论比较过错制度在故意侵权中的适用
|
摘要
传统侵权法拒绝将比较过错制度适用于故意侵权领域,作为拒绝适用依据的"性质不同"理论、"补偿受害人、威慑并惩罚侵权人"的政策依据及故意侵权不能比较之传统规则,都受到一定的挑战。因果关系分配责任之标准、"性质不同"理论的外强中干、单独侵权人应为各自行为的份额负责任、严格责任领域适用比较过错的尝试等都为比较过错适用于故意侵权提供了合理性依据。在解决"过失侵权人可能承担高于故意侵权人比例的责任、不可知或非当事人的侵权人过错比例能否比较及受害人不能受偿部分如何分配"这些问题的基础上,未来《民法典·侵权责任法》应当考虑将比较过错制度适用于主观故意不明显的故意侵权、主观故意明显但有诱发性原因的故意侵权等特殊领域,当事人的过失可减轻故意侵权人责任,以及将比较过错制度适用于一般情形下过失侵权人责任比例的确定,这不涉及故意侵权人责任的减轻。
Traditional tort law refused to apply comparative fault system to intentional tort area,but the"different-in-nature"theory,policy argument including compensating victim,deterrence and punishment of tortfeasor,as well as traditional rule,are to some extent challenged. While the standard to allocate liability based on causation,"different-in-nature"rule's superficial strength,separate tortfeasor should be responsible for the share he caused,the attempt to apply comparative fault to strict liability furnish the basis to apply comparative fault to intentional tort. Based on the resolution of the problems such as that the negligent tortfeasor may bear more responsibility than intentional tortfeasor,whether the fault of the unknown tortfeasor in litigation could be compared as well as how to allocate the uncompensated share of plaintiff,it is proper to apply comparative fault system to intentional tort with inconspicuous intent,intentional tort with obvious intent but provoked by the plaintiff,and to the circumstance where the share of the negligent tortfeasor should be counted.
Traditional tort law refused to apply comparative fault system to intentional tort area,but the"different-in-nature"theory,policy argument including compensating victim,deterrence and punishment of tortfeasor,as well as traditional rule,are to some extent challenged. While the standard to allocate liability based on causation,"different-in-nature"rule's superficial strength,separate tortfeasor should be responsible for the share he caused,the attempt to apply comparative fault to strict liability furnish the basis to apply comparative fault to intentional tort. Based on the resolution of the problems such as that the negligent tortfeasor may bear more responsibility than intentional tortfeasor,whether the fault of the unknown tortfeasor in litigation could be compared as well as how to allocate the uncompensated share of plaintiff,it is proper to apply comparative fault system to intentional tort with inconspicuous intent,intentional tort with obvious intent but provoked by the plaintiff,and to the circumstance where the share of the negligent tortfeasor should be counted.
引文
[1]叶金强.论过错程度对侵权构成及效果之影响[J].法商研究,2009(3):71.
[2]周江洪.绝对过失相抵抑或相对过失相抵?——数人侵权情形过失相抵方式之考察[J].浙江社会科学,2014(10):100.
[3]李中原.论违反安全保障义务的补充责任制度[J].中外法学,2014(3):692.
[4]W.Page Keeton,et al..Prosser and Keeton on Torts(5th)[M].St.Paul:West Publishing Co.,1984:476.
[5]Jake Dear,Steven E.Zipperstein.Comparative Fault and Intentional Torts:Doctrinal Barriers and Policy Consideration[J].Santa Clara Law Review,1984,24(1):10.
[6]Ellen M.Bublick.The End Game of Tort Reform:Comparative Apportionment and Intentional Torts[J].Notre Dame Law Review,2003,78(2):402.
[7]Mark Geistfeld.Negligence,Compensation,and the Coherence of Tort Law[J].Georgetown Law Journal,2003,91(3):590.
[8]Gail D.Hollister.Using Comparative Fault to Replace the All-or-Nothing Lottery Imposed in Intentional Torts Suits in Which Both Plaintiff and Defendant Are at Fault[J].Vanderbilt Law Review,1993,46(1):148.
[9]Jordan H.Leibman.Comparative Contribution and Intentional Torts:A Remaining Roadblick to Damages Apportionment[J].American Business Law Journal,1993,30(4):697.
[10]Ernest Turk.Comparative Negligence on the March[J].Chicago-Kent Law Review,1950,28:222-223.
[11]Leonard Charles Schwartz.The Myth of Nonapportionment among Tortfeasors under Traditional Tort Law and Its Significance for modern Comparative Fault[J].Northern Kentucky Law Review,1991,19(1):86.
[12]Leonard Charles Schwartz.Apportionment of Loss under Modern Comparative Fault the Significance of Causation and Blameworthiness[J].University of Toledo Law Review,1991,23(1):143.
[13]W.V.H.Rogers,ed..Unification of Tort Law:Multiple Tortfeasors[M].Holland:Kluwer Law International,2004:77.
[14]William Powers,Jr..What a Comparative Bad Faith Defense Tells Us about Bad Faith Insurance Litigation[J].Texas Law Review,1994,72(6):1579.
[15]Glanville Williams,B.A.Hepple.Foundations of the Law of Torts[M].London:Butterworths,1984:94.
[16]Theresa L.Fiset.Comparative Fault as a Tool to Nullify the Duty to Protect:Apportioning Liability to a NonParty Intentional Tortfeasor in Stellas v.Alamo Rent-Acar,INC.[J].Stetson Law Review,1997,27(2):707.
[17]程啸.论意思联络作为共同侵权行为构成要件的意义[J].法学家,2003(4):94.
[18]刘雪红,叶名怡.《侵权责任法》受害人过错条款之简评[G]//杨遂全.民商法争鸣.北京:法律出版社,2010:208.
[19]Ulrich Magnus,Miquel Martin-Casals eds..Unification of Tort Law:Contributory Negligence[M].Holland:Kluwer Law International,2004:277.
[20]程啸.过失相抵与无过错责任[J].法律科学,2014(1):140.
[21]B.Scott Andrews.Premises Liability-The Comparison of Fault between Negligent and Intentional Actors[J].Louisiana Law Review,1995,55(6):1160.
[22]Henderson James A.Jr.,Twerski Aaron.Intent and Recklessness in Tort:The Practical Craft of Restating Law[J].Vanderbilt Law Review,2001,54(3):1137.
[23]郭明瑞.补充责任、相应的补充责任与责任人的追偿权[J].烟台大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2011(1):12-16,35.
[24]Leonard E.Eilbacher.Comparative Fault and the Nonparty Tortfeasor[J].Indiana Law Review,1984,17(3):913.
[25]Kathleen M.O’Conner,Gregory P.Sreenan.Apportionment of Damages:Evolution of a Fault Based System of Liability for Negligence[J].Journal of Air Law and Commerce,1995,61:378.
[26]Adler.Allocation of Responsibility after American Motorcycle Association v.Superior Court[J].Pepperdine Law Review,1978,6(1):15.
[27]Margaret Fordham.The Role of Contributory Negligence in Claims for Assault and Battery[J].Singapore Journal of Legal Studies,2012,2012(1):30.
[28]Reginald R.White.Comparative Responsibility Sometimes:The Louisiana Approach to Comparative Apportionment and Intentional Torts[J].Tulane Law Review,1996,70(5):1520.
[29]阮齐林.论刑法中的认识错误[J].法学研究,1996(1):65.
(1)比较过错制度是比较过失制度扩张的结果。比较过错制度最为发达的美国各州,立法最初以“比较过失法”命名,后来多数修改为“比较过错法”。如怀俄明州于1973年通过了《比较过失法》,1986年修订时用“过错”代替了“过失”,1994年正式命名为《比较过错法》,沿用至今。其他州都有类似做法。比较过错制度适用的范畴各国确有不同,本文所指比较过错包括原告与有过失与被告过错进行比较的情形,也包括数位侵权人之间过错进行比较的情形。多数国家使用与有过失制度的称谓,不涉及第二种情况,我国也有学者用“比较过错”指代与有过失制度,李颖博士在其博士论文“论侵权法上的比较过错制度”中,将比较过错局限于受害人与有过失与被告过错的比较。(参见:李颖.论侵权法上的比较过错制度[D].北京:中国政法大学,2008:1-122.)
(1)第二十六条被侵权人对损害的发生也有过错的,可以减轻侵权人的责任。第二十七条损害是因受害人故意造成的,行为人不承担责任。
(2)第三十七条因第三人的行为造成他人损害的,由第三人承担侵权责任;管理人或者组织者未尽到安全保障义务的,承担相应的补充责任。
(3)关于受害人故意、侵权人也为故意时,通常认为是二者责任是可以比较的。我国立法认为,受害人故意可以免除过失侵权人之责任,故不再作为本文研究范畴。
(4)参见:Ellen M.Bublick.The End Game of Tort Reform:Comparative Apportionment and Intentional Torts[J].Notre Dame Law Review,2003,78(2):355-440.
(5)如Jake Dear,Steven E.Zipperstein.Comparative Fault and Intentional Torts:Doctrinal Barriers and Policy Consideration[J].Santa Clara Law Review,1984,24(1):1-40.以及Gail D.Hollister.Using Comparative Fault to Replace the All-or-Nothing Lottery Imposed in Intentional Torts Suits in Which Both Plaintiff and Defendant Are at Fault[J].Vanderbilt Law Review,1993,46(1):121-174.
(6)2004年出版的世界多个国家学者针对与有过失的著作中对于与有过失适用于故意侵权的意见:“一致认可的是,作为一项基本原则,被告的故意排除与有过失的适用。但并非所有情况下的故意都自动排除与有过失的适用(奥地利、捷克、英国和瑞典的报告)。”(参见:Ulrich Magnus and Miquel Martin-Casals eds..Unification of Tort Law:Contributory Negligence[M].Holland:Kluwer Law International,2004:274.)但英国2011年Co-Operative Group(CSW)Ltd v.Pritchard案的判决杜绝了与有过失有时可以适用于故意侵权的可能。
(1)本文所述内容之前提是每一过失或故意行为均满足侵权责任之构成要件,以此为基础考虑各行为人之间的责任分配。
(2)参见:Atchison Ry.v.Baker,79 Kan.183,189,98 P.804,807(1908).
(3)参见:Field v.Boyer Co.,952 P.2d 1078,1088(Utah,1998).
(4)美国侵权法使用故意的(willful)、漠视的(wanton)、鲁莽的(reckless)和重大过失(gross negligence)来指代一般过失至故意(intent)这一区间的行为类型,我国及其他大陆法系国家区分不细致。其区别详见:Edwin H.Byrd III.Reflections on Willful,Wanton,Reckless,and Gross Negligence[J].Louisiana Law Review,1988,48(6):1383-1410.
(5)参见:Spivey v.Battaglia,258 So.2d 815,817(Fla.1972).
(1)参见:Fleming v.Threshermen’s Mutual Ins.Co.,388 N.W.2d 908,911(Wis.1986).
(2)参见:Blazovic v.Andrich,590 A.2d 222,231-232(N.J.222).
(1)参见:Davis v.Butler,602 P.2d 605,611(Nev.1979).
(1)参见:Graves v.North Eastern Servs.,345 P.3d 619;779Utah Adv.Rep.82(2015).
(1)以违反义务的特别关系为基础的过失案件;虽未有特殊关系,但被告的过失与他人的故意行为结合导致单一损失。
(2)第十二条:二人以上分别实施侵权行为造成同一损害,能够确定责任大小的,各自承担相应的责任;难以确定责任大小的,平均承担赔偿责任。
(3)参见:曹险峰.《侵权责任法》第12条之按份责任正当性论证——兼论第12条与第37条第2款的关系[J].苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2014(2):60-68.
(4)参见:Ulrich Magnus,Miquel Martin-Casals eds..Unification of Tort Law:Contributory Negligence[M].Holland:Kluwer Law International,2004.
(5)参见:Victor E.Schwartz.Strict Liability and Comparative Negligence[J],Tennessee Law Review,1974,42(1):171-182.
(1)参见:吉林省高级人民法院民事判决书,(2015)吉民提字第102号。
(2)参见:广西壮族自治区蒙山县人民法院民事判决书,(2013)蒙民初字第386号。
(3)参见:Hutcherson v.Phoenix,961 P.2d 449,453(Ariz.1998).
(4)参见:Hutcherson v.City of Phoenix,188 Ariz.183,933 P.2d 1251(Ariz.Ct.App.1996).
(5)参见:Ortiz v.N.Y.City Hous.Auth.,22 F.Supp.2d 15,38(E.D.N.Y.1998).
(1)参见:Mary Elizabeth Santelli v.ABUM.Rahmatullah,No.49 S04-1212-CT-667(August 28,2013).
(2)16 个州通过立法或司法实践表明,将过错分配给非当事人行为人是合适的。它们是阿拉斯加州、亚利桑麻州、加州、科罗拉多州、印第安纳州、明尼苏达州、夏威夷州、佛罗里达州、伊利诺斯州、堪萨斯州、新墨西哥州、俄克拉河马州、田纳西州、西弗吉尼亚州、威斯康星州和怀俄明州。参见:Christopher M.Brown,Kirk A.Morgan.Consideration of Intentional Torts in Fault Allocation:Disarming the Duty to Protect Against Intentional Conduct[J].Wyoming Law Review,2002,2(2):483-528(n.80).
(1)参见:美国《侵权责任统一分配法》(2003年版)第5节评论。
(1)参见:Blazovic v.Andrich,590 A.2d 222,233(N.J.222).
(2)参见:Veazey v.Elmwood Plantation Associates,Ltd.,650So.2d 712(La.1994).
(1)“澳大利亚法律对被告是很苛刻的,不管是轻微还是严重的任何挑衅,法院均不予考虑,得出同样判决结果。”参见:Andrew Pingree,Provocation As a Complete Defence to Trespass to the Person[J].Deakin Law Review,2010,15(2):205-222.
(2)参见:Lane v.Holloway,[1968]1 Q.B.379.原告羞辱被告的妻子,还挥拳打被告。被告年轻一些,狠狠地打了原告,打伤了他的眼睛。原告的挑衅行为能否减少赔偿。虽然挑衅行为可以阻止惩罚性赔偿或加重赔偿,但它不能被用来减少“实际的损失”。
(3)参见:Murphy v.Culhane,[1977]1 Q.B.94.丹宁勋爵下结论说,在Lane案中,原告的行为并未足够严重以构成《与有过失改革法》中的“过错”,而本案中原告丈夫的行为可能已经足够使其负侵权法上的责任。
(4)参见:Standard Chartered Bank v.Pakistan Shipping Corporation,[2002]UKHL 43.
(5)参见:Co-Operative Group(CSW)Ltd v.Pritchard,[2011]All ER(D)312(Mar);[2011]EWCA Civ 329.原告是一家便利店的员工,打电话给经理想再休息一天。遭到拒绝后,与朋友去店里大吵,经理抓住她胳膊试图让她离开,她受到伤害,提起诉讼。
(1)如黄某与何某案二审法院认为,过失相抵原则并不适用于故意侵权,黄某的过失不能产生抵消,由被告黄某承担所有责任。参见:广东省广州市海珠区人民法院民事判决书,(2007)海民一初字第1196号;广东省广州市中级人民法院民事判决书,(2008)穗中法民一终字第609号。
(2)参见:山西省沁源县人民法院民事判决书,(2016)晋0431民初88号。
(3)参见:湖北省荆州市中级人民法院民事判决书,(2015)鄂荆州中民二终字第00546号。
(4)参见:广东省广州市中级人民法院民事判决书,(2014)穗中法民一终字第5965号。
(5)我国学者杨垠红主张二者的纯粹比较,参见:杨垠红.安全保障义务人补充责任之检讨[J].法治论丛,2008(2):56-60.
[2]周江洪.绝对过失相抵抑或相对过失相抵?——数人侵权情形过失相抵方式之考察[J].浙江社会科学,2014(10):100.
[3]李中原.论违反安全保障义务的补充责任制度[J].中外法学,2014(3):692.
[4]W.Page Keeton,et al..Prosser and Keeton on Torts(5th)[M].St.Paul:West Publishing Co.,1984:476.
[5]Jake Dear,Steven E.Zipperstein.Comparative Fault and Intentional Torts:Doctrinal Barriers and Policy Consideration[J].Santa Clara Law Review,1984,24(1):10.
[6]Ellen M.Bublick.The End Game of Tort Reform:Comparative Apportionment and Intentional Torts[J].Notre Dame Law Review,2003,78(2):402.
[7]Mark Geistfeld.Negligence,Compensation,and the Coherence of Tort Law[J].Georgetown Law Journal,2003,91(3):590.
[8]Gail D.Hollister.Using Comparative Fault to Replace the All-or-Nothing Lottery Imposed in Intentional Torts Suits in Which Both Plaintiff and Defendant Are at Fault[J].Vanderbilt Law Review,1993,46(1):148.
[9]Jordan H.Leibman.Comparative Contribution and Intentional Torts:A Remaining Roadblick to Damages Apportionment[J].American Business Law Journal,1993,30(4):697.
[10]Ernest Turk.Comparative Negligence on the March[J].Chicago-Kent Law Review,1950,28:222-223.
[11]Leonard Charles Schwartz.The Myth of Nonapportionment among Tortfeasors under Traditional Tort Law and Its Significance for modern Comparative Fault[J].Northern Kentucky Law Review,1991,19(1):86.
[12]Leonard Charles Schwartz.Apportionment of Loss under Modern Comparative Fault the Significance of Causation and Blameworthiness[J].University of Toledo Law Review,1991,23(1):143.
[13]W.V.H.Rogers,ed..Unification of Tort Law:Multiple Tortfeasors[M].Holland:Kluwer Law International,2004:77.
[14]William Powers,Jr..What a Comparative Bad Faith Defense Tells Us about Bad Faith Insurance Litigation[J].Texas Law Review,1994,72(6):1579.
[15]Glanville Williams,B.A.Hepple.Foundations of the Law of Torts[M].London:Butterworths,1984:94.
[16]Theresa L.Fiset.Comparative Fault as a Tool to Nullify the Duty to Protect:Apportioning Liability to a NonParty Intentional Tortfeasor in Stellas v.Alamo Rent-Acar,INC.[J].Stetson Law Review,1997,27(2):707.
[17]程啸.论意思联络作为共同侵权行为构成要件的意义[J].法学家,2003(4):94.
[18]刘雪红,叶名怡.《侵权责任法》受害人过错条款之简评[G]//杨遂全.民商法争鸣.北京:法律出版社,2010:208.
[19]Ulrich Magnus,Miquel Martin-Casals eds..Unification of Tort Law:Contributory Negligence[M].Holland:Kluwer Law International,2004:277.
[20]程啸.过失相抵与无过错责任[J].法律科学,2014(1):140.
[21]B.Scott Andrews.Premises Liability-The Comparison of Fault between Negligent and Intentional Actors[J].Louisiana Law Review,1995,55(6):1160.
[22]Henderson James A.Jr.,Twerski Aaron.Intent and Recklessness in Tort:The Practical Craft of Restating Law[J].Vanderbilt Law Review,2001,54(3):1137.
[23]郭明瑞.补充责任、相应的补充责任与责任人的追偿权[J].烟台大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2011(1):12-16,35.
[24]Leonard E.Eilbacher.Comparative Fault and the Nonparty Tortfeasor[J].Indiana Law Review,1984,17(3):913.
[25]Kathleen M.O’Conner,Gregory P.Sreenan.Apportionment of Damages:Evolution of a Fault Based System of Liability for Negligence[J].Journal of Air Law and Commerce,1995,61:378.
[26]Adler.Allocation of Responsibility after American Motorcycle Association v.Superior Court[J].Pepperdine Law Review,1978,6(1):15.
[27]Margaret Fordham.The Role of Contributory Negligence in Claims for Assault and Battery[J].Singapore Journal of Legal Studies,2012,2012(1):30.
[28]Reginald R.White.Comparative Responsibility Sometimes:The Louisiana Approach to Comparative Apportionment and Intentional Torts[J].Tulane Law Review,1996,70(5):1520.
[29]阮齐林.论刑法中的认识错误[J].法学研究,1996(1):65.
(1)比较过错制度是比较过失制度扩张的结果。比较过错制度最为发达的美国各州,立法最初以“比较过失法”命名,后来多数修改为“比较过错法”。如怀俄明州于1973年通过了《比较过失法》,1986年修订时用“过错”代替了“过失”,1994年正式命名为《比较过错法》,沿用至今。其他州都有类似做法。比较过错制度适用的范畴各国确有不同,本文所指比较过错包括原告与有过失与被告过错进行比较的情形,也包括数位侵权人之间过错进行比较的情形。多数国家使用与有过失制度的称谓,不涉及第二种情况,我国也有学者用“比较过错”指代与有过失制度,李颖博士在其博士论文“论侵权法上的比较过错制度”中,将比较过错局限于受害人与有过失与被告过错的比较。(参见:李颖.论侵权法上的比较过错制度[D].北京:中国政法大学,2008:1-122.)
(1)第二十六条被侵权人对损害的发生也有过错的,可以减轻侵权人的责任。第二十七条损害是因受害人故意造成的,行为人不承担责任。
(2)第三十七条因第三人的行为造成他人损害的,由第三人承担侵权责任;管理人或者组织者未尽到安全保障义务的,承担相应的补充责任。
(3)关于受害人故意、侵权人也为故意时,通常认为是二者责任是可以比较的。我国立法认为,受害人故意可以免除过失侵权人之责任,故不再作为本文研究范畴。
(4)参见:Ellen M.Bublick.The End Game of Tort Reform:Comparative Apportionment and Intentional Torts[J].Notre Dame Law Review,2003,78(2):355-440.
(5)如Jake Dear,Steven E.Zipperstein.Comparative Fault and Intentional Torts:Doctrinal Barriers and Policy Consideration[J].Santa Clara Law Review,1984,24(1):1-40.以及Gail D.Hollister.Using Comparative Fault to Replace the All-or-Nothing Lottery Imposed in Intentional Torts Suits in Which Both Plaintiff and Defendant Are at Fault[J].Vanderbilt Law Review,1993,46(1):121-174.
(6)2004年出版的世界多个国家学者针对与有过失的著作中对于与有过失适用于故意侵权的意见:“一致认可的是,作为一项基本原则,被告的故意排除与有过失的适用。但并非所有情况下的故意都自动排除与有过失的适用(奥地利、捷克、英国和瑞典的报告)。”(参见:Ulrich Magnus and Miquel Martin-Casals eds..Unification of Tort Law:Contributory Negligence[M].Holland:Kluwer Law International,2004:274.)但英国2011年Co-Operative Group(CSW)Ltd v.Pritchard案的判决杜绝了与有过失有时可以适用于故意侵权的可能。
(1)本文所述内容之前提是每一过失或故意行为均满足侵权责任之构成要件,以此为基础考虑各行为人之间的责任分配。
(2)参见:Atchison Ry.v.Baker,79 Kan.183,189,98 P.804,807(1908).
(3)参见:Field v.Boyer Co.,952 P.2d 1078,1088(Utah,1998).
(4)美国侵权法使用故意的(willful)、漠视的(wanton)、鲁莽的(reckless)和重大过失(gross negligence)来指代一般过失至故意(intent)这一区间的行为类型,我国及其他大陆法系国家区分不细致。其区别详见:Edwin H.Byrd III.Reflections on Willful,Wanton,Reckless,and Gross Negligence[J].Louisiana Law Review,1988,48(6):1383-1410.
(5)参见:Spivey v.Battaglia,258 So.2d 815,817(Fla.1972).
(1)参见:Fleming v.Threshermen’s Mutual Ins.Co.,388 N.W.2d 908,911(Wis.1986).
(2)参见:Blazovic v.Andrich,590 A.2d 222,231-232(N.J.222).
(1)参见:Davis v.Butler,602 P.2d 605,611(Nev.1979).
(1)参见:Graves v.North Eastern Servs.,345 P.3d 619;779Utah Adv.Rep.82(2015).
(1)以违反义务的特别关系为基础的过失案件;虽未有特殊关系,但被告的过失与他人的故意行为结合导致单一损失。
(2)第十二条:二人以上分别实施侵权行为造成同一损害,能够确定责任大小的,各自承担相应的责任;难以确定责任大小的,平均承担赔偿责任。
(3)参见:曹险峰.《侵权责任法》第12条之按份责任正当性论证——兼论第12条与第37条第2款的关系[J].苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2014(2):60-68.
(4)参见:Ulrich Magnus,Miquel Martin-Casals eds..Unification of Tort Law:Contributory Negligence[M].Holland:Kluwer Law International,2004.
(5)参见:Victor E.Schwartz.Strict Liability and Comparative Negligence[J],Tennessee Law Review,1974,42(1):171-182.
(1)参见:吉林省高级人民法院民事判决书,(2015)吉民提字第102号。
(2)参见:广西壮族自治区蒙山县人民法院民事判决书,(2013)蒙民初字第386号。
(3)参见:Hutcherson v.Phoenix,961 P.2d 449,453(Ariz.1998).
(4)参见:Hutcherson v.City of Phoenix,188 Ariz.183,933 P.2d 1251(Ariz.Ct.App.1996).
(5)参见:Ortiz v.N.Y.City Hous.Auth.,22 F.Supp.2d 15,38(E.D.N.Y.1998).
(1)参见:Mary Elizabeth Santelli v.ABUM.Rahmatullah,No.49 S04-1212-CT-667(August 28,2013).
(2)16 个州通过立法或司法实践表明,将过错分配给非当事人行为人是合适的。它们是阿拉斯加州、亚利桑麻州、加州、科罗拉多州、印第安纳州、明尼苏达州、夏威夷州、佛罗里达州、伊利诺斯州、堪萨斯州、新墨西哥州、俄克拉河马州、田纳西州、西弗吉尼亚州、威斯康星州和怀俄明州。参见:Christopher M.Brown,Kirk A.Morgan.Consideration of Intentional Torts in Fault Allocation:Disarming the Duty to Protect Against Intentional Conduct[J].Wyoming Law Review,2002,2(2):483-528(n.80).
(1)参见:美国《侵权责任统一分配法》(2003年版)第5节评论。
(1)参见:Blazovic v.Andrich,590 A.2d 222,233(N.J.222).
(2)参见:Veazey v.Elmwood Plantation Associates,Ltd.,650So.2d 712(La.1994).
(1)“澳大利亚法律对被告是很苛刻的,不管是轻微还是严重的任何挑衅,法院均不予考虑,得出同样判决结果。”参见:Andrew Pingree,Provocation As a Complete Defence to Trespass to the Person[J].Deakin Law Review,2010,15(2):205-222.
(2)参见:Lane v.Holloway,[1968]1 Q.B.379.原告羞辱被告的妻子,还挥拳打被告。被告年轻一些,狠狠地打了原告,打伤了他的眼睛。原告的挑衅行为能否减少赔偿。虽然挑衅行为可以阻止惩罚性赔偿或加重赔偿,但它不能被用来减少“实际的损失”。
(3)参见:Murphy v.Culhane,[1977]1 Q.B.94.丹宁勋爵下结论说,在Lane案中,原告的行为并未足够严重以构成《与有过失改革法》中的“过错”,而本案中原告丈夫的行为可能已经足够使其负侵权法上的责任。
(4)参见:Standard Chartered Bank v.Pakistan Shipping Corporation,[2002]UKHL 43.
(5)参见:Co-Operative Group(CSW)Ltd v.Pritchard,[2011]All ER(D)312(Mar);[2011]EWCA Civ 329.原告是一家便利店的员工,打电话给经理想再休息一天。遭到拒绝后,与朋友去店里大吵,经理抓住她胳膊试图让她离开,她受到伤害,提起诉讼。
(1)如黄某与何某案二审法院认为,过失相抵原则并不适用于故意侵权,黄某的过失不能产生抵消,由被告黄某承担所有责任。参见:广东省广州市海珠区人民法院民事判决书,(2007)海民一初字第1196号;广东省广州市中级人民法院民事判决书,(2008)穗中法民一终字第609号。
(2)参见:山西省沁源县人民法院民事判决书,(2016)晋0431民初88号。
(3)参见:湖北省荆州市中级人民法院民事判决书,(2015)鄂荆州中民二终字第00546号。
(4)参见:广东省广州市中级人民法院民事判决书,(2014)穗中法民一终字第5965号。
(5)我国学者杨垠红主张二者的纯粹比较,参见:杨垠红.安全保障义务人补充责任之检讨[J].法治论丛,2008(2):56-60.