论美国侵权法上违反注意义务的判断标准

发布时间：2018-03-17 13:27

本文选题：美国过失侵权法　切入点：判断标准　出处：《湖南师范大学》2010年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 在美国,原告提起过失侵权之诉,必须要向法院证明：被告负有防止给他人造成不合理风险的注意义务,被告违反了对原告所负有的注意义务,被告的行为是原告所遭受的损害后果的事实原因或法律原因,且有实际损害。其中,判断被告是否违反了对原告的注意义务就成为被告是否承担过失侵权责任的关键因素。美国的判例和学说表明,在过失侵权诉讼中,判断被告是否违反其对原告负有的注意义务,或者说过失的判断标准主要是“理性人标准”。就其实质而言,理性人标准是一个客观标准,被告的行为是否构成过失不是以被告自身的主观能力来衡量,而是以一个外部的标准来衡量。这一标准的优点在于灵活性强,适用方便,而且具有开放性,能与时俱进。但是,也存在预见性不强、实践中有时难以操作等问题。对此,美国的司法实践主要考量两个方面的因素：行为人自身的因素和行为人自身状况之外的因素。对于行为人自身的因素,主要考虑其年龄、身体缺陷、精神缺陷及其专业技能,对于上述不同的行为人适用不同的合理注意标准；至于行为人自身状况之外的因素则主要考虑紧急状况、惯例与习惯以及行为人是否是从事特别危险的活动或处理特别危险的物质,对于这些行为人也依实际情况分别适用不同的合理注意标准。近半个世纪以来,美国的司法实践也越来越多地适用风险效益标准,这一标准通常也被称为“汉德公式”,这实际上是用经济分析和利益衡量的方法来决定当事人的过失问题。通常考虑的因素主要包括：造成伤害的可能性,发生损害的严重程度,采取预防措施的成本,行为人行为的社会价值。但是,在实践中,这一标准的各项变量常常难以确定,因此,也招致了很多的批评。一般认为,现在美国的司法实践中主要还是采取“理性人标准”来判断行为人是否存在过失,只有在某些个案中使用汉德公式来衡量各方利益。在适用到具体案件中时,根据案件涉及的不同情况,适用的具体规则是有区别的。目前,我国侵权法规则在过失侵权的判断标准方面基本上处于空白状态,导致在我国的司法实践中,有关过失侵权的判断标准是混乱的,不统一的。刚刚通过的《侵权责任法》对此仍然言之不详。虽然美国有关过失判断标准的规则还存在着一些问题,但是,这些问题并非不可克服,我国的侵权法在适用判断过失的标准时仍然可以对其加以借鉴。
[Abstract]:In the United States, the plaintiff must prove to the court that the defendant has the duty of care to prevent unreasonable risks to others, and that the defendant has violated the duty of care to the plaintiff. The defendant's behavior is the factual cause or legal reason of the damage consequence suffered by the plaintiff, and there is actual damage, among which, judging whether the defendant has violated the duty of care to the plaintiff becomes the key factor of whether the defendant bears the responsibility of negligence tort. The jurisprudence and doctrine of the United States show that in tort litigation for negligence, the judgment of whether the defendant has violated his duty of care to the plaintiff or whether the criterion of fault is mainly the "standard of rational person". The criterion of rational person is an objective criterion. Whether the defendant's behavior constitutes negligence is not measured by the defendant's own subjective ability, but by an external standard. The advantage of this criterion is that it is flexible and convenient to apply. Moreover, it is open and can keep pace with the times. However, there are also some problems, such as low predictability and difficult to operate in practice. In view of this, the judicial practice in the United States mainly considers two factors: the actor's own factor and the actor's own condition. Mental defects and their professional skills apply different reasonable standards of care to the above-mentioned different actors; as for factors other than the perpetrator's own condition, the emergency situation is the main consideration. The practice and custom and whether the perpetrator was engaged in a particularly dangerous activity or dealt with a particularly dangerous substance were also subject to different reasonable standards of care according to the actual circumstances. In the past half century, the judicial practice in the United States has increasingly applied the risk benefit standard. This criterion, also commonly referred to as the "Hande formula," is in fact determined by economic analysis and a measure of interest in determining the fault of the parties. The main factors commonly considered include the likelihood of causing the injury, the severity of the damage, The cost of taking preventive measures and the social value of the behavior of the perpetrator. However, in practice, the variables of this standard are often difficult to determine, and therefore have attracted a lot of criticism. It is generally believed that in the current judicial practice in the United States, the "rational person standard" is mainly adopted to judge whether the perpetrator is negligent or not. Only in some cases does the Hande formula be used to measure the interests of all parties. According to the different circumstances involved in the case, the applicable specific rules are different. At present, the rule of tort law of our country is basically blank in judging standard of fault tort, which leads to confusion of judgment standard of fault tort in judicial practice of our country. Inconsistent. The newly passed Tort liability Act is still unclear. Although there are still some problems with the United States rules on the criteria for judging negligence, these problems are not insurmountable. The tort law of our country can still use for reference when applying the criterion of judging negligence.
【学位授予单位】：湖南师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：DD913;D971.2

【参考文献】