美國侵權(quán)法(中英文)

實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)美國侵權(quán)法（中英文）RestatementoftheLaw ，Third，TortsbyTheAmericanLawInstitute美國法學(xué)會《侵權(quán)法 第三次重述》PartOne:IntoductionofTorts 侵權(quán)法概述PartTwo：ApportionmentofLiability （RuleSections ）第一部分：責(zé)任分擔(dān)PartThree: ProductsLiability 產(chǎn)品責(zé)任PartOne:IntoductionofTorts 侵權(quán)法概述在美國，侵權(quán)法主要屬于各州的法律范疇， 而且主要由判例法組成。侵權(quán)行為可分為故意侵權(quán)行為（intentionaltort) 、過失侵權(quán)行為（negligenceornegligenttort)和嚴(yán)格責(zé)任侵權(quán)行為 (strict liability tort). 對侵權(quán)行為的一般救濟(jì)方法是對侵權(quán)行為所造成的損害予以一定的金錢補(bǔ)償， 在涉及交通事故等領(lǐng)域的侵權(quán)賠償已廣范采用了保險賠償?shù)姆绞?。PartOne:Introduction 基本概念1.ThelawoftortisstillthesourceofmostcivilsuitsintheUnitedStates,文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)with damage claims for automobile accidents taking first place. Manycircumstancescontributetothis:(a)theplaintiffinanAmericancivilsuitisordinarilyentitledtotryhisclaimbeforeajurywhichwilloften--andunderstandably--relymoreonhumanthanonlegalconsiderations,forinstance when achild hasbeen injured inanautomobile accident orthroughadefectiveproductofalargeenterprise;(b)Compensationanddamagesincludenotonlytheactuallossbutalsotheintangibledamage.Aplaintiffcanthereforeoftenplayonthehumanreactionofthejury:forinstance, what isappropriate compensation forapermanent disabilitysuchasthelossofalimb?(c)Americanlawpermitstheparticipationofthe attorney in the plaintiff ’srecovery (contingent fee) which notuncommonlyamountsto25to33percentoftheverdict.Asaresultofallofthesefactors,atortactionmaybealengthyproceeding,resultinlargeexpenses,forinstancethroughhonorariaforexperts(whichmaydeterthe"small"plaintifffromsuingatall),andmayendintheawardofaverylargeverdict.Itisnolingeruncommonthatajurywillawareaverdictinexcessof ＄100,000. These conditions have been the touchstone forseveralreformendeavorswhichwillbediscussedinmoredetailbelow.在美國，侵權(quán)行為法產(chǎn)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(chǎn)生的損害賠償案件居于首位。很多因素造成了這一現(xiàn)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(quán)利主張賠償， 因為陪審團(tuán)更多的是基于可以理解的人性考慮而非法律考慮， 例如當(dāng)一個孩子在一起交通事故文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)或因購買大公司的瑕疵產(chǎn)品而受到傷害往往能得到陪審團(tuán)的同情理解。（ b）補(bǔ)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(jīng)?？梢岳门銓張F(tuán)的人性反應(yīng)：比如，當(dāng)永久的失去肢體時怎樣才算是一個適當(dāng)?shù)馁r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(dá)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(quán)案件中若想獲得巨額的賠償金必將經(jīng)歷一個冗長的審判過程。這方面的一個例子是在陪審團(tuán)對一個重大的侵權(quán)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(tuán)做出一個超過100，000美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(xì)節(jié)。2.Tortlawandthelawofcontractsoftenoverlapsinceaninjuredpartyfrequently has the choice between a tort claim(for instance,unauthorizeduseofproperty--conversion--orpersonalinjury)andasuitincontract,forinstance,inimpliedcontractor,inthecaseofpersonalinjuries, for breach of warranty. Since the law of torts permits therecoveryofintangibledamage(whichisusuallynotthecasewithrespecttocontractclaims),theplaintiffwillordinarilychoosethetortclaimforpersonalinjurieswhenthefactssopermit.侵權(quán)行為法常常與合同法產(chǎn)生競合， 受損害的一方也常常在侵權(quán)之訴 （例如將未經(jīng)授權(quán)使用的財產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移和因非法占有他人財產(chǎn)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文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)例中。因為侵權(quán)行為法還將賠償無形損失 （而違約責(zé)任往往不賠償無形的損失） ，因為侵權(quán)行為法如此的規(guī)定，在現(xiàn)實生活中原告往往選擇它提起個人損害賠償。3.Everyone isliable for histortious act,inlimited form also children(however,parentsonlythenwhentheyactedasthechild ’sagentordidnotcomplywiththeirdutytosupervise),butnotthestateunlessexpressstatutoryprovisionhasabolishedstateimmunity.每個人都要對其侵權(quán)行為承擔(dān)責(zé)任， 在有限的形式下兒童亦然（但是，父母僅當(dāng)其作為該兒童之代理人或未能按照其監(jiān)護(hù)義務(wù)行事時才負(fù)此責(zé)任） ，但國家不在此例，除非法律明確規(guī)定取消了國家的豁免權(quán)。4.Everyoneisprotectedagainsttortiousacts,includingtheembryo.Theheirsornextofkinmayhaveadamageclaimfortheintentionalornegligentdeathoftheirrelativeortestator(wrongfuldeathaction).ThestatutesofsomeStatesprovideprotection,andatortclaim,tothirdpartiesforinjuriesarisingoutoftheintoxicationofthetortfeasor;undertheseso-called"dram-shopacts",apartyinjuredasaresultoftheintoxicationofthetortfeasorhasaclaimagainsthimwhocontributedtothetortfeasor'sintoxication.每個人包括嬰兒都受到侵權(quán)法的保護(hù)。 繼承人或近親屬可以提起損害賠償之訴，當(dāng)其被繼承人或近親屬被故意或過失導(dǎo)致死亡時 （非正常死亡之訴）。一些州的法律規(guī)定，對于第三方的行為使侵權(quán)行為人醉酒從而導(dǎo)致受害人受傷的可以提起文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)侵權(quán)之訴，這些規(guī)定被稱為“小酒店法令”，作為侵權(quán)行為人醉酒之結(jié)果而受到傷害的一方有權(quán)向那些造成該侵權(quán)行為人醉酒的人提出索賠請求。5.Finallyitshouldbeemphasizedagainthatthelawoftortsis,inthemain,StateLaw.最后需要強(qiáng)調(diào)的是侵權(quán)行為法主要是各州的立法。PartTwo:IntentionalTorts故意侵權(quán)Thecaselawcontainstheusualcatalogueofintentionaltorts.Forinstance:battery,assault,conversionofproperty,falseimprisonment,trespasstopersonalandrealproperty.Sometorts,forinstance,alienationofaffectionhavebeenabolishedbystatuteinmanyStates.Others,suchasdefamation,haverecentlybeenmodifiedsignificantlythroughconstitutionalcaselaw.Newtorts,unknowntothetraditionalcommonlaw,havealsobeenintroducedbythecaselaw;particularlyimportantamongthemarethetortsforinvasionofprivacyandforproductsliability.以往的判例包含了各類故意侵權(quán)。例如毆打、故意傷害、非法占有他人財產(chǎn)、非法拘禁和對動產(chǎn)和不動產(chǎn)權(quán)的侵犯。 一些侵權(quán)行為，例如破壞他人夫妻關(guān)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(tǒng)的普通法所未包含的新的侵權(quán)行為； 其中特別重要的是侵犯隱私權(quán)的行為和產(chǎn)品責(zé)任侵權(quán)行為。文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)PartThree:LiabilityforNegligence過失侵權(quán)責(zé)任Tortliabilityfornegligencepresupposescausalitybetweenthenegligentactandtheinjurytopersonorproperty.Apersonisnegligentifhehasnotcompliedwithhis"dutyofcare"and,seenobjectively,hasnotactedas"areasonableandprudentman."Thelattertesttakesintoaccountthespecialprofessionalqualificationofthetortfeasor.Thus,differentcriteriaapply,say,toanarchitectthanforaconstructionworker,thecaselawhasgivenarestrictiveinterpretationtotheconceptof"dutyofcare”.Thedutymustbeowedtowardtheparticularplaintiff:thereisnodutyofcaretothepublicatlarge.Thus,alesserdutyofcareisowedtohimwhotrespassesonpropertythantoanincitedguest.SomeStatestatutesgoevenfurtherandexclude,forinstance,adutyofcarebythedriverofamotorvehicle--towardpassengerswhomhetransportsgratuitously(gueststatutes).Evenifadutyofcareexistsandhasnotbeenobserved,theinjuredpartymaystillnothaveaclaimforcompensation.Thiswillbethecase,forinstance,whenhehasbeenguiltyofcontributory.Thiswillbethecase,forinstance,whenhehasbeenguiltyofcontributorynegligenceorhasassumedtherise,theharshnessofthecontributorynegligencedefense,theresultofwhichwouldnotonlybeadeductionfromthecompensationbutexcludeanyliabilityonthepartofthetortfeasorhasbeensoftenedinsomeStatesbyadoptionofthe文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)"comparativenegligence"doctrine.Itrequiresthattherespectivedegreeofnegligenceofbothpartiesbedeterminedandcompensationassessedaccordingly. The bar of the contributory negligence defense to arecoverymayfurthermorebeexcludedbythedoctrineofthe"lastclearchance",accordingtowhicheventhecontributorynegligentplaintiffwillbecompensatedifhecanprovethatthedefendanthadthe"lastclearchance"topreventthedamage.過失侵權(quán)責(zé)任以過失行為和對人身或財產(chǎn)的侵害之間的因果關(guān)系為前提要件。一個人若沒有盡到其注意義務(wù)就被認(rèn)為是有過失的。 客觀地講，他沒有像一個理性且謹(jǐn)慎的人那樣行為。最新的修正案中包含了特殊行業(yè)侵權(quán)行為所該承擔(dān)的責(zé)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(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 判例法已經(jīng)對“注意義務(wù)”給出了限制性解釋。這種責(zé)任必定屬于特殊的原告而非普通的社會大眾。這樣，一個人對于非法進(jìn)入其土地者所負(fù)有的照看義務(wù)就小于其邀請的客人。一些州的侵權(quán)立法發(fā)展得更加迅速， 例如，對于免費搭乘乘客的司機(jī)的照看義務(wù)做出了規(guī)定。即使司機(jī)未盡到小心與觀察的義務(wù)， 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(dān)風(fēng)險而獲罪的案例。 共同過失辯護(hù)的嚴(yán)格性，其結(jié)果并不是減少賠償數(shù)額而是完全排除侵權(quán)行為人的責(zé)任， 已經(jīng)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(zé)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(shù)額。 該法令的貢獻(xiàn)在于過失侵權(quán)的賠償責(zé)任可能因為“最后明顯機(jī)會”原則得到排除，有過失的原告可能得到賠償，如果它能夠證明被告因“最后明顯機(jī)會”原則而避免損害。文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)Theextraordinarilycomplexlawofnegligence--withitsdifficultiesofproofinajurytrialandthepossibilitythatajurysympathetictotheplaintiffwilllethimwindespitehiscontributorynegligencebutconsiderthelatterinitscalculationofdamages--todayleadstotwo,sometimesinconsistent,effortsofreform.Onewouldprovideforstrictliabilityinmanycases,theotherwouldintroduceasystemofcompensationfortheinjuredwithoutregardtofault,resemblingaformofinsurance.Thefollowingsectionbrieflyreviewsthesetwotrends.過失侵權(quán)法極其復(fù)雜，因為在庭審過程中很難避免陪審團(tuán)對原告產(chǎn)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(xiàn)象可以從兩方面努力進(jìn)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(guī)定嚴(yán)格責(zé)任， 另一方面可以創(chuàng)設(shè)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(jié)將簡要評論這兩種立法趨勢。PartFour:TortLawReform:StrictLiabilityand “No-Fault”侵權(quán)法改革：嚴(yán)格責(zé)任和無過錯責(zé)任a.StrictLiability 嚴(yán)格責(zé)任Originally,strictliabilityexistedonlyinafewspecialcases,forinstancewithrespecttothemaintenanceofdangerousanimals,defamation,and文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)bywayofarebuttablepresumption,knownasthedoctrineofresipsaloquitur,whichdeducedfaultornegligencefromthenatureofthethingoractitself,suchasdefectiveconstructionornegligentuse.首先，嚴(yán)格責(zé)任只存在于幾種特殊情形，比如飼養(yǎng)危險動物、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(zhì)推定過錯或者過失，例如施工缺陷或者是疏忽使用。Beginningwiththeuseofcontractlawconcepts,particularlythatofwarrantywhichpermitssuiteitherbasedoncontractorontortandthusobvioustheneedtoshownegligence,themorerecentcaselawrecognizesstrictliabilityintheareaofproductliability.Thisnewtortclaimnolongerderivesfromcontractlawnotionsbuthasbecomeindependent;theliabilityofasellertodayextendstoall"dangerousproducts”,withoutregardtowhethertheissueconcernstheproductitselforitspackaging.”Dangerousproducts”includeproducts”inadefectivecondition”whichare"unreasonablydangeroustotheuserorconsumerortohisproperty ”,Inthiscontext,"defective"meansthattheproduct does not meet the reasonable expectations of the ordinaryconsumer concerning thesafety ofthe product. Everyone isprotectedwhom the seller "should expect to be endangered by the product'sprobable use”.Inview of the extensive interstate commerce intheUnitedStates,thisformula,forallpracticalpurposes,extendsprotection文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)tothepublicingeneral.從合同法概念的作用說起，尤其是在合同或侵權(quán)中提供擔(dān)?？梢员苊獬霈F(xiàn)過失，更多的近期判例法承認(rèn)在產(chǎn)品責(zé)任領(lǐng)域的嚴(yán)格責(zé)任。 這一新的侵權(quán)主張不再依據(jù)合同法主張從而獨立存在：銷售商的責(zé)任如今擴(kuò)大到所有“危險產(chǎn)品”，而不在乎是產(chǎn)品本身的問題還是包裝問題?！拔ｋU產(chǎn)品”包括產(chǎn)品“在有缺陷的條件”下對使用者或消費者或其財產(chǎn)有不合理的危險。在此， “缺陷”一詞意指該產(chǎn)品未達(dá)到一般消費者關(guān)于該產(chǎn)品安全性能的合理期望標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 銷售商“應(yīng)該預(yù)見到會由于對該產(chǎn)品的恰當(dāng)使用而帶來危險的” 每一個人均受保護(hù)?？v觀美國各州，在所有現(xiàn)實目的中這個定律總體擴(kuò)大了對社會公眾的保護(hù)。b.No-Fault無過錯責(zé)任Thetrendtostrictliabilityintheareaofproductsliabilityshouldbecontrastedwithanotherreformendeavorwhichseekstofindmorejustsolutionsforordinaryclaimsbasedonnegligence,particularlywithrespecttothegreatnumberofautomobileaccidents.Thesereformendeavorswhicharebased,inthemain,ontheplanofProfessorsKeetonandO'Connellseektoabolishthefaultprincipleintortlawandtoawardcompensationwithoutproofoffaultaccordingtoinsuranceprinciples.ThisnotionhasalreadyprovedverysuccessfulinthoseStateswhichsofarhaveadoptedNoFaultstatutes.Experienceinthosejurisdictionsshowspersonscouldbecompensated.Nevertheless,compensationforlossesresultingfromautomobileaccidentsandproductsliabilityremains文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)aproblemofoverwhelmingdimensions:lossesamounttooverfivebilliondollarsayearbutonly800milliondollarsininsuranceproceedsareavailablefortheircompensation.Asclaimsarisingoutofproductsliabilityhavesteadilyincreased,thecostofliabilityinsurancetomanufacturersalsoincreasedfrom25millionin1950to125millionin1970.Furtherreformmovements,albeitatthistimeonlyintheirinfancy,seektoextendtheNo-Faultprincipletoalmostallclaims,principallytoproductsliability,butalsotootherkindsofliabilitysuchasmedicalmalpractice.InaNo-Faultsystem,amanufactureragrees--andinsureshimselfaccordinglytograntcompensationforcertaininjurieswithoutproofoffault."Compensation ”inthiscontextmeanscompensationforactuallosses,butnotforintangibledamage.Thus,liabilitywillbelimitedfor the manufacturer and will therefore require a relatively lesserinsurance premium to cover the rise.On the other hand, the injuredpersonwillbeinabetterpositon,comparedtotraditionaltortlaw,sincehewillbeentitledtoreceiveimmediatecompensationforhisactualloss(expenseslossofprofitsorwages)withoutlengthylitigationordifficultproofoffault.產(chǎn)品責(zé)任適用嚴(yán)格責(zé)任的趨勢應(yīng)當(dāng)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(jī)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(nèi)爾兩位教授之方案基礎(chǔ)上的改革努力試圖取消侵權(quán)法中的過錯責(zé)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。文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在目前采用無過錯責(zé)任制度的國家， 已經(jīng)證明了這一主張非常成功。 司法實踐表明，當(dāng)很大部分受害者能得到賠償時可以降低保險費。 然而，機(jī)動車事故和產(chǎn)品責(zé)任引起的損害賠償仍然是壓倒性多數(shù)的嚴(yán)重問題。每年超過 50億美元的損失數(shù)額卻只有8億美元保險收益可以用來賠償。鑒于因產(chǎn)品責(zé)任引起的侵權(quán)主張穩(wěn)定增長，生產(chǎn)者的保險責(zé)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(jìn)一步的改革運動，盡管目前只在初步階段，試圖將無過錯責(zé)任原則擴(kuò)大到幾乎所有的訴求，主要是產(chǎn)品責(zé)任，但是也包括其他的責(zé)任，例如醫(yī)療事故。在無過錯責(zé)任體系中，生產(chǎn)者同意并且據(jù)此保證其自身在某些傷害中無須證明過錯而承認(rèn)賠償。在此“賠償”意指實際損失賠償，而不包括無形的損害。因此，生產(chǎn)者的責(zé)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(fēng)險。另一方面，相較傳統(tǒng)的侵權(quán)法，受害者能處于更有利的地位，因為其有權(quán)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。PartTwo：ApportionmentofLiability （RuleSections）第二部分：責(zé)任分擔(dān)第一題：比較責(zé)任的基本規(guī)則 Topic 1- Basic Rules of ComparativeResponsibility1IssuesandCausesofActionAddressedbyThisRestatement第一條 本重述所涉及的問題與訴因ThisRestatementaddressesissuesofapportioningliabilityamongtwoor文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)more persons. It applies to all claims[3] （including lawsuits andsettlements ）fordeath,personalinjury （includingemotionaldistressorconsortium ）,orphysicaldamagetotangibleproperty,regardlessofthebasisofliability.本重述討論在兩位或多位責(zé)任人之間分配責(zé)任的問題。本重述適用于關(guān)于死亡、人身損害[2]（包括精神損害或配偶權(quán)），或?qū)τ行呜敭a(chǎn)的物理傷害的所有主張（包括法律訴訟與和解），無論其責(zé)任基礎(chǔ)如何。2ContractualLimitationsonLiability第二條責(zé)任的合同性限制Whenpermittedbycontractlaw,substantivelawgoverningtheclaim,andapplicablerulesofconstruction,acontractbetweentheplaintiffandanotherpersonabsolvingthepersonfromliabilityforfutureharmbarstheplaintiff,srecovery[4]fromthatpersonfortheharm.Unlikeaplaintiff,snegligence,avalidcontractuallimitationonliabilitydoesnotprovideanoccasionforthefactfindertoassignapercentageofresponsibilitytoanypartyorotherperson.在合同法、訴訟請求的實體法規(guī)則和可適用的解釋規(guī)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(fù)責(zé)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(zé)任限制并不構(gòu)成事實調(diào)查人向任何當(dāng)事人或他人分配責(zé)任份額的理由。3AmeliorativeDoctrinesforDefiningPlaintiff ’sNegligenceAbolished文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)第三條 定義原告過失的各種嚴(yán)格學(xué)說均已被廢止Plaintiff,s negligence is defined by the applicable standard for adefendant,s negligence. Special ameliorative doctrines for definingplaintiff,snegligenceareabolished.原告的過失應(yīng)依據(jù)適用于被告過失的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來定義。 特別適用于定義原告過失的各種嚴(yán)格學(xué)說均已被廢止。4ProofofPlaintiff ’sNegligenceandLegalCausationThedefendanthastheburdentoproveplaintiff,snegligence,andmayuse any of the methods aplaintiff may use to prove defendant,snegligence.ExceptasotherwiseprovidedinTopic5,thedefendantalsohastheburdentoprovethattheplaintiff,snegligence,ifany,wasalegalcauseoftheplaintiff,sdamages.第四條 對原告過失和法律原因的證明被告負(fù)有證明原告過失的舉證責(zé)任， 并可采用原告為證明被告過失可以采用的任何方法。除本重述第五題另有規(guī)定外，被告亦負(fù)有舉證責(zé)任證明原告過失——如果原告存在任何過失——構(gòu)成原告所受損害的一項法律原因。5NegligenceImputedtoaPlaintiff 第五條可歸責(zé)于原告的過失Thenegligenceofanotherpersonisimputedtoaplaintiffwheneverthenegligence of the other person would have been imputed had the文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)plaintiff been adefendant, except thenegligenceof anotherperson isnotimputedtoaplaintiffsolelybecauseoftheplaintiff,sownershipofamotorvehicleorpermissionforitsusebytheotherperson.假設(shè)原告是被告的角色，他人的過失便可以歸責(zé)于他的話， 那么該他人的過失可歸責(zé)于原告。除非該他人的過失不是僅僅因為原告對機(jī)動車享有的所有權(quán)， 或?qū)υ撍耸褂迷摍C(jī)動車的許可而歸責(zé)于原告。6NegligenceImputedtoaPlaintiffWhenthePlaintiff,sRecoveryDerivesfrom aClaim That the Defendant Committed aTort Against aThirdPersonandinClaimsUnderSurvivalStatutes第六條 當(dāng)原告獲得的賠償派生于一項被告對第三人實施了侵權(quán)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(zé)于原告a）Whenaplaintiffassertsaclaimthatderivesfromthedefendant,stortagainstathirdperson,negligenceofthethirdpersonisimputedtotheplaintiffwithrespecttothatclaim.Theplaintiff,srecoveryisalsoreducedbytheplaintiff,sownnegligence.（b）The negligence of an estate,s decedent affects the estate[8],srecoveryunderasurvivalstatutetothesameextentthatitwouldhaveaffected the decedent,s recovery had the decedent survived. Thenegligenceofabeneficiaryofthedecedent,sestateisnotimputedtotheestatemerelybecauseofthebeneficiary,sstatusasabeneficiary.文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)a）當(dāng)原告聲稱一項派生于被告對第三人實施侵權(quán)行為的主張時，在該項主張中該第三人的過失可歸責(zé)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(jù)遺存訴因法，遺產(chǎn)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(nèi)，影響遺產(chǎn)可獲得的賠償額。遺產(chǎn)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(zé)于財產(chǎn)。7Effect ofPlaintiff’sNegligence When Plaintiff Suffers anIndivisibleInjury第七條 在原告遭受不可分損害時原告過失 [9]的效力Plaintiff,snegligence（orthenegligenceofanotherpersonforwhosenegligencetheplaintiffisresponsible）thatisalegalcauseofanindivisibleinjurytotheplaintiffreducestheplaintiff,srecoveryinproportiontotheshareofresponsibilitythefactfinderassignstotheplaintiff（orotherpersonforwhosenegligencetheplaintiffisresponsible）.若原告的過失（或原告應(yīng)為其過失負(fù)責(zé)的其他人的過失） 構(gòu)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(jù)事實調(diào)查人分配給原告（或原告應(yīng)為其過失負(fù)責(zé)的該他人）的責(zé)任份額相應(yīng)比例地減少。8FactorsforAssigningSharesofResponsibility 第八條分配責(zé)任份額時應(yīng)文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)考慮的因素Factorsforassigningpercentagesofresponsibilitytoeachpersonwhoselegalresponsibilityhasbeenestablishedincludea）thenatureoftheperson,srisk-creatingconduct,includinganyawarenessorindifferencewithrespecttotheriskscreatedbytheconductandanyintentwithrespecttotheharmcreatedbytheconduct ；and（b） the strength of the causal connection between the person,srisk-creatingconductandtheharm.向法律責(zé)任已被確定的各方分配責(zé)任百分比時應(yīng)考慮的因素包括：a）該方造成風(fēng)險之行為的性質(zhì)，包括任何對該行為所造成風(fēng)險的認(rèn)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(fēng)險之行為與該傷害之間因果關(guān)系的強(qiáng)度。9OffsettingJudgments 第九條 判決的抵銷Iftwo parties areliable toeach other inthe same suit, each party isentitledtoasetoffofanyrecoveryowedbytheotherparty,exceptthat,incasesinwhichoneorbothofthepartieshasliabilityinsurance,setoffdoesnotreducethepaymentofaliabilityinsurerunlessanapplicableruleoflaworstatute[10]soprovides.如果同一訴訟中的雙方當(dāng)事人都相互負(fù)有責(zé)任， 那么各方都有權(quán)抵消對方享有的任何（相應(yīng)）賠償額；除非一方或雙方都有責(zé)任保險，那么抵消不會減少責(zé)任保文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)險人應(yīng)支付的金額，適用的法律規(guī)范或制定法另有規(guī)定的除外。Topic2-LiabilityofMultipleT ortfeasorsforIndivisibleHarm第二題：數(shù)個侵權(quán)行為人對不可分傷害的責(zé)任10EffectofJointandSeveralLiability 第十條 連帶責(zé)任的效力When,underapplicablelaw,somepersonsarejointlyandseverallyliabletoaninjuredperson,theinjuredpersonmaysueforandrecoverthefullamount ofrecoverable damages from anyjointly and severally liableperson.當(dāng)依據(jù)適用的法律，有多人對某一受害人承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任時， 該受害人可以起訴任一負(fù)連帶責(zé)任者并從該人處獲得可獲得的全部損害賠償 [12]。11EffectofSeveralLiability 第十一條 單獨責(zé)任的效力When, under applicable law,aperson isseverally liable toaninjuredpersonforanindivisibleinjury,theinjuredpersonmayrecoveronlytheseverallyliableperson,scomparative-responsibilityshareoftheinjuredperson,sdamages.當(dāng)依據(jù)適用的法律，某人對受害人的不可分損害承擔(dān)單獨責(zé)任時， 該受害人僅可以獲得該負(fù)單獨責(zé)任者在該受害人應(yīng)得賠償額中的比較責(zé)任份額。12IntentionalTortfeasors 第十二條 故意侵權(quán)行為人文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)Eachperson who commits atort that requires intent isjointly andseverally liable for anyindivisible injury legally caused bythe tortiousconduct.每個實施以故意為要件的侵權(quán)行為的人， 均應(yīng)對該侵權(quán)行為作為法律原因造成的任何不可分損害承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。13VicariousLiability 第十三條 替代責(zé)任Apersonwhoseliabilityisimputedbasedonthetortiousactsofanotherisliablefortheentireshareofcomparativeresponsibilityassignedtotheother,regardlessofwhetherjointandseveralliabilityorseveralliabilityisthegoverningruleforindependenttortfeasorswhocauseanindivisibleinjury.無論對導(dǎo)致不可分損害的獨立侵權(quán)行為人適用的規(guī)則是連帶責(zé)任或者單獨責(zé)任，基于他人侵權(quán)性的行為而承擔(dān)責(zé)任的人， 對分配給該他人的整個比較責(zé)任份額承擔(dān)責(zé)任。14TortfeasorsLiableforFailuretoProtectthePlaintifffromtheSpecificRiskofanIntentionalTort第十四條 未就某一故意侵權(quán)行為的具體風(fēng)險對原告提供保護(hù)而承擔(dān)責(zé)任的侵權(quán)行為人Apersonwhoisliabletoanotherbasedonafailuretoprotecttheother文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)fromthespecificriskofanintentionaltortisjointlyandseverallyliablefor theshareofcomparative responsibility assigned tothe intentionaltortfeasorinadditiontotheshareofcomparativeresponsibilityassignedtotheperson.因未就某一故意侵權(quán)行為的具體風(fēng)險對他人提供保護(hù)而承擔(dān)責(zé)任的一方， 應(yīng)在分配給他的比較責(zé)任份額之外，對分配給故意侵權(quán)行為人的比較責(zé)任份額承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。15PersonsActinginConcert 第十五條 共同行為人Whenpersonsareliablebecausetheyactedinconcert,allpersonsarejointly and severally liable for the share ofcomparative responsibilityassignedtoeachpersonengagedinconcertedactivity.當(dāng)多人因共同行為而承擔(dān)責(zé)任時，所有各方應(yīng)對分配給參與該共同行為的每一方的比較責(zé)任份額承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。16EffectofPartialSettlementonJointlyandSeverallyLiableT ortfeasors’Liability第十六條對連帶責(zé)任人之責(zé)任所做部分和解的效力Theplaintiff,s recoverable damages from ajointly and severally liabletortfeasorarereducedbythecomparativeshareofdamagesattributableto a settling tortfeasor who otherwise would have been liable for文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)contributiontojointlyandseverallyliabledefendantswhodonotsettle.Thesettlingtortfeasor,scomparativeshareofdamagesisthepercentageof comparative responsibility assigned to the settling tortfeasormultipliedbythetotaldamagesoftheplaintiff.原告可從一負(fù)連帶責(zé)任的侵權(quán)行為人處獲得的賠償應(yīng)減去應(yīng)分配給另一已和解，否則將對負(fù)連帶責(zé)任的其他未和解被告承擔(dān)分?jǐn)傌?zé)任的侵權(quán)行為人的比較賠償份額。該已和解侵權(quán)行為人的比較賠償份額是分配給該已和解侵權(quán)行為人的比較責(zé)任份額與原告賠償總額的乘積。17JointandSeveralorSeveralLiabilityforIndependentTortfeasors第十七條 獨立侵權(quán)行為人的連帶責(zé)任或單獨責(zé)任Iftheindependenttortiousconductoftwoormorepersonsisalegalcauseofanindivisibleinjury,thelawoftheapplicablejurisdictiondetermineswhetherthosepersonsarejointlyandseverally如有兩人或多人的獨立侵權(quán)行為構(gòu)成某一不可分損害的法律原因，將由該案司法管轄區(qū)的法律確定這些侵權(quán)人應(yīng)否承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任、單獨責(zé)任或連帶責(zé)任與單獨責(zé)任的某種混合責(zé)任形態(tài)。liable, severally liable, orliable under some hybrid ofjoint andseveralandseveralliability.TrackA-JointandSeveralLiability 路徑A：連帶責(zé)任文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)A18LiabilityofMultipleTortfeasorsforIndivisibleHarmIftheindependent tortious conduct oftwo ormore persons isalegalcauseofanindivisibleinjury,eachpersonisjointlyandseverallyliablefortherecoverabledamagescausedbythetortiousconduct.A路徑第18條數(shù)個侵權(quán)行為人對不可分傷害的責(zé)任如果兩個或兩個以上的共同侵權(quán)行為構(gòu)成一不可分損害的法律原因， 那么每個人均對該侵權(quán)行為造成的可獲得損害賠償承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。A19 Assignment of Responsibility: Jointly and Severally LiableDefendantsIfonedefendantandatleastoneotherpartyorsettlingtortfeasormaybefoundbythefactfindertohaveengagedintortiousconductthatwasalegal cause of an indivisible injury, each such party and settlingtortfeasorissubmittedtothefactfinderforassignmentofapercentageofcomparativeresponsibility.A路徑第19條責(zé)任分配：負(fù)連帶責(zé)任的被告如果一個被告和至少另一方當(dāng)事人或者和解侵權(quán)行為人可能被事實調(diào)查人確認(rèn)曾經(jīng)參與了作為一不可分損害法律原因的侵權(quán)行為， 上述每一方與和解侵權(quán)行為人都需遵從于由事實調(diào)查人分配的比較責(zé)任份額。A20[NotApplicabletoThisTrack.]A 路徑第20條無此條可適用于該路徑文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)A21[NotApplicabletoThisTrack.]A 路徑第21條無此條可適用于該路徑TrackB-SeveralLiability 路徑B：單獨責(zé)任B18LiabilityofMultipleTortfeasorsforIndivisibleHarmIftwoormorepersons,independenttortiousconductisthelegalcauseofanindivisibleinjury,eachdefendant,subjecttotheexceptionstatedin§12, is severally liable for the comparative share of the plaintiff,sdamagesassignedtothatdefendantbythefactfinder.B路徑第18條數(shù)個侵權(quán)行為人對不可分傷害的責(zé)任如果兩個或兩個以上人的獨立侵權(quán)行為均構(gòu)成一不可分損害的法律原因， 每個人均對事實調(diào)查人分配給該人的原告損害賠償?shù)谋容^責(zé)任份額承擔(dān)單獨責(zé)任， 適用本重述第12條例外規(guī)定的除外。B19AssignmentofResponsibility:SeverallyLiableDefendantsIfoneormoredefendantsmaybeheldseverallyliableforanindivisibleinjury,andatleastonedefendantandoneotherparty,settlingtortfeasor,oridentifiedpersonmaybefoundbythefactfindertohaveengagedintortiousconductthatwasalegalcauseoftheplaintiff,sinjury,eachsuchparty,settlingtortfeasor,andotheridentifiedpersonissubmittedtothefactfinder for an assignment of a percentage of comparative文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)responsibility.B路徑第19條責(zé)任分配：負(fù)單獨責(zé)任的被告如果一名或者多名被告可能對一不可分損害承擔(dān)單獨責(zé)任， 并且至少一位被告和一位另一方當(dāng)事人、和解侵權(quán)行為人，或者特定人 [17]可能被事實調(diào)查人確定曾參與了作為受害人損害法律原因侵權(quán)行為， 上述當(dāng)事人、和解侵權(quán)行為人和特定人都遵從事實調(diào)查人對比較責(zé)任份額的分配。B20[NotApplicabletoThisTrack.]B 路徑第20條無此條可適用于該路徑B21[NotApplicabletoThisTrack.]B 路徑第21條無此條可適用于該路徑TrackC-JointandSeveralLiabilitywithReallocation 路徑C：結(jié)合再分配的連帶責(zé)任C18LiabilityofMultipleTortfeasorsforIndivisibleHarmIftheindependent tortious conduct oftwo ormore persons isalegalcauseofanindivisibleinjury,eachpersonisjointlyandseverallyliablefortherecoverabledamagescausedbythetortiousconduct,subjecttothereallocationprovisionof§C21.C路徑第18條數(shù)個侵權(quán)行為人對不可分傷害的責(zé)任如果兩個或兩個以上的共同侵權(quán)行為構(gòu)成一不可分損害的法律原因， 那么根據(jù)本重述C路徑第21條規(guī)定的再分配條款，每個人均對該侵權(quán)行為造成的可獲得損文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)害賠償承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。C19AssignmentofResponsibility:JointlyandSeverallyLiableDefendantsIfonedefendantandatleastoneotherparty,settlingtortfeasor,oremployerdescribedin§C20（a）whosecomparativeresponsibilityislegallyrelevanttoapportioningliabilityfortheplaintiff,sindivisibleinjuryexist,eachparty,eachsettlingtortfeasor,and,aspermittedby§C20（a）,eachemployerwhomaybefoundbythefactfindertohaveengagedintortiousconductthatwasalegalcauseoftheplaintiff,sinjuryissubmittedtothefact-finderforassignmentofapercentageofcomparativeresponsibility.C路徑第19條責(zé)任分配：負(fù)連帶責(zé)任的被告如果存在一個被告和至少一個另一方、和解侵權(quán)行為人或如本重述 C路徑第20條（a）所描述的，其比較責(zé)任在法律上與原告不可分損害的責(zé)任分配有關(guān)的雇主，可能被事調(diào)查人發(fā)現(xiàn)參與了作為原告損害的一個法律原因的請求行為的每一方、每個和解侵權(quán)行為人和每個由本重述 C路徑第20條（a）許可的雇主，均需遵從事實調(diào)查人對比較責(zé)任份額的分配。C20EffectofResponsibilityAssignedtoImmuneEmployerIfapartyallegesthattheplaintiff,semployerbearssomeresponsibilityfortheplaintiff,sinjury:文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)a）Iftheapplicablelawofthejurisdictionpermitsareductionofrecoverabledamagesbasedonthecomparativeresponsibilityofanemployer otherwise immune from suit by the plaintiff-employee orpermitsacontributionclaimbyadefendantagainsttheemployer,theemployer maybeassigned apercentage ofcomparative responsibilityand: （i）the recoverable damages arereduced aspermitted by theapplicablelaw ；or（ii）contributionisawardedaspermittedbytheapplicablelawandtheemployer,scomparativeresponsibility.（b）Iftheapplicablelawofthejurisdictiondoesnotpermiteitherareductionofrecoverabledamagesbasedonthecomparativeresponsibilityofanemployeroracontributionclaimagainsttheemployer,theemployermaynotbeassignedapercentageofcomparativeresponsibility.C路徑第20條分配給免責(zé)雇主的責(zé)任的效力如果一方宣稱原告的雇主對原告的損害負(fù)有一定的責(zé)任（，那么）：a）如果該司法轄區(qū)適用的法律允許基于雇主的比較責(zé)任對可獲得損害賠償?shù)臏p少，否則免于被作為原告的雇員起訴，或者允許被告對雇主的分?jǐn)傊鲝?，雇主可能被分配一定份額的比較責(zé)任，并且：（i）對可獲得損害賠償?shù)臏p少為適用的法律所允許；或（ii）分?jǐn)偟牟枚檫m用法律和雇主的比較責(zé)任所允許。b）如果該司法轄區(qū)適用的法律不允許基于雇主的比較責(zé)任減少可獲得損害賠償，或（不允許）對雇主提出分?jǐn)傊鲝?，則不能向雇主分配比較責(zé)任份額。文檔實用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)C21ReallocationofDamagesBasedonUnenforceabilityofJudgment（a）ExceptasprovidedinSubsection（b）,ifadefendantestablishesthatajudgmentforcontributioncannotbecollectedfullyfromanotherdefendant,thecourtreallocatestheuncollectibleportionofthedamagestoallotherparties,includingtheplaintiff,inproportiontothepercentagesofcomparativeresponsibilityassignedtotheotherparties.（b）ReallocationunderSubsection（a）isnotavailabletoanydefendantsubjecttojointandseveralliabilitypursuantto§12（intentional tortfeasors ）or §15（persons acting inconcert）.Anydefendant legally liable forthe shareofcomparative fault assigned toanotherpersonpursuantto §13（vicariousliability ）or §14（tortfeasorswho failtoprotect the plaintiff from the specific riskofanintentionaltort）may not obtain reallocation of the liability imposed by thoseSections.C路徑第21條基于裁決不可執(zhí)行的賠償再分配a）除非如本條（b）款所規(guī)定，如果一個被告確認(rèn)有關(guān)其分?jǐn)傉埱髾?quán)的判決不可能從另一個被告那里完全受償，法院將按照包括原告在內(nèi)的其他各方被分配的比較責(zé)任份額，向他們重新分配賠償金中不能受償?shù)牟糠?。b）按照本條（a）款進(jìn)行的重新分配，不適用于任何依據(jù)本重述第十二條（故意侵權(quán)行為人）或者第十五條（共同行為人）承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任的被告。任何