美国侵权法上的连带责任研究及其启示
摘要
当代美国侵权法上的连带责任的主要特征是：(1)如果多个被告的侵权行为被证明是造成原告一个不可分损害的近因,则原告可以起诉其中任何一个或者多个被告要求其支付全部损害的赔偿；(2)一旦原告通过判决、和解或者通过其他方式从一个或者一部分侵权人处得到了满足,则其不能再向其他侵权人提出请求；(3)如果其中一个或者一部分非故意侵权人支付了超过其应支付份额的赔偿金,则其有权要求其他侵权人进行分摊；(4)因一个或者多个共同侵权人破产、免责或者其他原因导致该份额不能获得的风险将由诉讼中的其他有偿付能力的被告承担。
从历史渊源上看,现代侵权法意义上的连带责任最早可以追溯到1613年英格兰的约翰海登爵士一案。1691年英国法院判决的史密森诉盖茨案是普通法上明确阐述连带责任规则的第一个也是最典型的案例,此时的“英国法规则”仅在故意侵权行为中适用连带责任,且遵循“禁止分摊规则”。19世纪40年代末期,连带责任规则传入美国并逐渐得以运用,威斯康星州是最早一批追随美国联邦接受连带责任规则的州之一,该州最高法院在1854年的瑞查森诉艾默生案中首次采用了连带责任规则。从19世纪60年代开始,美国各州将连带责任规则扩张适用于共同过失侵权行为,随后又允许因一个或者多个共同侵权人破产、免责或者其他原因而不能获得的份额在其他有偿付能力的被告之间分摊。经过200余年的发展,连带责任规则在20世纪70年代发展成为在美国侵权法领域占主导地位的一项制度。而从20世纪80年代开始的现代侵权法改革运动引发了关于连带责任制度存废问题的大讨论,学者们纷纷加入到讨论中,并逐渐形成主张废除连带责任制度并以个别责任取代连带责任的“废除派”和主张保留连带责任制度的“保留派”两方面的观点。“废除派”学者认为连带责任制度让某些仅对损害的发生负有部分责任的侵权人为其他侵权人行为所造成的损害进行赔偿是不公平的,它会造成被告之间的利益失衡、原告与被告之间的利益失衡、滥用诉讼行为的大量发生和社会成本的剧烈增加等一系列负面影响,且其与侵权法的基本目标是相矛盾的。而“保留派”学者则主张：连带责任制度应当被保留下来,从而保证侵权行为的受害人可以取得充分的损害赔偿。他们认为连带责任制度的风险转移方法是合理的,“废除派”学者对连带责任制度的理解是有偏差的,“深口袋被告”在美国并非普遍现象,而且以个别责任取代连带责任制度的做法也有其缺陷。受现代侵权法改革运动的影响,到2007年初为止,美国约有43个州采纳了不同类型的连带责任改革方案用以限制连带责任的适用范围。连带责任在美国侵权法历史上经历了从萌芽到扩张再到限制的一系列发展过程,这一过程从连带责任最初适用于共谋的侵权行为开始,随后在侵权行为中广泛适用而达到鼎盛,最后又在现代侵权法改革运动中以其适用范围的不断缩小而结束,这不仅反映了美国社会政策的变迁,而且反映了侵权法顺应社会发展所作的调整。
目前,我国侵权法上的连带责任主要规定在《民法通则》和《最高人民法院关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》中。前者仅对连带责任做了原则性的规定,后者则将连带责任扩大适用于无意思联络的共同侵权行为、共同危险行为、雇主责任、雇工受到损害的责任、帮工致害责任和人工构筑物设置缺陷责任,如此大规模扩大适用的合理性值得商榷。在我国法学研究领域,学者们对于大陆法系各国民法典有关侵权的法理和学说已经有较深入的研究,但对于英美法系的侵权法理论却少有涉及,与连带责任有关的研究则更为鲜见。尽管我国侵权法与美国侵权法在理论基础和司法实践方面都存在不少差异,但是连带责任在美国法上发展历程,对于重新审视我国侵权法上连带责任具有重要的借鉴意义。
本文采用比较法的研究方法,分四个部分对美国侵权法上的连带责任进行研究。第一部分对连带责任的相关概念进行解析,重点介绍了美国侵权法上的不可分损害、清偿、和解和分摊这四个重要的法律概念,以此作为下文深入研究美国侵权法上的连带责任的基础。第二部分首先阐述了传统普通法下连带责任规则的确立与早期发展,其次分析了英美普通法下连带责任规则的现实基础与理论基础。第三部分从介绍现代侵权法改革运动的背景入手,对现代美国侵权法上连带责任制度的新发展进行深入研究,比较全面地归纳了美国现代侵权法改革运动之下,“废除派”与“保留派”学者关于连带责任制度的存废问题的不同观点,介绍了现代侵权法改革运动对美国各州连带责任立法实践的影响。第四部分提出美国侵权法上的连带责任对我国的几点启示,以期为我国侵权责任法的立法提供一定的借鉴。
Joint and several liability in American tort law has four important features, (1)A plaintiff may collect all of his damages from any one of several tortfeasors who are found to be a proximate cause of his injuries. (2)Once the judgment was satisfied, by settlement or otherwise, the plaintiff was barred from pursuing a claim against any other joint tortfeasor. (3)Jointly liable defendants can seek contribution from their fellow tortfeasors. (4)The risk that one or more co-defendants will be insolvent, immune or otherwise unavailable falls completely on solvent defendants.
From the historical point of view, modern tort law sense of joint and several liability can be traced back as early as 1613 in England, Sir John Heydon case.1691 Smithson v. Gates is the first and the most typical case which clearly stated the joint and several liability rules in common law. Under this original English rule, the plaintiff could join multiple tort-feasors together only when they acted in concert and followed the English "no-contribution" rule.In the late 1940s, Joint and several liability was introduced to the United States and applied. Wisconsin was one of the first batch of states which followed the Federal to accept joint and several liability, the Wisconsin Supreme Court first addressed joint and several liability in 1854, in Richardson v. Emerson.From the 1860s, the states of America start to expand the appliance of joint and several liability to the concurrent torts, and then allowed jointly liable defendants to seek contribution from their fellow tortfeasors. After 200 years of development, joint and several liability became a system which played the leading role of tort law in the United States in 1970s. But the modern tort law reform movement which started from the 1980s led to a great debate about abolition of joint and several liability system, scholars have joined in the discussion,and gradually form two aspects of view. One is "repeal faction",the other one is "reservations faction". The "repeal faction" believes that joint and several liability request some joint tortfeasors paying damages which were also caused by other defendants is unfair, It will result in an imbalance between the interests of the defendants, an imbalance between the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant, a high incidence of abuse of legal action and dramatic increase in social costs, furthermore it is is inconsistent with the principles of tort law. The "reservations faction" believes joint and several liability should be preserved to ensure full damage recovery for tort victims and prevent tort victims from having to bear the burden of damages done to them. They believe the risk transfer method of joint and several liability systemis reasonable, and the understanding of joint and several liability system of the "repeal faction" is inaccurate, the"deep pocket defendanf"is not a common phenomenon in United States, and it also have shortcomongs to replace joint and several liability system with several Liability. By the impact of the modern tort law reform movement, forty-three states of the United States have adopted some sort of joint and several liability reform Until early 2007. Joint and several liability in the United States has experienced the history of tort law to expand from the bud and then to a series of restrictions on the development process, this process was originally from the joint and several liability for complicity in violations, followed by a widely applicable in tort to reach its peak, and finally in modern tort law reform movement continued to narrow its scope of application of an end, which not only reflects the changes in American social policy, but also reflect the social development of tort law conform to the adjustments made.
At present, China's mainly provides for joint and several liability is in General Principles of the Civil Law of he People's Republic of China and Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court of Some Issues concerning the Application of Law for the Trial of Cases on Compensation for Personal Injury. The former one only made some principle provisions of joint and several liability, the later one extended the scope of joint and several liability applies to quasi joint act of tort,joint dangerous act, employer's liability, the responsibility for injured workers, helper virulence responsibility and artificial structures set up defects liability. Such a large scale extended rationality is open to question.In the field of China's law study, Scholars for the common-law tort theories rarely involved, with joint and several liability-related research is even more rare. While there are many differences between China's Tort Law and American tort law, but the development process of joint and several liability in American tort law has an important significance as reference for us to re-examine our joint and several liability.
By employing a comparative study, this paper is divided into four parts to research joint and several liability in American tort law. The first part analyzed some concepts which related to joint and several liability in American tort law,highlighting the concept of indivisible injury, satisfaction, settlement and contribution, as a basis of the below-depth research on joint and several liability in American tort law. The second part begins by describing the traditional joint and several liability under the common law rules of establishment and early development, followed by the analysis of the real foundation and theoretical basis of joint and several liability under the Anglo-American common law. The third part start with the introduction of the background start of the modern tort reform movement, in-depth study on the new development of joint and several liability in American tort law, more comprehensively summed up the different viewpoints of the "repeal faction" and the "reservations faction" about abolition of joint and several liability system, and introduced the effect of the modern tort reform movement on the American states' legislative practice of joint and several liability. The fourth part presents the enlightenment of joint and several liability in American tort law, with a view to provide a reference to the legislation of China's Tort Liability Act.
从历史渊源上看,现代侵权法意义上的连带责任最早可以追溯到1613年英格兰的约翰海登爵士一案。1691年英国法院判决的史密森诉盖茨案是普通法上明确阐述连带责任规则的第一个也是最典型的案例,此时的“英国法规则”仅在故意侵权行为中适用连带责任,且遵循“禁止分摊规则”。19世纪40年代末期,连带责任规则传入美国并逐渐得以运用,威斯康星州是最早一批追随美国联邦接受连带责任规则的州之一,该州最高法院在1854年的瑞查森诉艾默生案中首次采用了连带责任规则。从19世纪60年代开始,美国各州将连带责任规则扩张适用于共同过失侵权行为,随后又允许因一个或者多个共同侵权人破产、免责或者其他原因而不能获得的份额在其他有偿付能力的被告之间分摊。经过200余年的发展,连带责任规则在20世纪70年代发展成为在美国侵权法领域占主导地位的一项制度。而从20世纪80年代开始的现代侵权法改革运动引发了关于连带责任制度存废问题的大讨论,学者们纷纷加入到讨论中,并逐渐形成主张废除连带责任制度并以个别责任取代连带责任的“废除派”和主张保留连带责任制度的“保留派”两方面的观点。“废除派”学者认为连带责任制度让某些仅对损害的发生负有部分责任的侵权人为其他侵权人行为所造成的损害进行赔偿是不公平的,它会造成被告之间的利益失衡、原告与被告之间的利益失衡、滥用诉讼行为的大量发生和社会成本的剧烈增加等一系列负面影响,且其与侵权法的基本目标是相矛盾的。而“保留派”学者则主张：连带责任制度应当被保留下来,从而保证侵权行为的受害人可以取得充分的损害赔偿。他们认为连带责任制度的风险转移方法是合理的,“废除派”学者对连带责任制度的理解是有偏差的,“深口袋被告”在美国并非普遍现象,而且以个别责任取代连带责任制度的做法也有其缺陷。受现代侵权法改革运动的影响,到2007年初为止,美国约有43个州采纳了不同类型的连带责任改革方案用以限制连带责任的适用范围。连带责任在美国侵权法历史上经历了从萌芽到扩张再到限制的一系列发展过程,这一过程从连带责任最初适用于共谋的侵权行为开始,随后在侵权行为中广泛适用而达到鼎盛,最后又在现代侵权法改革运动中以其适用范围的不断缩小而结束,这不仅反映了美国社会政策的变迁,而且反映了侵权法顺应社会发展所作的调整。
目前,我国侵权法上的连带责任主要规定在《民法通则》和《最高人民法院关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》中。前者仅对连带责任做了原则性的规定,后者则将连带责任扩大适用于无意思联络的共同侵权行为、共同危险行为、雇主责任、雇工受到损害的责任、帮工致害责任和人工构筑物设置缺陷责任,如此大规模扩大适用的合理性值得商榷。在我国法学研究领域,学者们对于大陆法系各国民法典有关侵权的法理和学说已经有较深入的研究,但对于英美法系的侵权法理论却少有涉及,与连带责任有关的研究则更为鲜见。尽管我国侵权法与美国侵权法在理论基础和司法实践方面都存在不少差异,但是连带责任在美国法上发展历程,对于重新审视我国侵权法上连带责任具有重要的借鉴意义。
本文采用比较法的研究方法,分四个部分对美国侵权法上的连带责任进行研究。第一部分对连带责任的相关概念进行解析,重点介绍了美国侵权法上的不可分损害、清偿、和解和分摊这四个重要的法律概念,以此作为下文深入研究美国侵权法上的连带责任的基础。第二部分首先阐述了传统普通法下连带责任规则的确立与早期发展,其次分析了英美普通法下连带责任规则的现实基础与理论基础。第三部分从介绍现代侵权法改革运动的背景入手,对现代美国侵权法上连带责任制度的新发展进行深入研究,比较全面地归纳了美国现代侵权法改革运动之下,“废除派”与“保留派”学者关于连带责任制度的存废问题的不同观点,介绍了现代侵权法改革运动对美国各州连带责任立法实践的影响。第四部分提出美国侵权法上的连带责任对我国的几点启示,以期为我国侵权责任法的立法提供一定的借鉴。
Joint and several liability in American tort law has four important features, (1)A plaintiff may collect all of his damages from any one of several tortfeasors who are found to be a proximate cause of his injuries. (2)Once the judgment was satisfied, by settlement or otherwise, the plaintiff was barred from pursuing a claim against any other joint tortfeasor. (3)Jointly liable defendants can seek contribution from their fellow tortfeasors. (4)The risk that one or more co-defendants will be insolvent, immune or otherwise unavailable falls completely on solvent defendants.
From the historical point of view, modern tort law sense of joint and several liability can be traced back as early as 1613 in England, Sir John Heydon case.1691 Smithson v. Gates is the first and the most typical case which clearly stated the joint and several liability rules in common law. Under this original English rule, the plaintiff could join multiple tort-feasors together only when they acted in concert and followed the English "no-contribution" rule.In the late 1940s, Joint and several liability was introduced to the United States and applied. Wisconsin was one of the first batch of states which followed the Federal to accept joint and several liability, the Wisconsin Supreme Court first addressed joint and several liability in 1854, in Richardson v. Emerson.From the 1860s, the states of America start to expand the appliance of joint and several liability to the concurrent torts, and then allowed jointly liable defendants to seek contribution from their fellow tortfeasors. After 200 years of development, joint and several liability became a system which played the leading role of tort law in the United States in 1970s. But the modern tort law reform movement which started from the 1980s led to a great debate about abolition of joint and several liability system, scholars have joined in the discussion,and gradually form two aspects of view. One is "repeal faction",the other one is "reservations faction". The "repeal faction" believes that joint and several liability request some joint tortfeasors paying damages which were also caused by other defendants is unfair, It will result in an imbalance between the interests of the defendants, an imbalance between the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant, a high incidence of abuse of legal action and dramatic increase in social costs, furthermore it is is inconsistent with the principles of tort law. The "reservations faction" believes joint and several liability should be preserved to ensure full damage recovery for tort victims and prevent tort victims from having to bear the burden of damages done to them. They believe the risk transfer method of joint and several liability systemis reasonable, and the understanding of joint and several liability system of the "repeal faction" is inaccurate, the"deep pocket defendanf"is not a common phenomenon in United States, and it also have shortcomongs to replace joint and several liability system with several Liability. By the impact of the modern tort law reform movement, forty-three states of the United States have adopted some sort of joint and several liability reform Until early 2007. Joint and several liability in the United States has experienced the history of tort law to expand from the bud and then to a series of restrictions on the development process, this process was originally from the joint and several liability for complicity in violations, followed by a widely applicable in tort to reach its peak, and finally in modern tort law reform movement continued to narrow its scope of application of an end, which not only reflects the changes in American social policy, but also reflect the social development of tort law conform to the adjustments made.
At present, China's mainly provides for joint and several liability is in General Principles of the Civil Law of he People's Republic of China and Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court of Some Issues concerning the Application of Law for the Trial of Cases on Compensation for Personal Injury. The former one only made some principle provisions of joint and several liability, the later one extended the scope of joint and several liability applies to quasi joint act of tort,joint dangerous act, employer's liability, the responsibility for injured workers, helper virulence responsibility and artificial structures set up defects liability. Such a large scale extended rationality is open to question.In the field of China's law study, Scholars for the common-law tort theories rarely involved, with joint and several liability-related research is even more rare. While there are many differences between China's Tort Law and American tort law, but the development process of joint and several liability in American tort law has an important significance as reference for us to re-examine our joint and several liability.
By employing a comparative study, this paper is divided into four parts to research joint and several liability in American tort law. The first part analyzed some concepts which related to joint and several liability in American tort law,highlighting the concept of indivisible injury, satisfaction, settlement and contribution, as a basis of the below-depth research on joint and several liability in American tort law. The second part begins by describing the traditional joint and several liability under the common law rules of establishment and early development, followed by the analysis of the real foundation and theoretical basis of joint and several liability under the Anglo-American common law. The third part start with the introduction of the background start of the modern tort reform movement, in-depth study on the new development of joint and several liability in American tort law, more comprehensively summed up the different viewpoints of the "repeal faction" and the "reservations faction" about abolition of joint and several liability system, and introduced the effect of the modern tort reform movement on the American states' legislative practice of joint and several liability. The fourth part presents the enlightenment of joint and several liability in American tort law, with a view to provide a reference to the legislation of China's Tort Liability Act.
引文
1 林诚二：《民法理论与问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版,第206-208页。
2 郑玉波：《民商法问题研究(一)》,台湾永裕印刷公司1983年版,第113页。
3 邵世星：《侵权行为中的连带责任反思》,《国家检察官学院学报》2002年第5期第10卷。
4 陈卫佐译：《德国民法典(第2版)》,法律出版社2006年版,第311页。
5 罗结珍译：《法国民法典(下册)》,法律出版社2005年版,第933页。
6 Frank J. Vandall, A Critique of The Restatement (Third), Apportionment as It Affects Joint and Several Liability,49 Emory Law Journal,Spring 2000,p567.
7 [美]肯尼斯·S·亚伯拉罕、阿尔伯特·C·泰特选编,许传玺、石宏等译：《侵权法重述——纲要》,法律出版社2006年版,第346页。
8 寇盂良：《论(民法通则)中的连带责任》,《中国法学》1988年第2期。
9 尹田：《论民事连带责任》,《法学杂志》1986年第4期。
10 张铁薇：《共同侵权制度研究》,法律出版社2007年版,第235页。
11 李由义：《民法学》,北京大学出版社1988年版,第528页。
12 张凤翔：《连带责任的司法实践》,上海人民出版社2006年版,第23页。
13 罗结珍译：《法国民法典(下册)》,法律出版社2005年版,第933页。
14 王军：《试论侵权中连带责任的主要特征》,《实事求是》2007年第2期。
15 魏振瀛：《民法》北京大学出版社2000年版,第704页。
16 陈卫佐译：《德国民法典(第2版)》,法律出版社2006年版,第308页。
17 张铁薇：《共同侵权制度研究》,法律出版社2007年版,第191页。
18 魏振瀛：《民法》北京大学出版社2000年版,第708页。
19 郭晓霞：《连带责任制度探微》,《法学杂志》2008年第5期。
20 239 A.2d 218(Del.1968).
21 Lynda J. Oswald, New Directions in Joint and Several Liability under Cercla?,28 U.C. Davis Law Review, Winter 1995,p.309.
22 Cornelius J. Peck,Washington's Partial Rejection and Modification of the Common Law Rule of Joint And Several Liability,62 Washington Law Review,April 1987,p.235.
23 Frank J. Vandall, A Critique of The Restatement (Third), Apportionment as It Affects Joint and Several Liability,49 Emory Law Journal,Spring 2000,p.573-p.574.
24 Richard A. Michael,Joint Liability:Should It be Reformed or Abolished?-The Illinois Experience,27 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,Summer 1996,p.877-p.878.
25 李亚虹：《美国侵权法》,法律出版社1999年版,第216页。
26 Richard A. Michael,Joint Liability:Should It be Reformed or Abolished?—The Illinois Experience,27 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,Summer 1996,p.878.
27 The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Third, Torts:Apportionment of Liability,2000.
28 The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Third, Torts:Apportionment of Liability,2000.
29 杨立新：《中国侵权责任法应当如何规定侵权责任形态》,《法律适用》2008年第8期。
38 Lynda J. Oswald, New Directions in Joint and Several Liability under CERCLA?,28 U.C. Davis Law Review, Winter 1995,p.306-p.307.
39 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.455.
40 3 Wis.319(1854).
41 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.457.
50 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.194-p.195.
51 Lynda J. Oswald, New Directions in Joint and Several Liability under Cercla?,28 U.C. Davis Law Review, Winter 1995,p.307.
52 374 N.E.2d 437,443(111.1977).
53 Richard A. Michael,Joint Liability:Should It be Reformed or Abolished?—The Illinois Experience,27 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,Summer 1996,p.871.
54 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.837.
55 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.195.
56 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.196.
57 Lynda J. Oswald,New Directions in Joint and Several Liability under CERCLA?,28 U.C. Davis Law Review,Winter 1995,p.308.
58 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.466.
59 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.462.
60 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.463.
61 胡海容：《美国侵权法上连带责任的新发展及其启示》,《法商研究》2008年第3期。
62 程啸：《论侵权行为法上的过失相抵制度》,《清华法学(第6辑)》,清华大学出版社2005年版,第25页。
63 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.832.
64 11 East60,103 Eng.Rep.926(K.B.1809).
65 Jennifer J. Karangelen,The Road to Judicial Abolishment of Contributory Negligence Has Been Paved by Bozman V. Bozman,34 University of Baltimore Law Review, Winter 2004,p.266.
66 19 Mass.(2 Pick.)621,13Am.Dec.464(1824).
67 Kevin J. Grehan,Comparative Negligence,81 Columbia Law Review,December 1981,p.1669.
68 程啸：《论侵权行为法上的过失相抵制度》,《清华法学(第6辑)》,清华大学出版社2005年版,第25页。
69 Richard A. Michael,Joint Liability:Should It be Reformed or Abolished?-The Illinois Experience,27 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,Summer 1996,p.892.
70 Kevin J. Grehan,Comparative Negligence,81 Columbia Law Review,December 1981,p.1669.
71 Kevin J. Grehan,Comparative Negligence,81 Columbia Law Review,December 1981,p.1670.
72 Christopher Curran,The Spread of the Comparative Negligence Rule in the United States,12 International Review of Law and Economics,September 1992,p.319-p.320.
73 Jennifer J. Karangelen,The Road to Judicial Abolishment of Contributory Negligence Has Been Paved by Bozman V. Bozman,34 University of Baltimore Law Review, Winter 2004,p.269.
74 Carol A. Mutter,Moving to Comparative Negligence in An Era of Tort Reform:Decisions for Tennessee,57 Tennessee Law Review,Winter 1990,p.205.
75 Nancy C. Marcus, Phantom Parties and other Practical Problems with the Attempted Abolition of Joint and Several Liability,60 Arkansas Law Review,2007,p.442.
76 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.837.
77 Richard A. Michael,Joint Liability:Should It be Reformed or Abolished?-The Illinois Experience,27 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,Summer 1996,p.871.
78 Paul Bargren:Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.463.
79 Paul Bargren:Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.462.
80 Richard W. Wright,The Logic and Fairness of Joint and Several Liability,23 Memphis State University Law Review,Fall 1992,p.69.
81 Clare Elizabeth Krumlau,Ohio's New Modified Joint and Several Liability Laws:A Fair Compromise for Competing Parties and Public Policy Interests,53 Cleveland State Law Review,2005-2006,p.336.
82 Clare Elizabeth Krumlau,Ohio's New Modified Joint and Several Liability Laws:A Fair Compromise for Competing Parties and Public Policy Interests,53 Cleveland State Law Review,2005-2006,p.339.
83 Richard W. Wright,The Logic and Fairness of Joint and Several Liability,23 Memphis State University Law Review, Fall 1992,p.78-p.79.
84 Paul Bargren:Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.463.
85 Paul Bargren:Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs, Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.456.
86 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.842-p.843.
87 李清林、梁文彪：《美国侵权法改革述评》,《红河学院学报》2004年6月。
88 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.207.
89 646 P.2d 579(N.M.Ct.App.1982).
90 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.199-p.200.
91 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.468-p.469.
92 John Scott Hickman,Efficiency,Fairness,And Common Sense:The Case for One Action as to Percentage of Fault in Comparative Negligence Jurisdictions That Have Abolished or Modified Joint and Several Liability,48 Vanderbilt Law Review,April 1995,p.746.
93 515 So.2d 198(Fla.1987).
94 Clare Elizabeth Krumlau,Ohio's New Modified Joint and Several Liability Laws:A Fair Compromise for Competing Parties and Public Policy Interests,53 Cleveland State Law Review,2005-2006,p.351.
95 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.467.
96 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.843.
97 Clare Elizabeth Krumlau,Ohio's New Modified Joint and Several Liability Laws:A Fair Compromise for Competing Parties and Public Policy Interests,53 Cleveland State Law Review,2005-2006,p.337.
98 Richard W. Wright,The Logic And Fairness of Joint and Several Liability,23 Memphis State University Law Review,Fall 1992,p.48.
99 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.469.
100 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.841.
101 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.469.
102 Richard W. Wright,The Logic and Fairness of Joint and Several Liability,23 Memphis State University Law Review,Fall 1992,p.51-p.59.
103 Richard W. Wright,The Logic and Fairness of Joint and Several Liability,23 Memphis State University Law Review,Fall 1992,p.63-p.65.
104 Nancy C. Marcus,Phantom Parties and other Practical Problems with the Attempted Abolition of Joint and Several Liability,60 Arkansas Law Review,2007,p.442.
105 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.464-p.465.
106 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.197-p.198.
107 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.837.
108 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.832.
109 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.482.
110 Richard W. Wright,The Logic and Fairness of Joint and Several Liability,23 Memphis State University Law Review,Fall 1992,p.82-p.83.
111 [美]理查德·A·爱泼斯坦：《侵权法：案例与资料(第七版)》,中信出版社2003年版,第403页。
112 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.832.
113 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.837.
114 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.207-p.208.
115 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.492.
116 Frank J. Vandall,A Critique of the Restatement (Third),Apportionment as It Affects Joint and Several Liability,49 Emory Law Journal,Spring 2000,p.589.
117 Frank J. Vandall,A Critique of the Restatement (Third),Apportionment as It Affects Joint and Several Liability,49 Emory Law Journal,Spring 2000,p.589.
118 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.492.
119 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.486-p.487.
120 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.489.
121 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.486.
122 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.492-p.493.
[1]阿拉斯泰尔·马里斯,肯·奥里芬特[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[2]陈卫佐.德国民法典(第2版)[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[3]肯尼斯·S·亚伯拉罕,阿尔伯特·C·泰特.侵权法重述——纲要[M].许传玺,石宏,译.北京：法律出版社,2006.
[4]李亚虹.美国侵权法[M].北京：法律出版社,1999.
[5]李由义.民法学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1988.
[6]林诚二.民法理论与问题研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[7]理查德·A·爱泼斯坦.侵权法：案例与资料(第七版)[M].北京：中信出版社,2003.
[8]罗结珍.法国民法典(下册)[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[9]潘维大.英美侵权行为法案例解析[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2005.
[10]史蒂文·L·伊曼纽尔.侵权法[M].北京：中信出版社,2003.
[11]王利明.侵权行为法归责原则研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[12]王军.侵权行为法比较研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[13]王利明,杨立新.侵权行为法[M].北京：法律出版社,1996.
[14]文森特·R·约翰逊.美国侵权法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[15]魏振瀛.民法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
[16]徐爱国.英美侵权行为法学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2004.
[17]约翰·洛根.侵权法简明案例(第二版)[M].湖北：武汉大学出版社,2004.
[18]杨立新,张新宝,姚辉.侵权法三人谈[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.
[19]张铁薇.共同侵权制度研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.
[20]张新宝.侵权责任构成要件研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.
[21]张新宝.侵权责任法原理[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[22]张智斌.人身伤害赔偿纠纷[M].北京：中国方正出版社,2005.
[23]曾二秀.侵权法律选择的理论、方法与规则——欧美侵权冲突法比较研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.
[24]郑玉波.民商法问题研究(一)[M].台湾：永裕印刷公司,1983.
[1]陈平.美国侵权行为法评析[J].四川师范大学学报,1999(2).
[2]程啸.论侵权行为法上的过失相抵制度[J].清华法学(第6辑),2005.
[3]范春莹,周植赟.论责任分割的方法——以侵权法为对象[J].甘肃社会科学,2008(3).
[4]郭晓霞.连带责任制度探微[J].法学杂志,2008(5).
[5]胡海容.美国侵权法上连带责任的新发展及其启示[J].法商研究,2008(3).
[6]寇盂良.论《民法通则》中的连带责任[J].中国法学,1988(2).
[7]李清林,梁文彪.美国侵权法改革述评[J].红河学院学报,2004(6).
[8]李明晋.连带责任制度成因探讨[J].法制与社会,2008(2).
[9]梁利,骆元卡.中美侵权行为法历史发展比较和评析[J].南宁师范高等专科学校学报,2003(3).
[10]邱业伟.论连带债务与连带责任的关系[J].河北法学,2007(6).
[11]邱文华.连带责任人权利保障机制新探[J].襄樊职业技术学院学报,2005(5).
[12]邵世星.侵权行为中的连带责任反思[J].国家检察官学院学报,2002(5).
[13]沈建东.论团伙侵权行为连带责任的正当性、合理性[J].新疆警官高等专科学校学报,2000(2).
[14]唐战立.关于我国民商法中连带责任制度的几点思考[J].中国民营科技与经济,2006(10).
[15]王军.试论侵权中连带责任的主要特征[J].实事求是,2007(2).
[16]王仲修.民事法律关系中的连带责任及其法律适用[J].大学时代,2006(9).
[17]王晓萍,吴涛.人身损害赔偿中连带责任的探讨[J].学术界,2006(5).
[18]许传玺.美国的侵权法研究：概括与分析[J].比较法研究,2006(1).
[19]徐爱国.侵权法的经济学理论：一个思想史的札记[J].法制与社会发展(双月刊),2007(6).
[20]杨立新.共同侵权行为及其责任的侵权责任法立法抉择[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2006(5).
[21]杨立新.中国侵权行为法的百年历史及其在新世纪的发展[J].国家检察官学院学报,2001(1).
[22]杨立新.中国侵权责任法应当如何规定侵权责任形态[J].法律适用,2008(8).
[23]晏宗武.论连带责任的发生根据[J].铜陵学院学报,2006(2).
[24]俞巍.关于连带责任基本问题的探讨[J].华东政法大学学报,2007(4).
[25]杨尚.论民法中的连带责任[J].消费导刊,2008(3).
[26]尹田.论民事连带责任[J].法学杂志,1986(4).
[27]张维迎,邓峰.信息、激励与连带责任——对中国古代连坐、保甲制度的法和经济学解释[J].中国社会科学,2003(3).
[28]张铁薇.共同侵权行为的法理基础和类型化分析[J].北方论丛,2004(4).
[29]张铁薇.共同侵权民事责任的新发展[J].求是学刊,2007(2).
[30]张铁薇.共同侵权行为人对受害人的连带赔偿责任[J].郑州大学学报,2006(3).
[31]B. TODD WETZEL.Divisibility of Harm under Cercla:Does an Indivisible Potential or Averted Harm Warrant the Imposition of Joint and Several Liability?[J]. Kentucky Law Journal,1992/1993,31.
[32]CAROL A. MUTTER. Moving to Comparative Negligence in An Era of Tort Reform:ecisions for Tennessee[J]. Tennessee Law Review,Winter 1990,57.
[33]CLARE ELIZABETH KRUMLAUF.Ohio's New Modified Joint and Several Liability Laws:A Fair Compromise for Competing Parties and Public Policy Interests[J]. Cleveland State Law Review,2005-2006,53.
[34]CHRISTOPHER CURRAN.The Spread of the Comparative Negligence Rule in the United States[J].International Review of Law and Economics,September 1992,12.
[35]CORNELIUS J. PECK.Washington's Partial Rejection and Modification of the Common Law Rule of Joint And Several Liability[J].Washington Law Review,April 1987,62.
[36]DAVID D. JENSEN.Navigating the Straits of Settlement and Insolvency:A Reconciliation of Joint and Several Liability and Proportionate Settlement under the Maritime Law[J].Washington and Lee Law Review,Spring 2003,60.
[37]FRANK J. VANDALL.A Critique of the Restatement (Third),Apportionment as It Affects Joint and Several Liability[J].Emory Law Journal,Spring 2000,49.
[38]GAIL A. FORMAN.Comparative Negligence and Joint and Several Liability[J].Journal of Legal Advocacy& Practice,1999,1.
[39]GREGORY C. SISK.Interpretation of the Statutory Modification of Joint and several liability:Resisting the Deconstruction of Tort Reform[J].Seattle University Law Review,Fall 1992,16.
[40]H. WESLEY WILLIAMS.1989 Tort "Reform" in Mississippi:Modification of Joint and Several Liability and the Adoption of Comparative Contribution[J].Mississippi College Law Review,Fall 1992,13.
[41]HOWARD F. CHANG,HILARY SIGMAN.Incentives to Settle Under Joint and everal Liability:An Empirical Analysis of Superfund Litigation[J].Journal of Legal Studies,January 2000,29.
[42]JENNIFER L. STRINGER. What Will Happen to Anywhere, U.S.A.? The Need to Break the Logjam and Achieve Real Reform of Superfund Joint and Several Liability for the Twenty-First Century [J]. Valparaiso University Law Review,Fall 1998,33.
[43]JENNIFER J. KARANGELEN.The Road to Judicial Abolishment of Contributory Negligence Has Been Paved by Bozman V. Bozman[J].University of Baltimore Law Review, Winter 2004,34.
[44]JOHN W. WADE.Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?[J].American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,10.
[45]JOHN SCOTT HICKMAN.Efficiency,Fairness,And Common Sense:The Case for One Action as to Percentage of Fault in Comparative Negligence Jurisdictions That Have Abolished or Modified Joint and Several Liability[J].Vanderbilt Law Review,April 1995,48.
[46]JONATHAN TOBY DYKES. Alabama's Wrongful Death Act:A Time for Change[J].American Journal of Trial Advocacy, Spring 1998,21.
[47]JULIE K. WEAVER.Jury Instructions on Joint and Several Liability in Washington State[J].Washington Law Review,April 1992,67.
[48]KELLY CATHERINE MYERS.Tort "Reform" in Arizona:An Analysis of the Demise of Joint and Several Liability[J].Arizona Law Review,Fall 1993,35.
[49]KEVIN J. GREHAN.Comparative Negligence[J].Columbia Law Review,December 1981,81.
[50]LYNDA J. OSWALD.New Directions in Joint and Several Liability under CERCLA?[J].U.C. Davis Law Review, Winter 1995,28.
[51]MARK M. HAGER. What's (Not!) In A Restatement? Ali Issue-Dodging on Liability Apportionment[J].Connecticut Law Review,Fall 2000,33.
[52]MICHAEL K. STEENSON. Joint and Several Liability in Minnesota:The 2003 Model[J].William Mitchell Law Review,2004,30.
[53]MICHAEL P. ADDAIR.A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform[J].West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,109.
[54]MICHAEL S. HOOKER,GUY P. MCCONNELL.Joint and Several Liability in Florida:Are Reports of Its Demise Greatly Exaggerated?[J].Florida Bar Journal,December 2006,80.
[55]MIKE STEENSON. Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability[J]. Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,23.
[56]NANCY C. MARCUS. Phantom Parties and other Practical Problems with the Attempted Abolition of Joint and Several Liability [J]. Arkansas Law Review,2007,60.
[57]PAUL BARGREN.Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs[J].Wisconsin Law Review,1994.
[58]RICHARD L. CUPP, Jr.. Asbestos Litigation and Bankruptcy:A Case Study for Ad Hoc Public Policy Limitations on Joint and Several Liability[J].Pepperdine Law Review,2003,31.
[59]RICHARD A. MICHAEL. Joint Liability:Should It Be Reformed or Abolished?-The Illinois Experience[J].Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,Summer 1996,27.
[60]RICHARD W. WRIGHT.The Logic and Fairness of Joint and Several Liability[J].Memphis State University Law Review,Fall 1992,23.
[61]VICTOR J. TORRES.Tegman V. Accident& Medical Investigations,Inc.:The Re-Modification of Modified Joint and Several Liability by Judicial Fiat[J]. Seattle University Law Review,Spring 2006,29.
[1]曾青.论美国法上的共同侵权[D].北京：对外经济贸易大学,2006.
[2]晏宗武.连带责任论[D].南京：南京师范大学,2002.
[3]杨江红.论连带责任[D].云南：云南大学,2005.
[4]董朝阳.共同侵权问题研究[D].云南：云南大学,2004.
[5]段晓鹏.民事连带责任制度研究[D].河南：郑州大学,2006.
[1]杨立新.应当维护侵权连带责任的纯洁性——《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》规定的侵权连带责任研究》[EB/OL].(2006-01-29)[2009-10-101. http://www.civillaw.com.cn/article/default.asp? id=2451.
2 郑玉波：《民商法问题研究(一)》,台湾永裕印刷公司1983年版,第113页。
3 邵世星：《侵权行为中的连带责任反思》,《国家检察官学院学报》2002年第5期第10卷。
4 陈卫佐译：《德国民法典(第2版)》,法律出版社2006年版,第311页。
5 罗结珍译：《法国民法典(下册)》,法律出版社2005年版,第933页。
6 Frank J. Vandall, A Critique of The Restatement (Third), Apportionment as It Affects Joint and Several Liability,49 Emory Law Journal,Spring 2000,p567.
7 [美]肯尼斯·S·亚伯拉罕、阿尔伯特·C·泰特选编,许传玺、石宏等译：《侵权法重述——纲要》,法律出版社2006年版,第346页。
8 寇盂良：《论(民法通则)中的连带责任》,《中国法学》1988年第2期。
9 尹田：《论民事连带责任》,《法学杂志》1986年第4期。
10 张铁薇：《共同侵权制度研究》,法律出版社2007年版,第235页。
11 李由义：《民法学》,北京大学出版社1988年版,第528页。
12 张凤翔：《连带责任的司法实践》,上海人民出版社2006年版,第23页。
13 罗结珍译：《法国民法典(下册)》,法律出版社2005年版,第933页。
14 王军：《试论侵权中连带责任的主要特征》,《实事求是》2007年第2期。
15 魏振瀛：《民法》北京大学出版社2000年版,第704页。
16 陈卫佐译：《德国民法典(第2版)》,法律出版社2006年版,第308页。
17 张铁薇：《共同侵权制度研究》,法律出版社2007年版,第191页。
18 魏振瀛：《民法》北京大学出版社2000年版,第708页。
19 郭晓霞：《连带责任制度探微》,《法学杂志》2008年第5期。
20 239 A.2d 218(Del.1968).
21 Lynda J. Oswald, New Directions in Joint and Several Liability under Cercla?,28 U.C. Davis Law Review, Winter 1995,p.309.
22 Cornelius J. Peck,Washington's Partial Rejection and Modification of the Common Law Rule of Joint And Several Liability,62 Washington Law Review,April 1987,p.235.
23 Frank J. Vandall, A Critique of The Restatement (Third), Apportionment as It Affects Joint and Several Liability,49 Emory Law Journal,Spring 2000,p.573-p.574.
24 Richard A. Michael,Joint Liability:Should It be Reformed or Abolished?-The Illinois Experience,27 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,Summer 1996,p.877-p.878.
25 李亚虹：《美国侵权法》,法律出版社1999年版,第216页。
26 Richard A. Michael,Joint Liability:Should It be Reformed or Abolished?—The Illinois Experience,27 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,Summer 1996,p.878.
27 The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Third, Torts:Apportionment of Liability,2000.
28 The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Third, Torts:Apportionment of Liability,2000.
29 杨立新：《中国侵权责任法应当如何规定侵权责任形态》,《法律适用》2008年第8期。
38 Lynda J. Oswald, New Directions in Joint and Several Liability under CERCLA?,28 U.C. Davis Law Review, Winter 1995,p.306-p.307.
39 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.455.
40 3 Wis.319(1854).
41 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.457.
50 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.194-p.195.
51 Lynda J. Oswald, New Directions in Joint and Several Liability under Cercla?,28 U.C. Davis Law Review, Winter 1995,p.307.
52 374 N.E.2d 437,443(111.1977).
53 Richard A. Michael,Joint Liability:Should It be Reformed or Abolished?—The Illinois Experience,27 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,Summer 1996,p.871.
54 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.837.
55 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.195.
56 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.196.
57 Lynda J. Oswald,New Directions in Joint and Several Liability under CERCLA?,28 U.C. Davis Law Review,Winter 1995,p.308.
58 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.466.
59 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.462.
60 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.463.
61 胡海容：《美国侵权法上连带责任的新发展及其启示》,《法商研究》2008年第3期。
62 程啸：《论侵权行为法上的过失相抵制度》,《清华法学(第6辑)》,清华大学出版社2005年版,第25页。
63 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.832.
64 11 East60,103 Eng.Rep.926(K.B.1809).
65 Jennifer J. Karangelen,The Road to Judicial Abolishment of Contributory Negligence Has Been Paved by Bozman V. Bozman,34 University of Baltimore Law Review, Winter 2004,p.266.
66 19 Mass.(2 Pick.)621,13Am.Dec.464(1824).
67 Kevin J. Grehan,Comparative Negligence,81 Columbia Law Review,December 1981,p.1669.
68 程啸：《论侵权行为法上的过失相抵制度》,《清华法学(第6辑)》,清华大学出版社2005年版,第25页。
69 Richard A. Michael,Joint Liability:Should It be Reformed or Abolished?-The Illinois Experience,27 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,Summer 1996,p.892.
70 Kevin J. Grehan,Comparative Negligence,81 Columbia Law Review,December 1981,p.1669.
71 Kevin J. Grehan,Comparative Negligence,81 Columbia Law Review,December 1981,p.1670.
72 Christopher Curran,The Spread of the Comparative Negligence Rule in the United States,12 International Review of Law and Economics,September 1992,p.319-p.320.
73 Jennifer J. Karangelen,The Road to Judicial Abolishment of Contributory Negligence Has Been Paved by Bozman V. Bozman,34 University of Baltimore Law Review, Winter 2004,p.269.
74 Carol A. Mutter,Moving to Comparative Negligence in An Era of Tort Reform:Decisions for Tennessee,57 Tennessee Law Review,Winter 1990,p.205.
75 Nancy C. Marcus, Phantom Parties and other Practical Problems with the Attempted Abolition of Joint and Several Liability,60 Arkansas Law Review,2007,p.442.
76 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.837.
77 Richard A. Michael,Joint Liability:Should It be Reformed or Abolished?-The Illinois Experience,27 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,Summer 1996,p.871.
78 Paul Bargren:Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.463.
79 Paul Bargren:Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.462.
80 Richard W. Wright,The Logic and Fairness of Joint and Several Liability,23 Memphis State University Law Review,Fall 1992,p.69.
81 Clare Elizabeth Krumlau,Ohio's New Modified Joint and Several Liability Laws:A Fair Compromise for Competing Parties and Public Policy Interests,53 Cleveland State Law Review,2005-2006,p.336.
82 Clare Elizabeth Krumlau,Ohio's New Modified Joint and Several Liability Laws:A Fair Compromise for Competing Parties and Public Policy Interests,53 Cleveland State Law Review,2005-2006,p.339.
83 Richard W. Wright,The Logic and Fairness of Joint and Several Liability,23 Memphis State University Law Review, Fall 1992,p.78-p.79.
84 Paul Bargren:Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.463.
85 Paul Bargren:Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs, Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.456.
86 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.842-p.843.
87 李清林、梁文彪：《美国侵权法改革述评》,《红河学院学报》2004年6月。
88 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.207.
89 646 P.2d 579(N.M.Ct.App.1982).
90 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.199-p.200.
91 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.468-p.469.
92 John Scott Hickman,Efficiency,Fairness,And Common Sense:The Case for One Action as to Percentage of Fault in Comparative Negligence Jurisdictions That Have Abolished or Modified Joint and Several Liability,48 Vanderbilt Law Review,April 1995,p.746.
93 515 So.2d 198(Fla.1987).
94 Clare Elizabeth Krumlau,Ohio's New Modified Joint and Several Liability Laws:A Fair Compromise for Competing Parties and Public Policy Interests,53 Cleveland State Law Review,2005-2006,p.351.
95 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.467.
96 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.843.
97 Clare Elizabeth Krumlau,Ohio's New Modified Joint and Several Liability Laws:A Fair Compromise for Competing Parties and Public Policy Interests,53 Cleveland State Law Review,2005-2006,p.337.
98 Richard W. Wright,The Logic And Fairness of Joint and Several Liability,23 Memphis State University Law Review,Fall 1992,p.48.
99 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.469.
100 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.841.
101 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.469.
102 Richard W. Wright,The Logic and Fairness of Joint and Several Liability,23 Memphis State University Law Review,Fall 1992,p.51-p.59.
103 Richard W. Wright,The Logic and Fairness of Joint and Several Liability,23 Memphis State University Law Review,Fall 1992,p.63-p.65.
104 Nancy C. Marcus,Phantom Parties and other Practical Problems with the Attempted Abolition of Joint and Several Liability,60 Arkansas Law Review,2007,p.442.
105 Paul Bargren,Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs,Wisconsin Law Review,1994,p.464-p.465.
106 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.197-p.198.
107 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.837.
108 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.832.
109 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.482.
110 Richard W. Wright,The Logic and Fairness of Joint and Several Liability,23 Memphis State University Law Review,Fall 1992,p.82-p.83.
111 [美]理查德·A·爱泼斯坦：《侵权法：案例与资料(第七版)》,中信出版社2003年版,第403页。
112 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.832.
113 Michael P. Addair,A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform,109 West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,p.837.
114 John W. Wade,Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?,10 American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,p.207-p.208.
115 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.492.
116 Frank J. Vandall,A Critique of the Restatement (Third),Apportionment as It Affects Joint and Several Liability,49 Emory Law Journal,Spring 2000,p.589.
117 Frank J. Vandall,A Critique of the Restatement (Third),Apportionment as It Affects Joint and Several Liability,49 Emory Law Journal,Spring 2000,p.589.
118 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.492.
119 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.486-p.487.
120 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.489.
121 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.486.
122 Mike Steenson,Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability,23 Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,p.492-p.493.
[1]阿拉斯泰尔·马里斯,肯·奥里芬特[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[2]陈卫佐.德国民法典(第2版)[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[3]肯尼斯·S·亚伯拉罕,阿尔伯特·C·泰特.侵权法重述——纲要[M].许传玺,石宏,译.北京：法律出版社,2006.
[4]李亚虹.美国侵权法[M].北京：法律出版社,1999.
[5]李由义.民法学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1988.
[6]林诚二.民法理论与问题研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[7]理查德·A·爱泼斯坦.侵权法：案例与资料(第七版)[M].北京：中信出版社,2003.
[8]罗结珍.法国民法典(下册)[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[9]潘维大.英美侵权行为法案例解析[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2005.
[10]史蒂文·L·伊曼纽尔.侵权法[M].北京：中信出版社,2003.
[11]王利明.侵权行为法归责原则研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[12]王军.侵权行为法比较研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[13]王利明,杨立新.侵权行为法[M].北京：法律出版社,1996.
[14]文森特·R·约翰逊.美国侵权法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[15]魏振瀛.民法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2000.
[16]徐爱国.英美侵权行为法学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2004.
[17]约翰·洛根.侵权法简明案例(第二版)[M].湖北：武汉大学出版社,2004.
[18]杨立新,张新宝,姚辉.侵权法三人谈[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.
[19]张铁薇.共同侵权制度研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.
[20]张新宝.侵权责任构成要件研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.
[21]张新宝.侵权责任法原理[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[22]张智斌.人身伤害赔偿纠纷[M].北京：中国方正出版社,2005.
[23]曾二秀.侵权法律选择的理论、方法与规则——欧美侵权冲突法比较研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.
[24]郑玉波.民商法问题研究(一)[M].台湾：永裕印刷公司,1983.
[1]陈平.美国侵权行为法评析[J].四川师范大学学报,1999(2).
[2]程啸.论侵权行为法上的过失相抵制度[J].清华法学(第6辑),2005.
[3]范春莹,周植赟.论责任分割的方法——以侵权法为对象[J].甘肃社会科学,2008(3).
[4]郭晓霞.连带责任制度探微[J].法学杂志,2008(5).
[5]胡海容.美国侵权法上连带责任的新发展及其启示[J].法商研究,2008(3).
[6]寇盂良.论《民法通则》中的连带责任[J].中国法学,1988(2).
[7]李清林,梁文彪.美国侵权法改革述评[J].红河学院学报,2004(6).
[8]李明晋.连带责任制度成因探讨[J].法制与社会,2008(2).
[9]梁利,骆元卡.中美侵权行为法历史发展比较和评析[J].南宁师范高等专科学校学报,2003(3).
[10]邱业伟.论连带债务与连带责任的关系[J].河北法学,2007(6).
[11]邱文华.连带责任人权利保障机制新探[J].襄樊职业技术学院学报,2005(5).
[12]邵世星.侵权行为中的连带责任反思[J].国家检察官学院学报,2002(5).
[13]沈建东.论团伙侵权行为连带责任的正当性、合理性[J].新疆警官高等专科学校学报,2000(2).
[14]唐战立.关于我国民商法中连带责任制度的几点思考[J].中国民营科技与经济,2006(10).
[15]王军.试论侵权中连带责任的主要特征[J].实事求是,2007(2).
[16]王仲修.民事法律关系中的连带责任及其法律适用[J].大学时代,2006(9).
[17]王晓萍,吴涛.人身损害赔偿中连带责任的探讨[J].学术界,2006(5).
[18]许传玺.美国的侵权法研究：概括与分析[J].比较法研究,2006(1).
[19]徐爱国.侵权法的经济学理论：一个思想史的札记[J].法制与社会发展(双月刊),2007(6).
[20]杨立新.共同侵权行为及其责任的侵权责任法立法抉择[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2006(5).
[21]杨立新.中国侵权行为法的百年历史及其在新世纪的发展[J].国家检察官学院学报,2001(1).
[22]杨立新.中国侵权责任法应当如何规定侵权责任形态[J].法律适用,2008(8).
[23]晏宗武.论连带责任的发生根据[J].铜陵学院学报,2006(2).
[24]俞巍.关于连带责任基本问题的探讨[J].华东政法大学学报,2007(4).
[25]杨尚.论民法中的连带责任[J].消费导刊,2008(3).
[26]尹田.论民事连带责任[J].法学杂志,1986(4).
[27]张维迎,邓峰.信息、激励与连带责任——对中国古代连坐、保甲制度的法和经济学解释[J].中国社会科学,2003(3).
[28]张铁薇.共同侵权行为的法理基础和类型化分析[J].北方论丛,2004(4).
[29]张铁薇.共同侵权民事责任的新发展[J].求是学刊,2007(2).
[30]张铁薇.共同侵权行为人对受害人的连带赔偿责任[J].郑州大学学报,2006(3).
[31]B. TODD WETZEL.Divisibility of Harm under Cercla:Does an Indivisible Potential or Averted Harm Warrant the Imposition of Joint and Several Liability?[J]. Kentucky Law Journal,1992/1993,31.
[32]CAROL A. MUTTER. Moving to Comparative Negligence in An Era of Tort Reform:ecisions for Tennessee[J]. Tennessee Law Review,Winter 1990,57.
[33]CLARE ELIZABETH KRUMLAUF.Ohio's New Modified Joint and Several Liability Laws:A Fair Compromise for Competing Parties and Public Policy Interests[J]. Cleveland State Law Review,2005-2006,53.
[34]CHRISTOPHER CURRAN.The Spread of the Comparative Negligence Rule in the United States[J].International Review of Law and Economics,September 1992,12.
[35]CORNELIUS J. PECK.Washington's Partial Rejection and Modification of the Common Law Rule of Joint And Several Liability[J].Washington Law Review,April 1987,62.
[36]DAVID D. JENSEN.Navigating the Straits of Settlement and Insolvency:A Reconciliation of Joint and Several Liability and Proportionate Settlement under the Maritime Law[J].Washington and Lee Law Review,Spring 2003,60.
[37]FRANK J. VANDALL.A Critique of the Restatement (Third),Apportionment as It Affects Joint and Several Liability[J].Emory Law Journal,Spring 2000,49.
[38]GAIL A. FORMAN.Comparative Negligence and Joint and Several Liability[J].Journal of Legal Advocacy& Practice,1999,1.
[39]GREGORY C. SISK.Interpretation of the Statutory Modification of Joint and several liability:Resisting the Deconstruction of Tort Reform[J].Seattle University Law Review,Fall 1992,16.
[40]H. WESLEY WILLIAMS.1989 Tort "Reform" in Mississippi:Modification of Joint and Several Liability and the Adoption of Comparative Contribution[J].Mississippi College Law Review,Fall 1992,13.
[41]HOWARD F. CHANG,HILARY SIGMAN.Incentives to Settle Under Joint and everal Liability:An Empirical Analysis of Superfund Litigation[J].Journal of Legal Studies,January 2000,29.
[42]JENNIFER L. STRINGER. What Will Happen to Anywhere, U.S.A.? The Need to Break the Logjam and Achieve Real Reform of Superfund Joint and Several Liability for the Twenty-First Century [J]. Valparaiso University Law Review,Fall 1998,33.
[43]JENNIFER J. KARANGELEN.The Road to Judicial Abolishment of Contributory Negligence Has Been Paved by Bozman V. Bozman[J].University of Baltimore Law Review, Winter 2004,34.
[44]JOHN W. WADE.Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors Be Abolished?[J].American Journal of Trial Advocacy,Fall 1986,10.
[45]JOHN SCOTT HICKMAN.Efficiency,Fairness,And Common Sense:The Case for One Action as to Percentage of Fault in Comparative Negligence Jurisdictions That Have Abolished or Modified Joint and Several Liability[J].Vanderbilt Law Review,April 1995,48.
[46]JONATHAN TOBY DYKES. Alabama's Wrongful Death Act:A Time for Change[J].American Journal of Trial Advocacy, Spring 1998,21.
[47]JULIE K. WEAVER.Jury Instructions on Joint and Several Liability in Washington State[J].Washington Law Review,April 1992,67.
[48]KELLY CATHERINE MYERS.Tort "Reform" in Arizona:An Analysis of the Demise of Joint and Several Liability[J].Arizona Law Review,Fall 1993,35.
[49]KEVIN J. GREHAN.Comparative Negligence[J].Columbia Law Review,December 1981,81.
[50]LYNDA J. OSWALD.New Directions in Joint and Several Liability under CERCLA?[J].U.C. Davis Law Review, Winter 1995,28.
[51]MARK M. HAGER. What's (Not!) In A Restatement? Ali Issue-Dodging on Liability Apportionment[J].Connecticut Law Review,Fall 2000,33.
[52]MICHAEL K. STEENSON. Joint and Several Liability in Minnesota:The 2003 Model[J].William Mitchell Law Review,2004,30.
[53]MICHAEL P. ADDAIR.A Small Step Forward:An Analysis of West Virginia's Attempt at Joint and Several Liability Reform[J].West Virginia Law Review,Spring 2007,109.
[54]MICHAEL S. HOOKER,GUY P. MCCONNELL.Joint and Several Liability in Florida:Are Reports of Its Demise Greatly Exaggerated?[J].Florida Bar Journal,December 2006,80.
[55]MIKE STEENSON. Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability[J]. Tort and Insurance Law Journal,Winter 1988,23.
[56]NANCY C. MARCUS. Phantom Parties and other Practical Problems with the Attempted Abolition of Joint and Several Liability [J]. Arkansas Law Review,2007,60.
[57]PAUL BARGREN.Joint and Several Liability:Protection for Plaintiffs[J].Wisconsin Law Review,1994.
[58]RICHARD L. CUPP, Jr.. Asbestos Litigation and Bankruptcy:A Case Study for Ad Hoc Public Policy Limitations on Joint and Several Liability[J].Pepperdine Law Review,2003,31.
[59]RICHARD A. MICHAEL. Joint Liability:Should It Be Reformed or Abolished?-The Illinois Experience[J].Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,Summer 1996,27.
[60]RICHARD W. WRIGHT.The Logic and Fairness of Joint and Several Liability[J].Memphis State University Law Review,Fall 1992,23.
[61]VICTOR J. TORRES.Tegman V. Accident& Medical Investigations,Inc.:The Re-Modification of Modified Joint and Several Liability by Judicial Fiat[J]. Seattle University Law Review,Spring 2006,29.
[1]曾青.论美国法上的共同侵权[D].北京：对外经济贸易大学,2006.
[2]晏宗武.连带责任论[D].南京：南京师范大学,2002.
[3]杨江红.论连带责任[D].云南：云南大学,2005.
[4]董朝阳.共同侵权问题研究[D].云南：云南大学,2004.
[5]段晓鹏.民事连带责任制度研究[D].河南：郑州大学,2006.
[1]杨立新.应当维护侵权连带责任的纯洁性——《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》规定的侵权连带责任研究》[EB/OL].(2006-01-29)[2009-10-101. http://www.civillaw.com.cn/article/default.asp? id=2451.