美国侵权法(中英文).doc

美国侵权法（中英文）

Restatement of the Law，Third，Torts by The American Law Institute
美国法学会《侵权法 第三次重述》

Part One: Intoduction of Torts 侵权法概述
Part Two： Apportionment of Liability（Rule Sections）第一部分：责任分担
Part Three: Products Liability 产品责任

Part One: Intoduction of Torts 侵权法概述

在美国，侵权法主要属于各州的法律范畴，而且主要由判例法组成。侵权行为可分为故意侵权行为（intentional tort)、过失侵权行为（negligence or negligent tort)和严格责任侵权行为 (strict liability tort). 对侵权行为的一般救济方法是对侵权行为所造成的损害予以一定的金钱补偿，在涉及交通事故等领域的侵权赔偿已广范采用了保险赔偿的方式。

Part One: Introduction 基本概念
1. The law of tort 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 understandably--rely more on human than on legal considerations, for instance 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 play 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 of the attorney in the plaintiff’s recovery (contingent fee) which not uncommonly amounts to 25 to 33 percent of the verdict. 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 will aware a verdict in excess of ＄100,000. These conditions have been the touchstone for several reform endeavors which will be discussed in more detail below.
在美国，侵权行为法产生的诉讼仍是大多民事诉讼案件的主要来源，其中基于交通事故产生的损害赔偿案件居于首位。很多因素造成了这一现象：（a）在美国民事诉讼案件中的原告通常利用法律赋予他的诉讼权利主张赔偿，因为陪审团更多的是基于可以理解的人性考虑而非法律考虑，例如当一个孩子在一起交通事故或因购买大公司的瑕疵产品而受到伤害往往能得到陪审团的同情理解。（b）补偿费和损害赔偿金不仅包括实际的损害而且包括了无形损害。原告经常可以利用陪审团的人性反应：比如，当永久的失去肢体时怎样才算是一个适当的赔偿金额。（c）美国法律允许律师分享原告所获得的赔偿金（胜诉酬金）。这种酬金达到法院判付赔偿金金额的百分之二十五到百分之三十的情况并非罕见。由于以上所有因素的存在，在侵权案件中若想获得巨额的赔偿金必将经历一个冗长的审判过程。这方面的一个例子是在陪审团对一个重大的侵权案件做出裁决后，专家（证人）的酬金可能是“渺小”的原告所获得的损害赔偿金的全部。陪审团做出一个超过100，000美元的裁决已不再是不可能的，而是极其常见的。这些因素都将成为若干改革努力的试金石，我们将在下文中更多的讨论其细节。

2. Tort law and the law of contracts often overlap since an injured party frequently has the choice between a tort claim(for instance, unauthorized use of property--conversion--or personal injury)and a suit in contract, for instance, in implied contract or, in the case of personal injuries, for breach of warranty. Since the law of torts permits the recovery of intangible damage (which is usually not the case with respect to contract claims), the plaintiff will ordinarily choose the tort claim for personal injuries when the facts so permit.
侵权行为法常常与合同法产生竞合，受损害的一方也常常在侵权之诉（例如将未经授权使用的财产转移和因非法占有他人财产所造成的个人损害）和违约之诉中做出选择。比如，在格式合同及在个人损害赔偿案件中或因为违反保证诺言的案例中。因为侵权行为法还将赔偿无形损失（而违约责任往往不赔偿无形的损失），因为侵权行为法如此的规定，在现实生活中原告往往选择它提起个人损害赔偿。

3. Everyone is liable for his tortious act, in limited form also children (however, parents only then when they acted as the child’s agent or did not comply with their duty to supervise), but not the state unless express statutory provision has abolished state immunity.
每个人都要对其侵权行为承担责任，在有限的形式下儿童亦然（但是，父母仅当其作为该儿童之代理人或未能按照其监护义务行事时才负此责任），但国家不在此例，除非法律明确规定取消了国家的豁免权。

4. Everyone is protected against tortious acts, including the embryo. The heirs or next of kin may have a damage claim for the intentional or negligent death of their relative or testator (wrongful death action).The statutes of some States provide protection, and a tort claim, to third parties for injuries arising out of the intoxication of the tortfeasor; under these so-called "dram-shop acts", a party injured as a result of the intoxication of the tortfeasor has a claim against him who contributed to the tortfeasor's intoxication.
每个人包括婴儿都受到侵权法的保护。 继承人或近亲属可以提起损害赔偿之诉，当其被继承人或近亲属被故意或过失导致死亡时（非正常死亡之诉）。一些州的法律规定，对于第三方的行为使侵权行为人醉酒从而导致受害人受伤的可以提起侵权之诉，这些规定被称为“小酒店法令”，作为侵权行为人醉酒之结果而受到伤害的一方有权向那些造成该侵权行为人醉酒的人提出索赔请求。

5. Finally it should be emphasized again that the law of torts is, in the main, State Law.
最后需要强调的是侵权行为法主要是各州的立法。

Part Two: Intentional Torts 故意侵权
The case law contains the usual catalogue of intentional torts. For instance: battery, assault, conversion of property, false imprisonment, trespass to personal and real property. Some torts, for instance, alienation of affection have 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 introduced by the case law; particularly important among them are the torts for invasion of privacy and for products liability.
以往的判例包含了各类故意侵权。例如殴打、故意伤害、非法占有他人财产、非法拘禁和对动产和不动产权的侵犯。一些侵权行为，例如破坏他人夫妻关系在很多的州的法律中都被废除了。另外一些，例如诽谤，最近就在宪法判例法中得到显著的修改。判例法也增加了一些传统的普通法所未包含的新的侵权行为；其中特别重要的是侵犯隐私权的行为和产品责任侵权行为。

Part Three: Liability for Negligence 过失侵权责任
Tort liability for negligence presupposes causality between the negligent act 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 into 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”. The duty must be owed toward the particular plaintiff: there 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--toward passengers whom he transports gratuitously (guest 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 be the 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 or has assumed the rise, the harshness of the contributory negligence defense, the result of which would not only be a deduction from the compensation but exclude any liability on the part of the tortfeasor has been softened in some States by adoption of the "comparative negligence" doctrine. It requires that the respective degree of 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 plaintiff will be compensated if he can prove that the defendant had the "last clear chance" to prevent the damage.
过失侵权责任以过失行为和对人身或财产的侵害之间的因果关系为前提要件。一个人若没有尽到其注意义务就被认为是有过失的。客观地讲，他没有像一个理性且谨慎的人那样行为。最新的修正案中包含了特殊行业侵权行为所该承担的责任。这样，比方说对一名建筑师就要适用不同于一名建筑工人的标准。判例法已经对“注意义务”给出了限制性解释。这种责任必定属于特殊的原告而非普通的社会大众。这样，一个人对于非法进入其土地者所负有的照看义务就小于其邀请的客人。一些州的侵权立法发展得更加迅速，例如，对于免费搭乘乘客的司机的照看义务做出了规定。即使司机未尽到小心与观察的义务，受害一方仍不能主张赔偿请求。下面就是一个因共同过失或承担风险而获罪的案例。共同过失辩护的严格性，其结果并不是减少赔偿数额而是完全排除侵权行为人的责任，已经因一些州采用了“比较过失”原则而得到减弱。比较过失原则又可译为相对过失原则，即通过比较双方的过失来确定双方的责任。该原则要求共同过失的双方基于造成的损害程度来确定赔偿数额。该法令的贡献在于过失侵权的赔偿责任可能因为“最后明显机会”原则得到排除，有过失的原告可能得到赔偿，如果它能够证明被告因“最后明显机会”原则而避免损害。

The extraordinarily complex law of negligence--with its difficulties of proof in a jury trial and the possibility that a jury sympathetic to the plaintiff will let him win despite his contributory negligence but consider the latter in its calculation of damages--today leads to two, sometimes inconsistent, efforts of reform. One would provide for strict liability in many cases, the other would introduce a system of compensation for the injured without regard to fault, resembling a form of insurance. The following section briefly reviews these two trends.

过失侵权法极其复杂，因为在庭审过程中很难避免陪审团对原告产生同情从而不考虑原告的过错也不考虑接下来的损失计算。如今对此现象可以从两方面努力进行改革，尽管有时这两者不相一致。一方面可以在很多案件中规定严格责任，另一方面可以创设一种不考虑过错的赔偿制度，例如类似保险制度的形式。下面的章节将简要评论这两种立法趋势。

Part Four: Tort Law Reform: Strict Liability and “No-Fault”
侵权法改革：严格责任和无过错责任

a. Strict Liability 严格责任
Originally, strict liability existed only in a few special cases, for instance with 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，严格责任只存在于几种特殊情形，比如饲养危险动物、诽谤，通过一个被称之为“不言自明法则”的可反驳之推定，从事实或行为本身的性质推定过错或者过失，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 in 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” 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 protected whom the seller "should expect to be endangered by the product's 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.
从合同法概念的作用说起，尤其是在合同或侵权中提供担保可以避免出现过失，更多的近期判例法承认在产品责任领域的严格责任。这一新的侵权主张不再依据合同法主张从而独立存在：销售商的责任如今扩大到所有“危险产品”，而不在乎是产品本身的问题还是包装问题。“危险产品”包括产品“在有缺陷的条件”下对使用者或消费者或其财产有不合理的危险。在此，“缺陷”一词意指该产品未达到一般消费者关于该产品安全性能的合理期望标准。销售商“应该预见到会由于对该产品的恰当使用而带来危险的”每一个人均受保护。纵观美国各州，在所有现实目的中这个定律总体扩大了对社会公众的保护。

b. No-Fault 无过错责任
The trend to strict liability in the area of products liability should be contrasted 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 O'Connell seek to abolish 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. Nevertheless, 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 proceeds are available for their compensation. As claims arising out of products liability have steadily increased, the cost of liability insurance to manufacturers also increased from 25 million in 1950 to 125 million in 1970. Further reform movements albeit at this time only in their infancy, seek to extend the No-Fault principle to almost all claims, principally to products liability, but also to other kinds of liability such as medical malpractice. In a No-Fault system, a manufacturer agrees--and insures himself accordingly to grant compensation for certain injuries without proof of fault. "Compensation” in this context means compensation for actual losses, but not for intangible damage. Thus, liability will be limited for 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 immediate compensation for his actual loss (expenses loss of profits or wages) without lengthy litigation or difficult proof of fault.
产品责任适用严格责任的趋势应当与另外一种改革努力相比较，就是为了因过失提起的主张，特别是大量的机动车事故，力求寻找更多解决措施。这些主要建立在基顿和奥康内尔两位教授之方案基础上的改革努力试图取消侵权法中的过错责任原则并按照保险原则在不要过错证明（“无过错”）的情况下给予与赔偿。在目前采用无过错责任制度的国家，已经证明了这一主张非常成功。司法实践表明，当很大部分受害者能得到赔偿时可以降低保险费。然而，机动车事故和产品责任引起的损害赔偿仍然是压倒性多数的严重问题。每年超过50亿美元的损失数额却只有8亿美元保险收益可以用来赔偿。鉴于因产品责任引起的侵权主张稳定增长，生产者的保险责任花费（保险费）也从1950年的2500万美元增加到1970年的1.25亿美元。进一步的改革运动，尽管目前只在初步阶段，试图将无过错责任原则扩大到几乎所有的诉求，主要是产品责任，但是也包括其他的责任，例如医疗事故。在无过错责任体系中，生产者同意并且据此保证其自身在某些伤害中无须证明过错而承认赔偿。在此“赔偿”意指实际损失赔偿，而不包括无形的损害。因此，生产者的责任将会受到限制，这样就要求相对较少的保险费以涵盖这种风险。另一方面，相较传统的侵权法，受害者能处于更有利的地位，因为其有权因其实际损失（花费、收益损失或者薪资）取得立即赔偿，而不用通过长时间的诉讼，也没有证明过错的困难。

Part Two： Apportionment of Liability（Rule Sections）第二部分：责任分担
第一题：比较责任的基本规则Topic 1- Basic Rules of Comparative Responsibility
1 Issues and Causes of Action Addressed by This Restatement
第一条 本重述所涉及的问题与诉因

This Restatement addresses issues of apportioning liability among two or more persons. It applies to all claims[3] （including lawsuits and settlements） for death, personal injury （including emotional distress or consortium）, or physical damage to tangible property, regardless of the basis of liability.
本重述讨论在两位或多位责任人之间分配责任的问题。本重述适用于关于死亡、人身损害[2]（包括精神损害或配偶权），或对有形财产的物理伤害的所有主张（包括法律诉讼与和解），无论其责任基础如何。

2 Contractual Limitations on Liability第二条 责任的合同性限制
When permitted by contract law, substantive law governing the claim, and applicable rules of construction, a contract between the plaintiff and another person absolving the person from liability for future harm bars the plaintiff,s recovery[4] from that person for the harm. Unlike a plaintiff,s negligence, a valid contractual limitation on liability does not provide an occasion for the factfinder to assign a percentage of responsibility to any party or other person.
在合同法、诉讼请求的实体法规则和可适用的解释规则允许的情况下，原告与他人之间免除该他人对未来伤害负责的合同，将阻碍原告从该他人处获得对该伤害的赔偿。与原告的过失不同，一项有效的合同性责任限制并不构成事实调查人向任何当事人或他人分配责任份额的理由。

3 Ameliorative Doctrines for Defining Plaintiff’s Negligence Abolished
第三条 定义原告过失的各种严格学说均已被废止

Plaintiff,s negligence is defined by the applicable standard for a defendant,s negligence. Special ameliorative doctrines for defining plaintiff,s negligence are abolished.
原告的过失应依据适用于被告过失的标准来定义。特别适用于定义原告过失的各种严格学说均已被废止。

4 Proof of Plaintiff’s Negligence and Legal Causation
The defendant has the burden to prove plaintiff,s negligence, and may use 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.
第四条 对原告过失和法律原因的证明
被告负有证明原告过失的举证责任，并可采用原告为证明被告过失可以采用的任何方法。除本重述第五题另有规定外，被告亦负有举证责任证明原告过失——如果原告存在任何过失——构成原告所受损害的一项法律原因。

5 Negligence Imputed to a Plaintiff第五条 可归责于原告的过失
The negligence of an