1、實用標準實用標準文檔文檔實用標準實用標準文檔文檔美國侵權法(中英文)AMERICANINSTITUTETHE LAW, THIRD, TORTS美國侵權法(中英文)AMERICANINSTITUTETHE LAW, THIRD, TORTSRestatement of the Law , Third , Torts by The American Law Institute美國法學會侵權法第三次重述Part One: Intoduction of Torts侵權法概述Part Two : Apportionment of Liability (Rule Sections ) 第一分： 責任 分

2、擔Part Three: Products Liability 產品責任: Intoduction of Torts 侵權法概述在美國，侵權法主要屬于各州的法律范疇，而且主要由判例法組成。侵權行為可分為故意侵權行為 (intentional tort)、過失侵權行為 (negligence or negligenttort)和嚴格責任侵權行為(strict liability tort).對侵權行為的一般救濟方法是 對侵權行為所造成的損害予以一定的金錢補償，在涉及交通事故等領域的侵權賠 償已廣范采用了保險賠償的方式。Part One: Introduction基本概念The law of to

3、rt is still the source of most civil suits in the United States, with damage claims for automobile accidents taking first place. Many circumstances contribute to this: (a) the plaintiff in an American civil suit is ordinarily entitled to try his claim before a jury which will often-and understandabl

4、y-rely more on human than on legal considerations, forinstance when a child has been injured in an automobile accident or through a defective product of a large enterprise; (b) Compensation and damages include not only the actual loss but also the intangible damage.A plaintiff can therefore often pl

5、ay on the human reaction of the jury: for instance, what is appropriate compensation for a permanent disability such as the loss of a limb? (c) American law permits the participation ofthe attorney in the plaintiff s recovery (contingent fee) which not uncommonly amounts to 25 to 33 percent of the v

6、erdict. As a result of all of these factors, a tort action may be a lengthy proceeding, result in large expenses, for instance through honoraria for experts (which may deter the small plaintiff from suing at all), and may end in the award of a very large verdict. It is no linger uncommon that a jury

7、 will aware a verdict inexcess of 100,000. These conditions have been the touchstone for several reform endeavors which will be discussed in more detail below.在美國， 侵權行為法產生的訴訟仍是大多民事訴訟案件的主要來源，其中基于交通事故產生的損害賠償案件居于首位。很多因素造成了這一現象：( a)在美國民事訴訟案件中的原告通常利用法律賦予他的訴訟權利主張賠償，因為陪審團更多的是基于可以理解的人性考慮而非法律考慮，例如當一個孩子在一起交通事

8、故或因購買大公司的瑕疵產品而受到傷害往往能得到陪審團的同情理解。（b ）補償費和損害賠償金不僅包括實際的損害而且包括了無形損害。原告經常可以利用陪審團的人性反應：比如， 當永久的失去肢體時怎樣才算是一個適當的賠償金額。（c）美國法律允許律師分享原告所獲得的賠償金（勝訴酬金）。這種酬金達到法院判付賠償金金額的百分之二十五到百分之三十的情況并非罕見。由于以上所有因素的存在，在侵權案件中若想獲得巨額的賠償金必將經歷一個冗長的審判過程。 這方面的一個例子是在陪審團對一個重大的侵權案件做出裁決后，專家 （證人）的酬金可能是“渺小”的原告所獲得的損害賠償金的全部。陪審團做出一個超過 100 ， 000 美

9、元的裁決已不再是不可能的，而是極其常見的。這些因素都將成為若干改革努力的試金石，我們將在下文中更多的討論其細節。Tort law and the law of contracts often overlap since an injured partyfrequently has the choice between a tort claim（for instance, unauthorized use of property-conversion-or personal injury）and a suitin contract, for instance, in implied contra

10、ct or, in the case of personalinjuries, for breach of warranty. Since the law of torts permits therecovery of intangible damage （which is usually not the case with respectto contract claims）, the plaintiff will ordinarily choose the tort claim forpersonal injuries when the facts so permit.侵權行為法常常與合同

11、法產生競合，受損害的一方也常常在侵權之訴（例如將未經授權使用的財產轉移和因非法占有他人財產所造成的個人損害）和違約之訴中做出選擇。比如， 在格式合同及在個人損害賠償案件中或因為違反保證諾言的案例中。 因為侵權行為法還將賠償無形損失（而違約責任往往不賠償無形的損失），因為侵權行為法如此的規定，在現實生活中原告往往選擇它提起個人損害賠償。Everyone is liable for his tortious act, in limited form also children （however, parents only then when they acted as the child s ag

12、ent or did not comply with their duty to supervise）, but not the state unless express statutory provision has abolished state immunity.每個人都要對其侵權行為承擔責任，在有限的形式下兒童亦然（但是， 父母僅當其作為該兒童之代理人或未能按照其監護義務行事時才負此責任）， 但國家不在此例，除非法律明確規定取消了國家的豁免權。Everyone is protected against tortious acts, including the embryo. Thehe

13、irs or next of kin may have a damage claim for the intentional or negligent death of their relative or testator （wrongful death action）.Thestatutes of some States provide protection, and a tort claim, to third parties for injuries arising out of the intoxication of the tortfeasor; underthese so-call

14、ed dram-shop acts, a party injured as a result of the intoxication of the tortfeasor has a claim against him who contributed to the tortfeasors intoxication.每個人包括嬰兒都受到侵權法的保護。繼承人或近親屬可以提起損害賠償之訴，當其被繼承人或近親屬被故意或過失導致死亡時（非正常死亡之訴）。 一些州的法律規定，對于第三方的行為使侵權行為人醉酒從而導致受害人受傷的可以提起侵權之訴，這些規定被稱為“小酒店法令”，作為侵權行為人醉酒之結果而受到 傷

15、害的一方有權向那些造成該侵權行為人醉酒的人提出索賠請求。Finally it should be emphasized again that the law of torts is, in the main, State Law.最后需要強調的是侵權行為法主要是各州的立法。: Intentional Torts 故意侵權The case law contains the usual catalogue of intentional torts. For instance: battery, assault, conversion of property, false imprisonment,

16、 trespass to personaland real property.Some torts,for instance,alienation of affectionhave been abolished by statute in many States.Others, such as defamation, have recently been modified significantly through constitutional case law. New torts, unknown to the traditional common law, have also been

17、introduced by the case law; particularly importantamong them are the torts for invasion of privacy and forproducts liability.以往的判例包含了各類故意侵權。例如毆打、故意傷害、非法占有他人財產、非法拘禁和對動產和不動產權的侵犯。一些侵權行為，例如破壞他人夫妻關系在很多的州的法律中都被廢除了。另外一些，例如誹謗，最近就在憲法判例法中得到顯著的修改。判例法也增加了一些傳統的普通法所未包含的新的侵權行為；其中特別重要的是侵犯隱私權的行為和產品責任侵權行為。ee: Liabili

18、ty for Negligence 過失侵權責任Tort liability for negligence presupposes causality between the negligentact and the injury to person or property. A person is negligent if he has not complied with his duty of care and, seen objectively, has not acted as a reasonable and prudent man. The latter test takes in

19、to 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 duty of care” . Theduty must be owed toward the particular plaintiff: there

20、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-towardpassengers whom he transports gratuitously(g

21、uest 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 bethe 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

22、 or has assumed the rise, the harshness of the contributory negligence defense, the result of which would not only be a deductionfrom the compensation but exclude any liability on the part of the tortfeasor has been softened in some States by adoption of thecomparative negligence doctrine. It requir

23、es that the respective degreeof 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 last clear chance, according to which even the contributory negligent plaint

24、iff will be compensated if he can prove that the defendant had the last clear chance to prevent the damage.過失侵權責任以過失行為和對人身或財產的侵害之間的因果關系為前提要件。 一個人若沒有盡到其注意義務就被認為是有過失的?？陀^地講，他沒有像一個理性且謹慎的人那樣行為。最新的修正案中包含了特殊行業侵權行為所該承擔的責任。 這樣， 比方說對一名建筑師就要適用不同于一名建筑工人的標準。判例法已經對 “注意義務”給出了限制性解釋。這種責任必定屬于特殊的原告而非普通的社會大眾。這樣， 一個人對于非

25、法進入其土地者所負有的照看義務就小于其邀請的客人。一些州的侵權立法發展得更加迅速，例如， 對于免費搭乘乘客的司機的照看義務做出了規定。即使司機未盡到小心與觀察的義務，受害一方仍不能主張賠償請求。下面就是一個因共同過失或承擔風險而獲罪的案例。共同過失辯護的嚴格性，其結果并不是減少賠償數額而是完全排除侵權行為人的責任，已經因一些州采用了 “比較過失”原則而得到減弱。比較過失原則又可譯為相對過失原則， 即通過比較雙方的過失來確定雙方的責任。該原則要求共同過失的雙方基于造成的損害程度來確定賠償數額。該法令的貢獻在于過失侵權的賠償責任可能因為“最后明顯機會”原則得到排除，有過失的原告可能得到賠償，如果它

26、能夠證明被告因“最后明顯機會”原則而避免損害。The extraordinarily complex law of negligence-with its difficulties ofproof in a jury trial and the possibility that a jury sympathetic to the plaintiff will let him win despite his contributory negligence but considerthe latter in its calculation of damages-today leads to two

27、, sometimes inconsistent, efforts of reform. One would provide for strict liability in many cases, the other would introduce a system of compensation for theinjured without regard to fault, resembling a form of insurance. The following section briefly reviews these two trends.過失侵權法極其復雜，因為在庭審過程中很難避免陪

28、審團對原告產生同情從而不考慮原告的過錯也不考慮接下來的損失計算。如今對此現象可以從兩方面努力進行改革， 盡管有時這兩者不相一致。一方面可以在很多案件中規定嚴格責任，另一方面可以創設一種不考慮過錯的賠償制度，例如類似保險制度的形式。下面的章節將簡要評論這兩種立法趨勢。r: Tort Law Reform: Strict Liability and “ No-Fault ”侵權法改革：嚴格責任和無過錯責任Strict Liability 嚴格責任Originally, strict liability existed only in a few special cases, for instanc

29、ewith 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，嚴格責任只存在于幾種特殊情形，比如飼養危

30、險動物、誹謗，通過一個被稱之為 “不言自明法則”的可反駁之推定，從事實或行為本身的性質推定過錯或者過失，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 i

31、n 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 dangerous products ” , without regard to whether the issue concerns the product itself or its packaging. ” Dangerous products ”

32、include products ” in a defective condition ” which are unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property ” , In this context, defective means that the product does not meet the reasonable expectations of the ordinary consumer concerning the safety of the product. Everyone is protect

33、ed whom the seller should expect to be endangered by the products probable use ” . In view of the extensive interstate commerce in the United States, this formula, for all practical purposes, extends protection to the public in general.從合同法概念的作用說起，尤其是在合同或侵權中提供擔保可以避免出現過失，更多的近期判例法承認在產品責任領域的嚴格責任。這一新的侵權

34、主張不再依據合同法主張從而獨立存在：銷售商的責任如今擴大到所有“危險產品”，而不在乎是產品本身的問題還是包裝問題?！拔ｋU產品”包括產品“在有缺陷的條件”下對使用者或消費者或其財產有不合理的危險。在此， “缺陷”一詞意指該產品未達到一般消費者關于該產品安全性能的合理期望標準。銷售商 “應該預見到會由于對該產品的恰當使用而帶來危險的”每一個人均受保護?？v觀美國各州，在所有現實目的中這個定律總體擴大了對社會公眾的保護。No-Fault 無過錯責任The trend to strict liability in the area of products liability should be cont

35、rasted 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 OConnell seek to aboli

36、sh 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. Neve

37、rtheless, 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 proceedsare available for their compensation. As claims arising out o

38、f products liability have steadily increased, the cost of liability insurance to manufacturers also increased from 25 million in 1950 to 125 million in1970. Further reform movements, albeit at this time only in their infancy, seek to extend the No-Fault principle to almost all claims, principally to

39、 products liability, but also to other kinds of liability such as medical malpractice. In a No-Fault system, a manufactureragrees-andinsureshimself accordingly to grant compensation for certain injuries without proof of fault. Compensation ” in this context means compensation for actual losses, but

40、not for intangible damage. Thus, liability will be limitedfor 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

41、 immediate compensation for his actual loss (expenses loss of profits or wages) without lengthy litigation or difficult proof of fault.產品責任適用嚴格責任的趨勢應當與另外一種改革努力相比較，就是為了因過失提起的主張，特別是大量的機動車事故，力求尋找更多解決措施。這些主要建立在基頓和奧康內爾兩位教授之方案基礎上的改革努力試圖取消侵權法中的過錯責任原則并按照保險原則在不要過錯證明(“無過錯”)的情況下給予與賠償。在目前采用無過錯責任制度的國家，已經證明了這一主張非

42、常成功。司法實踐表明， 當很大部分受害者能得到賠償時可以降低保險費。然而， 機動車事故和產品責任引起的損害賠償仍然是壓倒性多數的嚴重問題。每年超過50 億美元的損失數額卻只有8 億美元保險收益可以用來賠償。鑒于因產品責任引起的侵權主張穩定增長，生產者的保險責任花費（保險費）也從1950 年的 2500 萬美元增加到1970 年的 1.25 億美元。 進一步的改革運動，盡管目前只在初步階段，試圖將無過錯責任原則擴大到幾乎所有的訴求，主要是產品責任，但是也包括其他的責任，例如醫療事故。在無過錯責任體系中，生產者同意并且據此保證其自身在某些傷害中無須證明過錯而承認賠償。在此“賠償”意指實際損失賠償，

43、而不包括無形的損害。 因此， 生產者的責任將會受到限制，這樣就要求相對較少的保險費以涵蓋這種風險。另一方面，相較傳統的侵權法，受害者能處于更有利的地位，因為其有權因其實際損失（花費、收益損失或者薪資）取得立即賠償，而不用通過長時間的訴訟，也沒有證明過錯的困難。Part Two ： Apportionment of Liability ( Rule Sections )第二部分：責任分擔第 一 題 ： 比 較 責 任 的 基 本 規 則 Topic 1- Basic Rules of ComparativeResponsibilityIssues and Causes of Action Add

44、ressed by This Restatement第一條 本重述所涉及的問題與訴因This Restatement addresses issues of apportioning liability among two or more persons. It applies to all claims3 ( including lawsuits and settlements ) for death, personal injury ( including emotional distress or consortium ) , or physical damage to tangible

45、 property, regardless of the basis of liability.本重述討論在兩位或多位責任人之間分配責任的問題。本重述適用于關于死亡、人身損害2 (包括精神損害或配偶權)，或對有形財產的物理傷害的所有主張(包括法律訴訟與和解)，無論其責任基礎如何。Contractual Limitations on Liability 第二條 責任的合同性限制When permitted by contract law, substantive law governing the claim, and applicable rules of construction, a co

46、ntract between the plaintiff and another person absolving the person from liability for future harm barsthe plaintiff,s recovery4from that person for the harm. Unlikeaplaintiff,s negligence, a valid contractual limitation on liability does not provide an occasion for the factfinder to assign a perce

47、ntageofresponsibility to any party or other person.在合同法、訴訟請求的實體法規則和可適用的解釋規則允許的情況下，原告與他人之間免除該他人對未來傷害負責的合同，將阻礙原告從該他人處獲得對該傷害的賠償。 與原告的過失不同，一項有效的合同性責任限制并不構成事實調查人向任何當事人或他人分配責任份額的理由。Ameliorative Doctrines for Defining Plaintiff s Negligence Abolished第三條 定義原告過失的各種嚴格學說均已被廢止Plaintiff,s negligence is defined b

48、y the applicable standard for a defendant,s negligence. Special ameliorative doctrines for defining plaintiff,s negligence are abolished.原告的過失應依據適用于被告過失的標準來定義。特別適用于定義原告過失的各種嚴格學說均已被廢止。Proof of Plaintiff s Negligence and Legal CausationThe defendant has the burden to prove plaintiff,s negligence, and

49、mayuse any of the methods a plaintiff may use to prove defendant,s negligence. Except as otherwise provided in Topic 5, the defendant also has the burden to prove that the plaintiff,s negligence, if any, was a legal cause of the plaintiff,s damages.第四條 對原告過失和法律原因的證明被告負有證明原告過失的舉證責任，并可采用原告為證明被告過失可以采用的

50、任何方法。除本重述第五題另有規定外，被告亦負有舉證責任證明原告過失如果原告存在任何過失構成原告所受損害的一項法律原因。Negligence Imputed to a Plaintiff 第五條 可歸責于原告的過失The negligence of another person is imputed to a plaintiff whenever the negligence of the other person would have been imputed had the plaintiff been a defendant, except the negligence of anothe

51、r person is not imputed to a plaintiff solely because of the plaintiff,s ownership of a motor vehicle or permission for its use by the other person.假設原告是被告的角色，他人的過失便可以歸責于他的話，那么該他人的過失可歸責于原告。除非該他人的過失不是僅僅因為原告對機動車享有的所有權，或對該他人使用該機動車的許可而歸責于原告。Negligence Imputed to a Plaintiff When the Plaintiff,s Recovery

52、 Derivesfrom a Claim That the Defendant Committed a Tort Against a Third Person and in Claims Under Survival Statutes 第六條 當原告獲得的賠償派生于一項被告對第三人實施了侵權行為的主張和包含于基于遺存訴因法的主張時，過失可歸責于原告（ a）When a plaintiff asserts a claim that derives from the defendant,stort against a third person, negligence of the third pe

53、rson is imputed tothe plaintiff with respect to that claim. The plaintiff,s recovery is also reduced by the plaintiff,s own negligence.（ b ） The negligence of an estate,s decedent affects the estate8,s recovery under a survival statute to the same extent that it would haveaffected the decedent,s rec

54、overy had the decedent survived. The negligence of a beneficiary of the decedent,s estate is not imputed to the estate merely because of the beneficiary,s status as a beneficiary.(a)當原告聲稱一項派生于被告對第三人實施侵權行為的主張時，在該項主張中該第三人的過失可歸責于原告。原告的賠償額同樣因為其自身的過失而被減 少。(b)根據遺存訴因法，遺產被繼承人7(生前)的過失在其生存時對其賠償額影響的同樣范圍內，影響遺產可

55、獲得的賠償額。遺產受益人的過失不能僅僅因為受益人作為受益人的法律地位而歸責于財產。Effect of Plaintiff s Negligence When Plaintiff Suffers an Indivisible Injury第七條 在原告遭受不可分損害時原告過失9 的效力Plaintiff,s negligence ( or the negligence of another person for whose negligence the plaintiff is responsible ) that is a legal cause of an indivisible injur

56、y to the plaintiff reduces the plaintiff,s recovery in proportion to the share of responsibility the factfinder assigns to the plaintiff ( or other person for whose negligence the plaintiff is responsible ) .若原告的過失(或原告應為其過失負責的其他人的過失)構成原告遭受的不可分傷害的一項法律原因，則原告的所獲得的賠償額將依據事實調查人分配給原告(或原告應為其過失負責的該他人)的責任份額相應

57、比例地減少。Factors for Assigning Shares of Responsibility 第八條 分配責任份額時應考慮的因素Factors for assigning percentages of responsibility to each person whose legal responsibility has been established include（ a） the nature of the person,s risk-creating conduct, including any awareness or indifference with respect

58、to the risks created by the conduct and any intent with respect to the harm created by the conduct；and（ b ） the strength of the causal connection between the person,s risk-creating conduct and the harm.向法律責任已被確定的各方分配責任百分比時應考慮的因素包括：（ a） 該方造成風險之行為的性質，包括任何對該行為所造成風險的認識或漠視，以及任何對該行為所造成傷害的意圖；及（b）該方造成風險之行為與

59、該傷害之間因果關系的強度。Offsetting Judgments 第九條 判決的抵銷If two parties are liable to each other in the same suit, each party is entitled to a setoff of any recovery owed by the other party, except that, in cases in which one or both of the parties has liability insurance, setoff does not reduce the payment of a

60、liability insurer unless an applicable rule of law or statute10 so provides.如果同一訴訟中的雙方當事人都相互負有責任，那么各方都有權抵消對方享有的任何（相應）賠償額；除非一方或雙方都有責任保險，那么抵消不會減少責任保險人應支付的金額，適用的法律規范或制定法另有規定的除外。Topic 2- Liability of Multiple T ortfeasors for Indivisible Harm第二題：數個侵權行為人對不可分傷害的責任Effect of Joint and Several Liability 第十條