbystrictliabilitywhenitfloutsadutynottoinjure‘fullstop.’Yourconductisgovernedbyfaultliabilitywhenitfloutsadutynottoinjurenegligently,recklessly,orintentionally.
1.2TheDifferencebetweenStrictLiabilityandFaultLiability
Strictliability.SupposeImakeamessonmypropertyandpresentyouwiththebillforcleaningitup.Absentsomeprioragreement,thiswouldseemratherodd.Itismymess,afterall,notyours.Nowsupposethatinsteadofmakingamessonmypropertyandpresentingyouwiththebill,Isimplymovethemesstoyourpropertyandwalkaway,claimingthatthemessisyourproblem.IfitwasinappropriateofmetopresentyouwiththebillforthemessImadeonmyproperty,ithardlyseemsthatIhaveimprovedmattersbyplacingmymessonyourproperty.IhaveadutytocleanupmymessesandtheexistenceofthisdutydoesnotappeartodependonhowhardIhavetriednottomakeamessinthefirstplace.Thisistheunderlyingintuitionexpressedbytheruleofstrictliability.
Faultliability.Unlesswestayhomeallday,weareeachboundtomaketheoccasionalmessinanother'
slife.Thisbeingso,itwouldbeunreasonableofmetodemandthatyounevermakeanykindofmessinmylife.WhatIcanreasonablydemandisthatyoutakemyinterestsintoaccountandmoderateyourbehavioraccordingly.Inparticular,Icanreasonablydemandthatyoutakeprecautionsnottoinjureme—thatyouavoidbeingcarelesswithrespecttomyinterestsand,allthemoreso,thatyounotinjuremeintentionally.Thisistheunderlyingintuitionexpressedbytheruleoffaultliability.
Peoplesometimesmisunderstandthenatureoffaultliabilitybecausetheyequatestrictliabilityintortwithstrictliabilityinthecriminallaw.Strictliabilityinthecriminallawisaformofresponsibilitywithoutculpability.Ifyouarestrictlyliableforacriminaloffense,youarepunishablefortheoffenseevenifyourconductisnotmorallyblameworthy.Thestandardwaytoexpressthisistosaythatstrictliabilityincriminallawisnotdefeasiblebyexcuse.Ifweconceivedsimilarlyofstrictliabilityintort,wewouldthenunderstandfaultliability,incorrectly,asliabilitythatisdefeasiblebyexcuse,inotherwords,asliability(only)forone'
sculpableconduct.Butyoucanbeatfaultintortevenifyouaremorallyfaultless,thatis,evenifyourconductisnotmorallyblameworthy.Underaregimeoffaultliability,youareliableforinjuriesyoucausewhilefailingtocomportyourselfasareasonablepersonofordinaryprudence.Itwon'
tgetyouoffthehookthatyouarenotareasonablepersonofordinaryprudence.Norwillitmatterthatyourfailuretocomportyourselfasareasonablepersonofordinaryprudenceisafailureforwhichyouareutterlyblameless.Faultliabilityissimplynotdefeasiblebyexcuse.
Strictliabilityisnotdefeasiblebyexcuse,either.Underneitherregimedoesyourliabilityforalossdependonyourdegreeofculpability.Whatdistinguishesthetworegimesisthis:
youcanavoidfaultliabilityifyoucomportyourselfasareasonablepersonofordinaryprudence—inotherwords,ifyouactreasonablyorjustifiably—whereasyouremainsubjecttostrictliabilityevenifyouactimpeccably.Thus,faultliabilityalonecanbeunderminedbyjustification.
Somefindithelpfultodistinguishbetweenstrictliabilityandfaultliabilityintermsofthecontentoftheunderlyinglegalduty.Inthecaseofblasting—anactivitytraditionallygovernedbystrictliability—theblasterhasadutynot-to-injure-by-blasting.Inthecaseofdriving—anactivitytraditionallygovernedbyfaultliability—thedriverhasadutynot-to-injure-by-driving-faultily.Nomatterhowmuchcarehetakes,theblasterfailstodischargehisdutywheneverheinjuressomeone.Incontrast,thedriverfailstodischargehisdutyonlywhenheinjuressomeonenegligently,recklessly,orintentionally.
Onlyifwefirstgetclearonthecontentofalegaldutycanwedetermineanactivity'
struecost.Supposearancher'
scowstrampleafarmer'
scorn,causingthefarmerafinancialloss.Towhatactivityshouldweascribethiscost?
Isitacostofranchingoracostoffarming?
Wecannotanswerthisquestionjustbydeterminingwhethercropdamageissomethingthatranchingcauses.Wemustfirstdeterminewhethertherancherowesthefarmeraduty.Iftherancherhasadutytopreventhiscowsfromtramplingthefarmer'
scorn,thentheresultantdamageisacostofranching.Butiftherancherhasnosuchduty—ifitisthefarmer'
sresponsibilitytoprotecthiscorncrop,say,bybuildingafence—then,otherthingsbeingequal,theresultantdamageisnotacostofranchingbutacostoffarming.
1.3TheoreticalPerspectivesonTortLaw
1.3.1AnalyticalandNormative
Analyticaltheoriesseektointerpretandexplaintortlaw.Morespecifically,theyaim(i)toidentifytheconceptsthatfigurecentrallyintort'
ssubstantivenormsandstructuralfeatures(thelatterbeingtheproceduresandmechanismsbywhichtheinstitutionoftortlawenforcesitssubstantivenorms)and(ii)toexplainhowtort'
ssubstantivenormsandstructuralfeaturesarerelated.Keysubstantivenormsincludetherulesofstrictliabilityandfaultliability.Keystructuralfeaturesincludethefactthattortsuitsarebroughtbythevictimratherthanbythestateandthefactthatsuchsuitsare‘bilateral’:
victims(plaintiffs)suetheirputativeinjurersinsteadofdrawingonacommonpoolofresources,asinNewZealand(auniqueoutlier).
Normativetheoriesseektojustifyorreformtortlaw.Justificatorytheoriesaimtoprovidetortwithanormativegrounding,oftenbydefendingthevaluestortembodiesorthegoalsitaimstoachieve.Reformisttheoriesseektoimprovetortlaw,say,byrecommendingchangesthatwouldbringtheinstitutioncloserinlinewithitscorevaluesorwouldhelpitdoabetterjobofachievingitsgoals.
Thedistinctionbetweenanalyticalandnormativetheoriesisnotexclusive.Onthecontrary,fewanalyticaltheoriesarealtogetherdevoidofnormativeelementsandnonormativetheoryiseverdevoidofanalyticalelements.Analyticaltheoriesfrequentlyinvokeconceptsthatarefundamentallynormative,sincesuchtheories(followingDworkin)oftenseektoportraytort'
ssubstantivenormsandstructuralfeaturesintheir‘bestlights.’Allthemoreso,normativetheoriesarealwaysatleastpartlyanalytical,sincesuchtheoriesmusteitherprovideorpresupposesomeaccountoftheinstitutiontheyseektojustifyorreform.
1.3.2InstrumentalandNon-Instrumental
Alonganotheraxis,wecandistinguishbetweentheoriesoftortbasedonwhetherth
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 侵权