美國(guó)侵權(quán)法(中英文)

1、實(shí)用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)實(shí)用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)文檔文檔實(shí)用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)實(shí)用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)文檔文檔美國(guó)侵權(quán)法(中英文)AMERICANINSTITUTETHE LAW, THIRD, TORTS美國(guó)侵權(quán)法(中英文)AMERICANINSTITUTETHE LAW, THIRD, TORTSRestatement of the Law , Third , Torts by The American Law Institute美國(guó)法學(xué)會(huì)侵權(quán)法第三次重述Part One: Intoduction of Torts侵權(quán)法概述Part Two : Apportionment of Liability (Rule Sections ) 第一分： 責(zé)任 分

2、擔(dān)Part Three: Products Liability 產(chǎn)品責(zé)任: Intoduction of Torts 侵權(quán)法概述在美國(guó)，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 (intentional tort)、過(guò)失侵權(quán)行為 (negligence or negligenttort)和嚴(yán)格責(zé)任侵權(quán)行為(strict liability tort).對(duì)侵權(quán)行為的一般救濟(jì)方法是 對(duì)侵權(quán)行為所造成的損害予以一定的金錢(qián)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(xiǎn)賠償?shù)姆绞?。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(guó)， 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(lái)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(guó)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?yàn)榕銓張F(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(gè)孩子在一起交通事

8、故或因購(gòu)買(mǎi)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(fèi)和損害賠償金不僅包括實(shí)際的損害而且包括了無(wú)形損害。原告經(jīng)常可以利用陪審團(tuán)的人性反應(yīng)：比如， 當(dāng)永久的失去肢體時(shí)怎樣才算是一個(gè)適當(dāng)?shù)馁r償金額。（c）美國(guó)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(jiàn)。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(gè)冗長(zhǎng)的審判過(guò)程。 這方面的一個(gè)例子是在陪審團(tuán)對(duì)一個(gè)重大的侵權(quán)案件做出裁決后，專(zhuān)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(gè)超過(guò) 100 ， 000 美

9、元的裁決已不再是不可能的，而是極其常見(jiàn)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)。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(quán)行為法常常與合同

11、法產(chǎn)生競(jìng)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(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移和因非法占有他人財(cái)產(chǎn)所造成的個(gè)人損害）和違約之訴中做出選擇。比如， 在格式合同及在個(gè)人損害賠償案件中或因?yàn)檫`反保證諾言的案例中。 因?yàn)榍謾?quán)行為法還將賠償無(wú)形損失（而違約責(zé)任往往不賠償無(wú)形的損失），因?yàn)榍謾?quán)行為法如此的規(guī)定，在現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中原告往往選擇它提起個(gè)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(gè)人都要對(duì)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(shí)才負(fù)此責(zé)任）， 但國(guó)家不在此例，除非法律明確規(guī)定取消了國(guó)家的豁免權(quán)。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(gè)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(guò)失導(dǎo)致死亡時(shí)（非正常死亡之訴）。 一些州的法律規(guī)定，對(duì)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侵權(quán)之訴，這些規(guī)定被稱(chēng)為“小酒店法令”，作為侵權(quán)行為人醉酒之結(jié)果而受到 傷

15、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(qǐng)求。Finally it should be emphasized again that the law of torts is, in the main, State Law.最后需要強(qiáng)調(diào)的是侵權(quán)行為法主要是各州的立法。: Intentional Torts 故意侵權(quán)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(lèi)故意侵權(quán)。例如毆打、故意傷害、非法占有他人財(cái)產(chǎn)、非法拘禁和對(duì)動(dòng)產(chǎn)和不動(dòng)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。ee: Liabili

18、ty for Negligence 過(guò)失侵權(quán)責(zé)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(guò)失侵權(quán)責(zé)任以過(guò)失行為和對(duì)人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)的侵害之間的因果關(guān)系為前提要件。 一個(gè)人若沒(méi)有盡到其注意義務(wù)就被認(rèn)為是有過(guò)失的?？陀^地講，他沒(méi)有像一個(gè)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(shuō)對(duì)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(duì) “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(huì)大眾。這樣， 一個(gè)人對(duì)于非

25、法進(jìn)入其土地者所負(fù)有的照看義務(wù)就小于其邀請(qǐng)的客人。一些州的侵權(quán)立法發(fā)展得更加迅速，例如， 對(duì)于免費(fèi)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(qǐng)求。下面就是一個(gè)因共同過(guò)失或承擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)而獲罪的案例。共同過(guò)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(guò)失”原則而得到減弱。比較過(guò)失原則又可譯為相對(duì)過(guò)失原則， 即通過(guò)比較雙方的過(guò)失來(lái)確定雙方的責(zé)任。該原則要求共同過(guò)失的雙方基于造成的損害程度來(lái)確定賠償數(shù)額。該法令的貢獻(xiàn)在于過(guò)失侵權(quán)的賠償責(zé)任可能因?yàn)椤白詈竺黠@機(jī)會(huì)”原則得到排除，有過(guò)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(jī)會(huì)”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(guò)失侵權(quán)法極其復(fù)雜，因?yàn)樵谕忂^(guò)程中很難避免陪

28、審團(tuán)對(duì)原告產(chǎn)生同情從而不考慮原告的過(guò)錯(cuò)也不考慮接下來(lái)的損失計(jì)算。如今對(duì)此現(xiàn)象可以從兩方面努力進(jìn)行改革， 盡管有時(shí)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(guò)錯(cuò)的賠償制度，例如類(lèi)似保險(xiǎn)制度的形式。下面的章節(jié)將簡(jiǎn)要評(píng)論這兩種立法趨勢(shì)。r: Tort Law Reform: Strict Liability and “ No-Fault ”侵權(quán)法改革：嚴(yán)格責(zé)任和無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任Strict Liability 嚴(yán)格責(zé)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(yán)格責(zé)任只存在于幾種特殊情形，比如飼養(yǎng)危

30、險(xiǎn)動(dòng)物、誹謗，通過(guò)一個(gè)被稱(chēng)之為 “不言自明法則”的可反駁之推定，從事實(shí)或行為本身的性質(zhì)推定過(guò)錯(cuò)或者過(guò)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(shuō)起，尤其是在合同或侵權(quán)中提供擔(dān)保可以避免出現(xiàn)過(guò)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)

34、主張不再依據(jù)合同法主張從而獨(dú)立存在：銷(xiāo)售商的責(zé)任如今擴(kuò)大到所有“危險(xiǎn)產(chǎn)品”，而不在乎是產(chǎn)品本身的問(wèn)題還是包裝問(wèn)題。“危險(xiǎn)產(chǎn)品”包括產(chǎn)品“在有缺陷的條件”下對(duì)使用者或消費(fèi)者或其財(cái)產(chǎn)有不合理的危險(xiǎn)。在此， “缺陷”一詞意指該產(chǎn)品未達(dá)到一般消費(fèi)者關(guān)于該產(chǎn)品安全性能的合理期望標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。銷(xiāo)售商 “應(yīng)該預(yù)見(jiàn)到會(huì)由于對(duì)該產(chǎn)品的恰當(dāng)使用而帶來(lái)危險(xiǎn)的”每一個(gè)人均受保護(hù)?？v觀美國(guó)各州，在所有現(xiàn)實(shí)目的中這個(gè)定律總體擴(kuò)大了對(duì)社會(huì)公眾的保護(hù)。No-Fault 無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)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(chǎn)品責(zé)任適用嚴(yán)格責(zé)任的趨勢(shì)應(yīng)當(dāng)與另外一種改革努力相比較，就是為了因過(guò)失提起的主張，特別是大量的機(jī)動(dòng)車(chē)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(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則并按照保險(xiǎn)原則在不要過(guò)錯(cuò)證明(“無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)”)的情況下給予與賠償。在目前采用無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任制度的國(guó)家，已經(jīng)證明了這一主張非

42、常成功。司法實(shí)踐表明， 當(dāng)很大部分受害者能得到賠償時(shí)可以降低保險(xiǎn)費(fèi)。然而， 機(jī)動(dòng)車(chē)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(wèn)題。每年超過(guò)50 億美元的損失數(shù)額卻只有8 億美元保險(xiǎn)收益可以用來(lái)賠償。鑒于因產(chǎn)品責(zé)任引起的侵權(quán)主張穩(wěn)定增長(zhǎng)，生產(chǎn)者的保險(xiǎn)責(zé)任花費(fèi)（保險(xiǎn)費(fèi)）也從1950 年的 2500 萬(wàn)美元增加到1970 年的 1.25 億美元。 進(jìn)一步的改革運(yùn)動(dòng)，盡管目前只在初步階段，試圖將無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)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(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)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(wú)須證明過(guò)錯(cuò)而承認(rèn)賠償。在此“賠償”意指實(shí)際損失賠償，

43、而不包括無(wú)形的損害。 因此， 生產(chǎn)者的責(zé)任將會(huì)受到限制，這樣就要求相對(duì)較少的保險(xiǎn)費(fèi)以涵蓋這種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。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?yàn)槠溆袡?quán)因其實(shí)際損失（花費(fèi)、收益損失或者薪資）取得立即賠償，而不用通過(guò)長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的訴訟，也沒(méi)有證明過(guò)錯(cuò)的困難。Part Two ： Apportionment of Liability ( Rule Sections )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 ComparativeResponsibilityIssues and Causes of Action Add

44、ressed by This Restatement第一條 本重述所涉及的問(wèn)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(zé)任人之間分配責(zé)任的問(wèn)題。本重述適用于關(guān)于死亡、人身?yè)p害2 (包括精神損害或配偶權(quán))，或?qū)τ行呜?cái)產(chǎn)的物理傷害的所有主張(包括法律訴訟與和解)，無(wú)論其責(zé)任基礎(chǔ)如何。Contractual Limitations on Liability 第二條 責(zé)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(qǐng)求的實(shí)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(duì)未來(lái)傷害負(fù)責(zé)的合同，將阻礙原告從該他人處獲得對(duì)該傷害的賠償。 與原告的過(guò)失不同，一項(xiàng)有效的合同性責(zé)任限制并不構(gòu)成事實(shí)調(diào)查人向任何當(dāng)事人或他人分配責(zé)任份額的理由。Ameliorative Doctrines for Defining Plaintiff s Negligence Abolished第三條 定義原告過(guò)失的各種嚴(yán)格學(xué)說(shuō)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(guò)失應(yīng)依據(jù)適用于被告過(guò)失的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)定義。特別適用于定義原告過(guò)失的各種嚴(yán)格學(xué)說(shuō)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(duì)原告過(guò)失和法律原因的證明被告負(fù)有證明原告過(guò)失的舉證責(zé)任，并可采用原告為證明被告過(guò)失可以采用的

50、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(guò)失如果原告存在任何過(guò)失構(gòu)成原告所受損害的一項(xiàng)法律原因。Negligence Imputed to a Plaintiff 第五條 可歸責(zé)于原告的過(guò)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(shè)原告是被告的角色，他人的過(guò)失便可以歸責(zé)于他的話(huà)，那么該他人的過(guò)失可歸責(zé)于原告。除非該他人的過(guò)失不是僅僅因?yàn)樵鎸?duì)機(jī)動(dòng)車(chē)享有的所有權(quán)，或?qū)υ撍耸褂迷摍C(jī)動(dòng)車(chē)的許可而歸責(zé)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(dāng)原告獲得的賠償派生于一項(xiàng)被告對(duì)第三人實(shí)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(shí)，過(guò)失可歸責(zé)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(dāng)原告聲稱(chēng)一項(xiàng)派生于被告對(duì)第三人實(shí)施侵權(quán)行為的主張時(shí)，在該項(xiàng)主張中該第三人的過(guò)失可歸責(zé)于原告。原告的賠償額同樣因?yàn)槠渥陨淼倪^(guò)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(guò)失在其生存時(shí)對(duì)其賠償額影響的同樣范圍內(nèi)，影響遺產(chǎn)可

55、獲得的賠償額。遺產(chǎn)受益人的過(guò)失不能僅僅因?yàn)槭芤嫒俗鳛槭芤嫒说姆傻匚欢鴼w責(zé)于財(cái)產(chǎn)。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(shí)原告過(guò)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(guò)失(或原告應(yīng)為其過(guò)失負(fù)責(zé)的其他人的過(guò)失)構(gòu)成原告遭受的不可分傷害的一項(xiàng)法律原因，則原告的所獲得的賠償額將依據(jù)事實(shí)調(diào)查人分配給原告(或原告應(yīng)為其過(guò)失負(fù)責(zé)的該他人)的責(zé)任份額相應(yīng)

57、比例地減少。Factors for Assigning Shares of Responsibility 第八條 分配責(zé)任份額時(shí)應(yīng)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(zé)任已被確定的各方分配責(zé)任百分比時(shí)應(yīng)考慮的因素包括：（ a） 該方造成風(fēng)險(xiǎn)之行為的性質(zhì)，包括任何對(duì)該行為所造成風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的認(rèn)識(shí)或漠視，以及任何對(duì)該行為所造成傷害的意圖；及（b）該方造成風(fēng)險(xiǎn)之行為與

59、該傷害之間因果關(guān)系的強(qiáng)度。Offsetting Judgments 第九條 判決的抵銷(xiāo)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(dāng)事人都相互負(fù)有責(zé)任，那么各方都有權(quán)抵消對(duì)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(xiǎn)，那么抵消不會(huì)減少責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)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。Topic 2- Liability of Multiple T ortfeasors for Indivisible Harm第二題：數(shù)個(gè)侵權(quán)行為人對(duì)不可分傷害的責(zé)任Effect of Joint and Several Liability 第十條