美国侵权法市场份额规则研究
|
摘要
市场份额规则产生于美国普通法侵权诉讼中。为了实现对DES案件受害人的救济,该规则对传统侵权法因果关系规则进行了修正。在市场份额规则产生和发展的过程中,美国各级法院通过判例确立了不同的市场份额规则模式。在实践中,两种规则模式均获得了不同程度的适用。在理论层面,两种市场份额规则模式分别获得了经济分析理论和矫正正义理论的支撑,这也导致了两种规则模式的深层次冲突。对此,本文试图寻找一种有效的侵权法解释理论,并通过该理论对市场份额规则进行有效的解释,从而消除两种规则模式之间的冲突,并使市场份额规则与普通法侵权规则相协调。此外,本文也试图借助证据共同体理论对市场份额规则的运行、制度设计以及相关问题加以解决。最后,本文讨论了在我国侵权法中确立市场份额规则的必要性和可行性,并对在我国确立市场份额规则的立法设计和技术难点进行了分析。
The market share liability is a revolutionary rule in American tort law and is a modification to the rule of causation of tort law. In this thesis we find that there are two different modes of rules of market share liability in American tort law and there are conflicts in the level of theory and practice of market share liability. The studies of American researchers focus on that how to accommodation of the market share liability and tort law. But in this thesis we think that an effective theory of explanation of tort law and using this theory to explain market share liability is the correct resolution to the conflicts of different modes of rule and accommodation of the market share liability and tort law.
In the first chapter, we discuss the meaning of the market share liability and the background of this rule, and comment the actuality of the research. We also deal with the researches about market share liability and find that these researches are mostly focused on accommodation of the market share liability and tort law. At the same time, we also discuss the structure of the argumentation and make some limits.
In the second chapter, we discuss the course of establishment of market share liability and the other rules of common law. Market share liability was established in DES cases, so we study DES cases firstly. In DES cases, causation would be the obstacle of compensatory of damage to plaintiffs. The courts could not use the alternative liability, concert action theory and enterprise liability in DES cases. On this background market share liability was established and became a modification to causation.
In the third chapter, we discuss the different patterns of market share liability and its basement of theories. In the course of establishment of market share liability, Sindell v. Abbott Labs. and Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co. were the landmarks which have established two different modes. We find that the reason for the difference of two modes is that each mode of market share liability is based on a theory of explanation of tort law. Although two modes are both adopted in America, they contradict with each other in the level of theory. The conflict make that market share liability could not be justified and accommodated to the rules of tort law. These make many courts in America suspected about market share liability. Only through the discussion on the level of theory, can we resolve this puzzledom efficiently.
In the fourth chapter, we discuss the theory of tort law. In America, the theory of economic analysis represented by Guido Calabresi and Richard A. Posner has taken an important position and these scholars use that concept and the mode of economic analysis to reconstruct the theory of tort law. At the same time, corrective justice theory represented by Jules Coleman, George P. Fletcher and Richard Epstein is also a challenge to the theory of economic analysis. From the perspective of corrective justice, the scholars of the theory of economic analysis could not explain why plaintiff and defendant are the most important in tort law and why particular plaintiff is contacted with particular defendant. Paradoxically, both of the theories could support the different mode of market share liability. So the conflict of the different modes of market share liability is transferred into the conflict of the different theory of tort law.
Therefore we attempt to adopt an effective theory of tort law to be the precondition of analyzing market share liability. On the basement of the study to different theories of tort law, we attempt to choose a more effective theory of explanation of tort law and make tort law be based on it. Furthermore, we will use this theory to explain market share liability. We will learn the two theories through two approaches. Firstly, we will discuss which theory could explain tort law more effectively, so the more effective theory could be justified. This approach is based on explanation of the tort law itself and we could test the theory through efficiency and fitness of the explanation. Secondly, we will test the efficiency of the theories through practice. On the basis of the analysis of tort law and No-fault compensation system, we could find which system could regulate practice more effectively. Through these approaches, we should find a more effective theory of explanation of tort law.
In the fifth chapter, we learn that how to apply corrective justice theory to the explanation of tort law. We compare the formal approach and substantial approach and seek an appropriate solution. We contact market share liability with alternative liability through the theory of evidential group. We also learn the critical problem of market share liability, such as the mode, function and system of market share liability.
In the sixth chapter, we discuss the necessary and feasibility of the establishment of market share liability in Chinese tort law. Now there are a lot of cases of product liability caused by poisoned and injurant substance in China. In these cases, because the industrial product is common and substitutable, we could not find out which enterprise’product caused the damage, such as the case of melamine. So we think that there is a big room for market share liability in china. But there is no rule in Chinese law to substitute market share liability. So we should establish some rules to remedy the victims in the cases caused by poisoned and injurant substance. So we discuss the feasible approach of establishing market share liability in China and study the problem and the solution in this course.
The market share liability is a revolutionary rule in American tort law and is a modification to the rule of causation of tort law. In this thesis we find that there are two different modes of rules of market share liability in American tort law and there are conflicts in the level of theory and practice of market share liability. The studies of American researchers focus on that how to accommodation of the market share liability and tort law. But in this thesis we think that an effective theory of explanation of tort law and using this theory to explain market share liability is the correct resolution to the conflicts of different modes of rule and accommodation of the market share liability and tort law.
In the first chapter, we discuss the meaning of the market share liability and the background of this rule, and comment the actuality of the research. We also deal with the researches about market share liability and find that these researches are mostly focused on accommodation of the market share liability and tort law. At the same time, we also discuss the structure of the argumentation and make some limits.
In the second chapter, we discuss the course of establishment of market share liability and the other rules of common law. Market share liability was established in DES cases, so we study DES cases firstly. In DES cases, causation would be the obstacle of compensatory of damage to plaintiffs. The courts could not use the alternative liability, concert action theory and enterprise liability in DES cases. On this background market share liability was established and became a modification to causation.
In the third chapter, we discuss the different patterns of market share liability and its basement of theories. In the course of establishment of market share liability, Sindell v. Abbott Labs. and Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co. were the landmarks which have established two different modes. We find that the reason for the difference of two modes is that each mode of market share liability is based on a theory of explanation of tort law. Although two modes are both adopted in America, they contradict with each other in the level of theory. The conflict make that market share liability could not be justified and accommodated to the rules of tort law. These make many courts in America suspected about market share liability. Only through the discussion on the level of theory, can we resolve this puzzledom efficiently.
In the fourth chapter, we discuss the theory of tort law. In America, the theory of economic analysis represented by Guido Calabresi and Richard A. Posner has taken an important position and these scholars use that concept and the mode of economic analysis to reconstruct the theory of tort law. At the same time, corrective justice theory represented by Jules Coleman, George P. Fletcher and Richard Epstein is also a challenge to the theory of economic analysis. From the perspective of corrective justice, the scholars of the theory of economic analysis could not explain why plaintiff and defendant are the most important in tort law and why particular plaintiff is contacted with particular defendant. Paradoxically, both of the theories could support the different mode of market share liability. So the conflict of the different modes of market share liability is transferred into the conflict of the different theory of tort law.
Therefore we attempt to adopt an effective theory of tort law to be the precondition of analyzing market share liability. On the basement of the study to different theories of tort law, we attempt to choose a more effective theory of explanation of tort law and make tort law be based on it. Furthermore, we will use this theory to explain market share liability. We will learn the two theories through two approaches. Firstly, we will discuss which theory could explain tort law more effectively, so the more effective theory could be justified. This approach is based on explanation of the tort law itself and we could test the theory through efficiency and fitness of the explanation. Secondly, we will test the efficiency of the theories through practice. On the basis of the analysis of tort law and No-fault compensation system, we could find which system could regulate practice more effectively. Through these approaches, we should find a more effective theory of explanation of tort law.
In the fifth chapter, we learn that how to apply corrective justice theory to the explanation of tort law. We compare the formal approach and substantial approach and seek an appropriate solution. We contact market share liability with alternative liability through the theory of evidential group. We also learn the critical problem of market share liability, such as the mode, function and system of market share liability.
In the sixth chapter, we discuss the necessary and feasibility of the establishment of market share liability in Chinese tort law. Now there are a lot of cases of product liability caused by poisoned and injurant substance in China. In these cases, because the industrial product is common and substitutable, we could not find out which enterprise’product caused the damage, such as the case of melamine. So we think that there is a big room for market share liability in china. But there is no rule in Chinese law to substitute market share liability. So we should establish some rules to remedy the victims in the cases caused by poisoned and injurant substance. So we discuss the feasible approach of establishing market share liability in China and study the problem and the solution in this course.
引文
①Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
②Mary Jane Sheffet, Market Share Liability: A New Doctrine of Causation in Product Liability, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 47, 1983, pp. 35-43; Market Share Liability: An Answer to the DES Causation Problem, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 94, 1981, pp. 668-680.
③美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述第三版:产品责任》,肖永平等译,法律出版社2006年版,第328页。本文按照惯常译法将American Law Institute译为美国法律学会,将Restatement of the Law, Third, Torts: Products Liability译为《侵权法第三次重述:产品责任》。但在引用有关本次重述的相关中文文本时,仍按其出版时所采纳的译法引用。
④Robert F. Daley, A Suggested Proposal to Apportion Liability in Lead Pigment Cases, Duquesne Law Review, Vol. 36, 1997, p. 79.
①Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 219.
②Mark A. Geistfeld, The Doctrinal Unity of AlternativeLliability and Market-shareLiability, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 2006, p.453.
③Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 364.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.184.
②以“市场份额责任”为“题名”在“中国知网”进行跨库检索,即在中国期刊全文数据库、中国博士学位论文全文数据库、中国优秀硕士学位论文全文数据库、中国重要会议论文全文数据库、中国重要报纸全文数据库中,仅有一篇与此相关的论文(怀宇:《市场份额责任理论刍议》,载《人民司法》2006年第6期)。以“市场份额责任”为“关键字”在“中国知网”进行跨库检索,仅有五篇文章涉及市场份额责任(岳彩申:《论严格产品责任的新发展》,载《社会科学研究》2000年第5期;祝磊:《美国产品责任法归责原则的嬗变》,载《社会科学研究》2003年第2期;张民宪、马栩生:《荷兰产品责任制度之新发展》,载《法学评论》2005年第1期;齐爱武:《我国产品责任适用严格责任的几点建议》,载《山西高等学校社会科学学报》,2006年第12期;金磊:《国外产品质量责任的发展、现状及借鉴》,载《决策借鉴》1995年第4期)。而在各种著作中,就目前笔者所涉及的,仅有李响编著的《美国侵权法原理及案例研究》(中国政法大学出版社2004年版,其中有一节对市场份额责任做出了简单的介绍)以及美国法律学会颁布的《侵权法第三次重述:产品责任》与此相关。
③纽约州上诉法院,即Court of Appeals of New York,是纽约州法院系统中的最高审级,相当于其他州的州最高法院。
④Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 73 N.Y.2d 487 (1989).
①Richard A. Posner, The Concept of Corrective Justice in Recent Theories of Tort Law, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 10, 1981, p.187.
②为探寻一种有效且合理的市场份额规则模式,就必须对两种侵权法理论的进行比较分析,并对其正当性问题及其哲学基础进行探讨。
①市场份额规则确立过程中另一具有代表性的案件是纽约州上诉法院在1989年审理的海默维茨诉埃里里公司案(Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 73 N.Y.2d 487 (1989).),在该案中法院确立了与辛德尔案完全不同的市场份额规则模式。
②Abel v. Eli Lilly & Company, 418 Mich. 311, 317; 343 N.W.2d 164 (1984).
③Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,http://www.cdc.gov/DES/consumers/about/history.html, 2008-05-15.
④Abel v. Eli Lilly & Company, 418 Mich. 311, 317; 343 N.W.2d 164 (1984).
⑤Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,http://www.cdc.gov/DES/consumers/about/history.html, 2008-05-15.
①美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述——纲要》,许传玺等译,法律出版社2006年版,第123页。
②Franklin and Rabin, Tort Law and Alternatives, Foundation Press, 2001, p. 341.
③Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①Rest.2d Torts,§433B, com. f, p. 446.
②Section 433B, subdivision (3) of the Restatement provides: Where the conduct of two or more actors is tortious, and it is proved that harm has been caused to the plaintiff by only one of them, but there is uncertainty as to which one has caused it, the burden is upon each such actor to prove that he has not caused the harm.
③Mark A. Geistfeld, The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability and Market-share Liability, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 2006, p. 447.
①Hall v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 1972) 345 F. Supp. 353.
②Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307 (E.D.N.Y. 1996).
③本案的原告都是些有亲属死在被告生产出来的手枪下的人,比如一位名叫Freddie Hamilton的原告就是因为儿子Njuzi Ray在一起冲突中死于Beretta或Taurus牌的9毫米口径的手枪才参加诉讼的,而另一名叫Katina Johnstone的原告的丈夫David Johnstone则被一把偷来的Smith & Wesson牌左轮手枪所射杀。参见李响编:《美国侵权法原理及案例研究》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第316页。
④参见李响编:《美国侵权法原理及案例研究》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第315页。
①Nomi Sheiner: DES and a Proposed Theory of Enterprise Liability, Fordham Law Review, Vol.46, 1978, p. 997.
②Nomi Sheiner: DES and a Proposed Theory of Enterprise Liability, Fordham Law Review, Vol.46, 1978, p. 997.
①Mary Jane Sheffet, Market Share Liability: A New Doctrine of Causation in Product Liability, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 47, 1983, pp. 35-43.
②侵权法第三次重述中的产品责任部分中规定:一份产品在销售或者分销的时候,包含制造缺陷,产品设计存在缺陷,或者因为缺乏使用说明或警示而存在缺陷,该产品构成缺陷产品。参见美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述第三版:产品责任》,肖永平等译,法律出版社2006年版,第1-15页。
①参见美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述第三版:产品责任》,肖永平等译,法律出版社2006年版,第40-41页。
①Franklin and Rabin, Tort Law and Alternatives, Foundation Press, 2001, p. 341.
①Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 150 P.2d 436, 24 Cal.2d 453, (1944).
②Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1, 2 (Cal. 1948).
③Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 150 P.2d 436, 24 Cal.2d 453, (1944).
④Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 73 N.Y.2d 487 (1989).
②Restatement of the Law, Third, Torts: Products Liability.
③参见美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述第三版:产品责任》,肖永平等译,法律出版社2006年版,第328页。
④目前在美国的各州中,已经有加利福尼亚州,佛罗里达州,夏威夷州,马萨诸塞州,密歇根州,纽约州,南达科特州,德克萨斯州,华盛顿州,威斯康辛州共十个州在不同的程度上已经对DES案件适用市场份额规则。参见Ben T. Greer, Market Share Liability 30 Years Later: A Need to Focus on Profits in The Calculations of Liability, unpublished paper。其它州也有逐渐采纳这一规则的趋势,并且这一规则的适用正扩大到其它有毒物质致损案件。
⑤参见美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述第三版:产品责任》,肖永平等译,法律出版社2006年版,第332页。
①“(1) the generic nature of the product; (2) the long latency period of the harm; (3) the inability of plaintiffs to discover which defendant’s product caused plaintiff’s harm, even after exhaustive discovery; (4) the clarity of the causal connection between the defective product and the harm suffered by plaintiffs; (5) the absence of other medical or environmental factors that could have caused or materially contributed to the harm; and (6) the availability of sufficient‘market share’data to support reasonable apportionment of liability.”Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability§15, comment c.
②美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述第三版:产品责任》,肖永平等译,法律出版社2006年版,第329页。
①Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 73 N.Y.2d 487 (1989).
①Martin v Abbott Labs., 102 Wash. 2d 581, 689 P. 2d 368.
①Martin v Abbott Labs., 102 Wash. 2d 581, 689 P. 2d 368.
②Brown v Superior Ct., 44 Cal. 3d 1049, 751 P. 2d 470.
①H.L.A. Hart and T. Honore, Causation in the Law, Oxford University Press, 1985, p.161.
②以下论述中对瑞普斯坦和兹普斯利的具体观点做出注释,而对其论证过程的批判则参见Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 217-222。
③Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 218.
①[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第135-136页。
①G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 8.
②60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 292 (1850).
③G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 19.
④注意义务在普通法中作用为何?学者认为“如果普通法中注意义务的概念服务于一个有效目的的话,则这一目的就是综合法院在决定过错责任的范围时所适用的众多的不同标准。另外,注意义务具有优于因果观念的优势在于其使得决定责任问题的人完全意识到政策决定了最终的结果。”Simon Deskin, Angus Johnston and Basil Markesinis, Markesinis and Deakon’s tort law, Clarendon Press, 2003, p. 77.
①Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 219.
②此处为对两位作者观点的总结,具体可见Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 220-221.
③Simon Deskin, Angus Johnston and Basil Markesinis, Markesinis and Deakon’s tort law, Clarendon Press, 2003, p. 74.
①转引自王泽鉴:《侵权行为法(1)·基本理论·一般侵权行为》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第51-52页。
②此处借重道德评价在侵权责任确立方面的作用以及传统的过错侵权行为的理论框架,由于瑞普斯坦和兹普斯利也以此二者作为其论证的基础,因而其论证与本文存在相同的理论前提。
①Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 219.
②Christopher H. Schroeder, Corrective Justice and Liability for Increasing Risks, UCLA Law Review Vol. 37, 1990, p. 439.
①John G. Fleming, An Introduction to the Law of Torts, Clarendon Press, 1985, p. 105.
②Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 1984, p. 263,转引自[美]威廉·.M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳著:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第249页。
③[美]威廉·.M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳著:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第1页。
①Christopher H. Schroeder, Corrective Justice and Liability for Increasing Risks, UCLA Law Review Vol. 37, 1990, p. 444.
②Anthony M. Marino, Market Share Liability and Economic Efficiency, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 57, 1991, pp. 667-675.
③我们将这种理论称为单纯道德论。将这种道德论观点称为单纯道德论,是与当今美国法中以道德哲学以及矫正正义为基础而对侵权法进行解释的道德理论相区别。
①Gerald J. Postema, Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 2.
②Christopher H. Schroeder, Corrective Justice and Liability for Increasing Risks, UCLA Law Review Vol. 37, 1990, p. 439.
③Jeremy Waldron, Moments of Carelessness and Massive Loss, in David G. Owen (ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law, Clarendon Press, 1995, p. 387.
①Richard A. Posner , The Concept of Corrective Justice in Recent Theories of Tort Law, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 10, 1981, p.187.
②Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory: Preliminary Reflection on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
③Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory: Preliminary Reflection on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 184.
④Wright, Actual Causation v. Probabilistic Linkage: The Bane of Economic Analysis, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 14, 1985, p. 435.
⑤Weinrib, Causation and Wrongdoing, The Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 63, 1983, pp.407-410.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory: Preliminary Reflection on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 186.
①G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.12.
②L. M. Friedman, A History of American Law, Simon & Schuster/Touchstone, 1985, p. 300.
③[美]威廉·.M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳著:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第3页。
①[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第10页。
②Gerald J. Postema , Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 2.
③[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第35页。
④[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第42页。
①关于霍姆斯的观点,可以参见[美]斯蒂文.J.伯顿:《法律的道路及其影响——小奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯的遗产》,张芝梅等译,北京大学出版社2005年版。
②Gerald J. Postema, Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 3-4.
③Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law,转引自[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳著:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第5页。
①Guido Calabresi, Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts, The Yale Law Journal, Vol.70, 1961, 499-553.
②Richard A. Posner, A Theory of Negligence, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 1, 1972, pp. 29-96.
③Gerald J. Postema, Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 4.
④George P. Fletcher , Fairness and Utility in Tort Theory, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 85, 1972, pp. 537-573.
①与此同时,耶鲁大学教授朱尔斯·科尔曼(Jules Coleman)提出了一种与其他理论不同的矫正正义理论,并且主张这一以亚里士多德提出的概念所命名的理论是不必然与正义、优点等道德因素相关联的,从而开辟了一条有别于以上任何一种理论的、新的侵权法解释理论。
②[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第153页。
③Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 253.
①[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第1页。
②[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第156-157页。
③Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 256.
①R. H. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 3, 1960, pp. 1-44.
②G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 219.
③Richard A. Posner, A Theory of Negligence, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.1, 1972, pp. 29-96.
④Richard A. Posner, A Theory of Negligence, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.1, 1972, p. 34.
①Jules coleman, Efficiency , Utility and Wealth Maximization, in Avery Wiener Katz (ed.), Foundation of the Economic Approach to Law, Foundation Press, 1998, pp.10-17.
②[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第19页。
③科尔曼所使用的帕累托次优(pareto superiority)的概念,是依据进行帕累托改进(pareto improvement)所得结果而确定的。
④科尔曼认为,在卡尔多—希克斯公式下,对受害人的补偿并非是实际存在的,因此也不可能转变为真正的帕累托次优。参见Jules coleman, Efficiency , Utility and Wealth Maximization, in Avery Wiener Katz (ed.), Foundation of the Economic Approach to Law, Foundation Press, 1998, pp.10-17。同时,彭诚信教授认为,即使财富增加者真的想补偿,或许也找不到直接受害人,卡尔多—希克斯公式的本意无非是社会产出如果不小于损失,依然是有效率的。参见彭诚信:《主体性与私权制度研究》,中国人民大学出版社2005年版,第178页。
①[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第26-27页。
②[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第10页。
③参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言。
④[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第13页。
⑤参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第13页。
①参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第14页。
②参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第15页。
③Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, Little Brown, 1977, p.5.
④此处的市场交易成本是指市场机制运行的费用,即当事人双方在通过市场进行交易时,搜集有关信息、进行谈判、订立契约并检查、监督契约实施所需要的费用。参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第16页。
⑤参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第18页。
①参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第31页。
②G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 213.
③即通过判决侵害人对受害人的损失进行赔偿来实现当事人及社会成员对于公平与正义的追求。
④[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,第212-213页。
①[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,第218页。
②参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第316页。
③[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,第221页。
④G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 220.
①Richard A. Posner, Strict Liability-A Comment, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 2, 1973, 205.
②除非由于某种特殊的原因,使其作为低成本的事故避免者的地位发生变化。参见Calabresi and Hirschoff, Toward a Test for Strict Liability in Torts, 81 Yale Law Journal, Vol. 81, 1972, pp.1061-1064。
①G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 221.
②Calabresi and Hirschoff, Toward a Test for Strict Liability in Torts, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 81, 1972, pp. 1057-1058.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 187- 188.
①参见[美]乔纳森·特纳:《社会学理论的结构(上)》,邱泽奇等译,华夏出版社2001年版,第11页。
②参见[美]乔纳森·特纳:《社会学理论的结构(上)》,邱泽奇等译,华夏出版社2001年版,第12页。
③参见[美]乔纳森·特纳:《社会学理论的结构(上)》,邱泽奇等译,华夏出版社2001年版,第12页。
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 195.
②Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 196.
③Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 197.
④[古希腊]亚里士多德:《尼各马克伦理学》,廖申白译著,商务印书馆2006年版,第138页。
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 185.
②Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 185.
③Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 189.
④Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 204.
⑤Jules Coleman, The Practice of Corrective Justice, in David G. Owen (ed), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 72.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 207.
②Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 208;此外,在新西兰,事故所造成的损害是通过税收系统进行填补的,而无论这些损害是由人的行为造成的还是其他因素引起的。在此种情形下,矫正正义的实践也就不复存在了。当然这也并不意味对于造成损害一方来说这不存在任何义务,其仍然要承担除了赔偿损害以外的其他义务,如赔礼道歉。这表明矫正正义的实践在一定程度上要受到现实的法律制度和政治安排的影响。由于矫正正义可以促进社会与个人责任的紧密联系,因此当社会中不存在矫正正义的实践时,社会中个人之间联系的纽带以及维系整个社会存在的自由理念都会受到威胁。
③Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 253.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.198.
②Stephen R. Perry, Responsibility for Outcomes, Risk, and the Law of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp.72-130.
③Stephen R. Perry, Responsibility for Outcomes, Risk, and the Law of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 119.
④Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 200.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 201.
②Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 202.
③Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 203.
①佩里的这一有限制的结果责任的观点十分重要,我们在下文中所使用的结果责任即是这种有限制的结果责任。
②Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 303.
③Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 361.
④另外,两种理论所立基的前提也是完全不同的。科尔曼就认为,矫正正义作为道德原则的吸引力以及国家施行矫正正义的权威性是两个问题,前者涉及道德哲学问题,而后者则涉及到政治哲学的问题。国家创立并施行针对于个人或团体的侵权责任,其性质和范围涉及相应的政治理论。自由主义的政治哲学,如诺齐克所倡导的,主张将国家的权力限制为对个人权利侵犯所做出的救济。而功利主义的政治理论则对合法的政治权威进行了延伸,其允许国家创立和施行一种损害赔偿体系,这一体系基于将事故成本最小化的考量而进行规制。参见Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 363。
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.186.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.192.
②Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.193.
③Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.194.
①Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 361.
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 250.
②通过此种实证的方法可以使侵权法体系获得逻辑一致性,同时也使得在此理论指引下的法院判决更具有连贯性。由此,使侵权法所要追寻的公平、正义等价值获得维护和提升。但与此同时,尽管实证方法表明绝大部分侵权法实践可以被描述为服务于某些目标的规则,但此种目标若未经过道德层面的检验则无法为案件的判决提供合理充分的理由。任何为实证方法所归结于侵权法的目标,都需要通过规范的方法加以正当化。由此,侵权法中的描述性方法的使用并不能对规范性方法加以替代。参见Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 250。德举例加以证明:“传统的经济分析理论在解释侵权规则时主张威慑,而矫正正
①[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第10页。
②Gerald J. Postema , Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 5.
③Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 251-252。
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 251.
②Gerald J. Postema, Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 18.
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 258.
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 259.
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 260.
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 262.
②Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 262.
③[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第63页。
①[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第63页。
②[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第63 -64页。
③Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 263.
①Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 380.
①Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 362.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 187- 188.
①参见[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第4 -7页。
②[英]边沁:《道德与立法原理导论》,时殷弘译,商务印书馆2005年版,第58页。
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 263.
①转引自王泽鉴:《侵权行为法之危机及其发展趋势》,载《民法学说与判例研究》(第二册),中国政法大学出版社1997年版,第143页。
①History of ACC, http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/WCM001275, 2008-08-06.
②Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury, Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand: Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (1967),§5.
①Ken Oliphant, Accident Compensation in New Zealand, http://www.ihej.org/ressources/ccassation_risques_0607/05-12-06_ken_oliphant-en, 2008-08-09.
①[古希腊]亚里士多德:《尼各马克伦理学》,廖申白译著,商务印书馆2006年版,第138页。
②[古希腊]亚里士多德:《尼各马克伦理学》,廖申白译著,商务印书馆2006年版,第137页。
①History of ACC, http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/WCM001275, 2008-08-06.
②Colleen M. Flood, New Zealand’s No-Fault Accident Compensation Scheme: Paradise or Panacea?, Health Law Review, Vol. 8, 1999, p.3.
③[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第12-13页。
①当然,修正后的损害赔偿体系能否满足社会的需要,其自身的运转能够正常,则是另外的问题了。
②Queenstown Lakes District Council v. Palmer, CA83/98,http://www.brookers.co.nz/legal/judgments/default.htm, 2008-08-09。
③Ellison v. L. [1998] 1 NZLR 416,http://www.brookers.co.nz/legal/judgments/default.htm, 2008-08-09。
①H. Luntz, Looking Back at Accident Compensation: An Australian Perspective, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, Vol. 34, 2003, pp.285-288.
②另一个重要原因是,执政的工党政府此时在参议院中并不占有多数席位。
③Sugarman, Doing Away with Tort Law, California Law Review, Vol. 73, 1985, p.555; J. O’Connell, No-Fault Insurance for All Accidents, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 13, 1975, p.461.
①王泽鉴:《侵权行为法(1)·基本理论·一般侵权行为》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第36页。
②邓正来教授在其翻译的《自由秩序原理》一书中将non-rational factors翻译为理性不及因素,意指社会进化过程中和人的日常生活中所存在的大量的为个人之理性所不及的因素,这些因素虽然为个人理性所不及,但却在人们的生活实践中起着重要作用,有些甚至是人虽不理解但却在行动中遵循的基本规则。但这种因素绝不意味着人的理性永远不能企及它们,亦不意味着人们不应当去努力发现它们和认识它们。参见[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(上),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第24页。
③[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(上),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第20页。
④[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(上),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第21页。
①[英]冯·哈耶克:《哈耶克论文集》,邓正来译,首都经济贸易大学出版社2001年版,第122页。
②[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第346-347页。
①[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(上),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第39页。
②[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(下),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第50页。
①[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(下),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第46页。
②[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(下),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第46页。
①[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(下),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第47-48页。
②Ken Oliphant本人则可以说是这类制度性专家中的一员,参见Ken Oliphant, Accident Compensation in New Zealand, http://www.ihej.org/ressources/ccassation_risques_0607/05-12-06_ken_oliphant-en, 2008-08-09.
③G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.287.
①Ken Oliphant, Accident Compensation in New Zealand, http://www.ihej.org/ressources/ccassation_risques_0607/05-12-06_ken_oliphant-en, 2008-08-09.
②该部法律的名称为the Accident Insurance Amendment Act and Accident Insurance (Transitional Provisions) Act。
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory: Preliminary Reflection on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 186.
①Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 232.
②Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 233.
③Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 233.
①Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 234.
②Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
②Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 235.
③Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 236.
①Senn v. Merrell-Dow Pharms., Inc., 751 P.2d 215, 223 (Or. 1988).
②Mark A. Geistfeld: The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability And Market-Share Liability, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 2006, p. 447.
①David Rosenberg, The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A "Public Law" Vision of the Tort System, 97 Harvard Law Review, Vol. 97, 1984, pp. 849-868; Richard W. Wright, Causation in Tort Law, 73 California Law Review, Vol. 73, 1985, pp.1735-1820.
②Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1, 2 (Cal. 1948).
①Mark A. Geistfeld: The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability And Market-Share Liability, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 2006, p. 460.
②Rest.2d Torts,§433B, com. f, p. 446.
①Mark A. Geistfeld: The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability And Market-Share Liabilit, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 2006, p. 469.
②Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1, 2 (Cal. 1948).
③Ybarra v. Spangard, 154 P.2d 687 (Cal. 1944).
④事实自证规则,即在过失造成伤害的案件中,推定被告有过失。适用此项规则,必须:造成伤害的工具(器械)由被告控制或管理;按照当时的环境,根据一般的经验和常识,如果不是被告的疏忽大意,事故不会发生;原告所受伤害是事故造成的。被告如要推翻此项推定,必须提出相反的证据。参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第1189页。
⑤Mark A. Geistfeld: The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability And Market-Share Liabilit, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 2006, p. 474.
①David A. Fischer, Successive Causes and the Enigma of Duplicated Harm, Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 66, 1999, pp. 1127-1130.
②Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liab. for Physical Harm &8 cmt. f (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 2005).
③Stephen R. Perry, Responsibility for Outcomes, Risk, and the Law of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp.119-120.
①Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 238.
②Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①Brown v Superior Ct., 44 Cal. 3d 1049, 751 P. 2d 470.
①Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①叶正明:《国外药品不良反应损害救济制度述评及其对我们的启示》,载《时代法学》2005年第1期,第96页。
①吴晨光、法伊莎:《谁对“龙胆泻肝丸”受害者负责?》,载《南方周末》2004年3月11日,第5版。
②《三鹿牌婴幼儿奶粉事件滚动报道》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2008-09/12/content_9935963.htm,2008年11月1日。
③《婴幼儿配方奶粉三聚氰胺专项检查阶段性检查结果公布》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2008-09/17/content_10047162.htm,2008年11月1日。
④据报道,内蒙古赤峰市翁牛特旗消费者王晓华状告“龙胆泻肝丸”经销企业胜诉,被判获得赔偿3.9304万元,这是国内第一起胜诉的龙胆泻肝丸受害人要求赔偿的案件。参见宫靖:《举证倒置破解龙胆泻肝丸案僵局服药受害者获赔》,http://finance.sina.com.cn/20050728/1102236359.shtml,2008年9月27日。
①Sindell v. Abbott Labs. , 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
②Sindell v. Abbott Labs. , 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①王利明:《侵权行为法研究:上卷》,中国人民大学出版社2004年版,第738页。
②杨立新:《试论共同危险行为》,载《法学研究》1987年第5期,第52-53页。
①张新宝:《中国侵权行为法》,中国社会科学出版社1998年版,第171页。
②史尚宽:《债法总论》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版,第169页。
①受理第一起三聚氰胺民事诉讼的石家庄市新华区法院要求受害人家属提供的证据有:身份证原件、户口本、儿童出生证明书,购买奶粉书证(发票或购物票据或销售商证明等),奶粉物证(奶粉袋/罐),受害者诊断证明书、化验结果、住院记录、出院通知等医疗单据,以及护理婴幼儿的家长(或其他护理人员)的工资收入证明、医疗期间支出的交通费票据等证据。参见叶逗逗:《河北法院受理三鹿民事赔偿第一案》,http://www.caijing.com.cn/2009-03-25/110128054.html,2009年3月28日。
②百度百科:《石棉肺》,http://baike.baidu.com/view/718142.htm,2008年11月22日。
③罗素琼等:《大姚县青石棉污染的危害及预防与控制》,载《中华劳动卫生职业病杂志》2000年第4期。
①Calabresi, J., dissenting, McCarthy v. Olin Corp., 119 F.3d 148, 161 (2d Cir. 1997).
[1]王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究:第1-8册[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1997.
[2]王泽鉴.侵权行为法(1):基本理论:一般侵权行为[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[3]王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[4]江平.侵权行为法研究:中美侵权法国际研讨会文集[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2004.
[5]曾世雄.损害赔偿法原理[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[6]黄茂荣.法学方法与现代民法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[7]王家福.中国民法学:民法债权[M].北京:法律出版社,1991.
[8]梁慧星.为权利而斗争[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2000.
[9]梁慧星.民商法论丛:第1卷[M].北京:法律出版社,1994.
[10]梁慧星.民法学说判例与立法研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1993.
[11]梁慧星.中国民法经济法诸问题[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1999.
[12]王利明,杨立新.侵权行为法[M].北京:法律出版社,1996.
[13]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,1997.
[14]王利明.侵权行为法研究:上[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[15]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,1992.
[16]王利明.民法:侵权行为法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1993.
[17]杨立新.侵权法热点问题法律应用[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2000.
[18]杨立新.侵权行为法案例教程[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2003.
[19]杨立新,等.侵权法三人谈[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[20]杨立新.民法判解研究与适用[M].北京:中国检察出版社,1997.
[21]杨立新.侵权法论[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2000.
[22]张新宝.中国侵权行为法[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[23]张新宝.侵权法评论:2003年第1辑[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2003.
[24]张新宝.侵权法评论:2003年第2辑[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2003.
[25]张新宝.侵权责任法原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[26]潘维大.英美侵权行为法案例解析[M].台北:瑞兴图书股份有限公司,2002.
[27]陈聪富.因果关系与损害赔偿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[28]陈聪富.侵权归责原则与损害赔偿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[29]王军.侵权行为法比较研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[30]王军.侵权法上严格责任的原理和实践[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[31]熊进光.侵权行为法上的安全注意义务研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[32]于敏.日本侵权行为法[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[33]王文杰.侵权行为法之立法趋势[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006.
[34]麻昌华.侵权行为法地位研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[35]张民安.侵权法报告:第1卷[M].北京:中信出版社,2005.
[36]史尚宽.债法总论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[37]苏永钦.走进新世纪的私法自治[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[38]刘得宽.民法诸问题与新展望[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[39]孔祥俊.民商法新问题与判解研究[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1996.
[40]杨与龄.民法概要[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[41]王卫国.过错责任原则:第三次勃兴[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2000.
[1] [德]克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.欧洲比较侵权行为法[M].张新宝,焦美华译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[2] [德]克里斯蒂安·冯·巴尔,乌里希·德罗布尼希.欧洲合同法与侵权法及财产法的互动[M].吴越,王洪,等译.北京:法律出版社,2007.
[3] [德]马克西米利安·福克斯.侵权行为法[M].齐晓琨译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[4] [美]格瑞尔德·J·波斯特马.哲学与侵权行为法[M].陈敏,等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[5] [美]文森特·R·约翰逊.美国侵权法[M].赵秀文,等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[6]美国法律研究院.侵权法重述第三版:产品责任[M].肖永平,等译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[7]美国法律研究院.侵权法重述:纲要[M].许传玺,等译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[8] [美]布兰代斯,等.哈佛法律评论·侵权法学精粹[M].徐爱国译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[9] [德]卡尔·拉伦兹.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥译.北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[10] [德]罗尔夫·克尼佩尔.法律与历史:论《德国民法典》的形成与变迁[M].朱岩译.北京:法律出版社,2003.
[11] [德]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M].邵建东译.北京:法律出版社,2000.
[12] [德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M].王晓晔,程建英,等译.北京:法律出版社,2003.
[13] [美]威廉·M.兰德斯,理查德·A.波斯纳.侵权法的经济结构[M].王强,杨媛译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[14] [美]理查德·A.波斯纳.法律的经济分析[M].蒋兆康译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1997.
[15] [美]康芒斯.制度经济学[M].于树生译.北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[16] [美]罗伯特·考特,托马斯·尤伦.法和经济学[M].张军译.上海:上海三联书店,1994.
[17] [日]青木昌彦.比较制度分析[M].周黎安译.上海:上海远东出版社,2001.
[18] [英]巴里·尼古拉斯.罗马法概论[M].黄风译.北京:法律出版社,2004年.
[19] [英]梅因.古代法[M].沈景一译.北京:商务印书馆,1959.
[20] [美]斯蒂文·J·伯顿.法律的道路及其影响:小奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯的遗产[M].张芝梅,等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[21] [英]边沁.道德与立法原理导论[M].时殷弘译.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[22] [英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克.自由秩序原理[M].邓正来译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.
[23] [英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克.哈耶克论文集[M].邓正来译.北京:首都经济贸易大学出版社,2001.
[24] [德]柯武刚,史漫飞.制度经济学:社会秩序与公共政策[M].韩朝华译.北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[25] [美]艾伦·沃森.民法法系的演变及形成[M].李静冰,姚新华译.北京:中国法制出版社,2005.
[26] [美]约翰·亨利·梅利曼.大陆法系[M].顾培东,禄正平译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[27] [意]彼德罗·彭梵得.罗马法教科书[M].黄风译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1992.
[28] [日]田山辉明.物权法[M].陆庆胜译.北京:法律出版社,2001.
[29] [古希腊]亚里士多德.尼各马可伦理学[M].苗力田译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1990.
[30] [古希腊]亚里士多德.政治学[M].吴寿彭译.北京:商务印书馆,1983.
[31] [美]波斯纳.法理学问题[M].苏力译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[32] [美]乔纳森·特纳.社会学理论的结构:上[M].邱泽奇,等译.北京:华夏出版社,2001.
[1] [美]索尔·莱夫莫尔.侵权行为法基础:影印本[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[2] [美]爱德华·柯恩卡.侵权法:影印本[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.
[3] [美]理查德·A·爱泼斯坦.侵权法[M].北京:中信出版社,2003.
[4] [美]理查德·A·爱泼斯坦.侵权法:案例与资料[M].北京:中信出版社,2003.
[5] [美]史蒂文·L·伊曼纽尔.侵权法[M].北京:中信出版社,2003.
[6] [英]John Cooke.Law of Tort[M].北京:法律出版社, 2003.
[7] A.R.Leal,N.Coleman.Objective Tests in Tort[M].London:Longman,1981.
[8] B . S . Markesinis . A Comparative Introduction to the German Law ofTort[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1986.
[9] David G.Owen (ed.).Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1995.
[10] Ernest J.Weinrib.The Idea of Private Law[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1995.
[11] Ewoud Hondius.Modern Trends in Tort Law:Dutch and Japanese Law Compared[M].Alphen aan den Rijn,the Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,1999.
[12] Franz Werro,Vernon Valentine Palmer.The Boundaries of Strict Liability in European Tort Law[M].Durham NC:Carolina Academic Press,2004.
[13] Franklin,Rabin.Tort Law and Alternatives[M].New York:Foundation Press,2001.
[14] G.Edward White.Tort Law in America-An Intellectual History[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003.
[15] Gerald J.Postema(ed.).Philosophy and the Law of Torts[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001.
[16] Gerhard Wagner (ed.).Tort Law and Liability Insurance[M].NewYork:SpringerWienNewYork,2005.
[17] Harris.Remedies in Contract and Tort[M].London:Butterworths LexisNexis,2002.
[18] H.L.A.Hart,T.Honore.Causation in the Law[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1985.
[19] Izhak Englard.The Philosophy of Tort Law[M].Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing Company,1993.
[20] J.Horder (ed.).Essays in Jurisprudence[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,2000.
[21] Jules Coleman.Risks and Wrongs[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1992.
[22] John G.Fleming.An introduction to the Law of Torts[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1985.
[23] J.Spier(ed.).Unification of Tort Law:Causation[M].Alphen aan den Rijn,the Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2000.
[24] L.M.Friedman.A History of American Law[M].New York:Simon & Schuster/Touchstone,1985.
[25] Mark Lunney,Ken Oliphant.Tort law:Text and Materials[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
[26] M.Stuart Madden.Exploring Tort Law[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[27] Peter Kaye.Private International Law of Tort and Product Liability: Jurisdiction,Applicable law , and Extraterritorial Protective Measures[M] . Aldershot :Dartmouth,1991.
[28] Peter Cane.Tort Law and Economic Interests[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1991.
[29] Prosser.Law of Torts[M].Wisconsin:West Publishing,1971.
[30] Richard A.Posner.Economic Analysis of Law[M].London:Little Brown, 1977 .
[31] Robert E.Keeton,Lewis D.Sargentich.Tort and Accident law:Cases and Materials[M].Weisconsing:West Group,2004.
[32] Simon Deskin,Angus Johnston,Basil Markesinis.Markesinis and Deakon’s Tort Law[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,2003.
[33] Tony Weir.A Casebook on Tort[M].London:Sweet & Maxwell,1988.
[34] U.Magnus,M.Martin-Casals(ed.).Unification of Tort Law:Contributory Negligence[M].Alphen aan den Rijn,the Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2004.
[35] U.Magnus(ed.).Unification of Tort Law:Damages[M].Alphen aan den Rijn,the Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2001.
[36] W.V.H.Rogers(ed.).Unification of Tort Law:Multiple Tortfeasors[M].Alphen aan den Rijn,the Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2004.
[1]王传辉,黄迎.美国产品责任法革命述评[J].政治与法律,1997(5):57-61.
[2]张骐.在效益与权利之间:美国产品责任法的理论基础[J].中国法学,1997 (6):103-109.
[3]孔祥俊.论侵权行为法的归责原则[J].中国法学,1992(5):77.
[4]米健.再论现代侵权行为法的归责原则[J].政法论坛,1991(2):22-26.
[5]孙波.完善我国产品责任法之思考[J].政法论坛,2001(1):98-105.
[6]孙波.论美国产品责任法的几个重大突破[J].国家检察官学院学报,2001(1):123-128.
[7]梁慧星.中国产品责任法:兼论假冒伪劣之根源和对策[J].法学,2001(6):38-44.
[8]杨兴定.论产品责任主体之间的责任关系[J].河北法学,1999(4):72-73.
[9]张桂红.美国产品责任法的最新发展及其对我国的启示[J].法商研究,2001(6):100-105.
[10]千省利,薛平智.我国产品责任归责原则的法学与经济学分析[J].河北法学,2002(3):30-33.
[11]罗素琼,等.大姚县青石棉污染的危害及预防与控制[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2000,(4):213-215.
[12]徐孟洲,谢增毅.一部颇具经济法理念的产品质量法:兼评我国《产品质量法》的修改[J].法学家,2001(3):60-65.
[13]金磊.国外产品质量责任的发展、现状及借鉴[J].决策借鉴,1995(4):21-22.
[14]张骐.中美产品责任的归责原则比较[J].中外法学,1998(4):59-66.
[15]周新军,容缨.论我国产品责任归责原则[J].政法论坛,2002,(3):67-71.
[16]侯怀霞,汪渊智.产品责任之抗辩[J].法律科学,1998(4):73-75.
[17]黄芬.侵权责任法制定中的重大疑难问题:中国法学会民法学研究会2008年年会述评[J].河北法学,2009(2):20.
[18]杨立新.试论共同危险行为[J].法学研究,1987(5):52-53.
[19]怀宇.市场份额责任理论刍议[J].人民司法,2006(6):84-86.
[20]岳彩申.论严格产品责任的新发展[J].社会科学研究,2000(5):66.
[21]祝磊.美国产品责任法归责原则的嬗变[J].社会科学研究,2003(2):93-95.
[22]张民宪,马栩生.荷兰产品责任制度之新发展[J].法学评论,2005(1):105.
[23]齐爱武.我国产品责任适用严格责任的几点建议[J].山西高等学校社会科学学报,2006(12):47-49.
[24]叶正明.国外药品不良反应损害救济制度述评及其对我们的启示[J].时代法学,2005(1):96.
[25]吴晨光,法伊莎.谁对“龙胆泻肝丸”受害者负责?[N].南方周末,2004-03-11,(5).
[26]新华网.三鹿牌婴幼儿奶粉事件滚动报道[EB/OL] .( 2008-09-12 ) [2008-11-01]http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2008-09/12/content _9935963.htm.
[27]新华网.婴幼儿配方奶粉三聚氰胺专项检查阶段性检查结果公布[EB/OL].(2008-09-17)[2008-11-01] .http://news.xinhuanet.com/ newscenter/2008-09/17/content_10047162.htm.
[28]刘京京.“毒奶粉”患儿医疗赔偿方案正式公布[EB/OL].(2009-02-25)[2009-02-25] .http://www.caijing.com.cn/2009-02-25/110073791.html.
[29]叶逗逗.善后未了局[EB/OL].(2009-01-02)[2009-02-25] .http://magazine. caijing.com.cn/2009-01-02/110056971.html.
[30]叶逗逗.河北法院受理三鹿民事赔偿第一案[EB/OL].(2009-03-25)[2009-03-28].http://www.caijing.com.cn/2009-03-25/110128054.html.
[31]宫靖.举证倒置破解龙胆泻肝丸案僵局:服药受害者获赔.[EB/OL].(2005-07- 28)[2008-09-27].http://finance.sina.com.cn/20050728/1102236359.shtml.
[1] Allen Rostron.Beyond Market Share Liability:A Theory of Proportional Share Liability for Nonfungible Products[J].UCLA Law Review,2004,52:151.
[2] Andrew B.Nace.Market Share Liability:A Current Assessment of A Decade-Old Doctrine[J].Vanderbilt Law Review,1991,44:395-415.
[3] Andrew R.Klein.Rejecting the Application of Market Share Liability in Blood Products Litigation[J].Tulane Law Review,1994,68:883-936.
[4] Anthony M.Marino.Market Share Liability and Economic Efficiency[J]. Southern Economic Journal,1991,57:667-675.
[5] Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky.Corrective Justice in An Age of Mass Torts[M]// Gerald J . Postema (ed.) . Philosophy and the Law of Torts.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001:214-249.
[6] Christopher H.Schroeder.Corrective Justice and Liability for Increasing Risks[J].UCLA Law Review,1990,37:439-478.
[7] Christopher J.McGuire.Market Share Liability after Hymowitz and Conley:Exploring the Limits of Judicial Power[J].University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform,1991,24:759-783.
[8] Colleen M.Flood.New Zealand’s No-Fault Accident Compensation Scheme:Paradise or Panacea?[J].Health Law Review,1999,8:175.
[9] Cynthial Chase.Market Share Liability:A Plea for Legislative Alternatives[J]. University of Illinois Law Review,1982:1003-1049.
[10] Dalmau Garcia.Revisiting Payton v.Abbott Laboratories: Is Market Share Libility A Viable Theory of Recovery in Massachusetts? [J].Boston University Law Review,2000,80:1127-1173.
[11] Daniel J.Grimm.Accounting for Risk Disparity: An Alternative to Market Share Liability[J].Columbia Business Law Review,2006,549.
[12] Daniel J.Grimm.Global Warming and Market Share Liability: A Proposed Model for Allocating Tort Damages among CO2 Producers[J].Columbia Journal of Environmental Law,2007,32:209-257.
[13] David A . Fischer . Successive Causes and the Enigma of Duplicated Harm[J].Tennessee Law Review,1999,66:1127-1130.
[14] David G.Owen.The Distributive Turn:Mischief,Misfortune,and Tort Law[J].Quinnipiac Law Review,1996,16:315-338.
[15] David G.Owen.On The Relationship between Corrective and Distributive Justice[M]// J.Horder (ed.).Essays in Jurisprudence.Oxford:Clarendon Press,2000.
[16] David Rosenberg.The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A Public Law Vision of the Tort System[J].Harvard Law Review,1984,97:849-868.
[17] Donald G.Gifford,Paolo Pasicolan.Market Share Liability Beyond DES Cases:The Solution to the Causation Dilemma in Lead Paint Litigation?[J].South Carolina Law Review,2006,58:115-184.
[18] Emily H.Damron.Reviving the Market for Liability Theories:The Commingled Product Theory of Market Share Liability Enters the Judicial Lexicon[J].PennState Law Review,2007,111(2):505-526.
[19] Ernest J.Weinrib.Rights,Justice,and Tort Law[M]// David G.Owen (ed.). Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law.Oxford:Clarendon Press,1995.
[20] Gary T.Schwartz.The Ethics and Economics of Tort Liability Insurance[J]. Cornell Law Review,1990,76:313.
[21] Gerald J.Postema.Search for An Explanatory Theory of Torts [M]// Gerald J.Postema (ed.).Philosophy and the Law of Torts.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001:1-21.
[22] George P.Fletcher.Fairness and Utility in Tort Theory[J].Harvard Law Review,1972,85:537-573.
[23] Guido Calabresi . Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts[J].The Yale Law Journal,1961,70:499-553.
[24] Harold L.Korn.Rethinking Personal Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Multistate Mass Torts[J].Columbia Law Review,1997,97(7).
[25] Harvey Teff.Market Share Liability:A Novel Approach to Causation[J].The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,1982,31:840-844.
[26] Henderson,Twerski.Closing the American Products Liability Frontier:The Rejection Liability without Defect[J].New York University Law Review,1991,66:1263.
[27] H . Luntz . Looking Back at Accident Compensation : An Australian Perspective[J].Victoria University of Wellington Law Review,2003,34:279-292.
[28] James A.Henderson,Theodore Eisenberg.The Quiet Revolution in Products Liability:An Empirical Study of Legal Changes[J].UCLA Law Review,1990,37:479-553.
[29] James A.Henderson.The Efficacy of Organic Tort Reform[J].Cornell Law Review,1992,77:596-611.
[30] Jeremy Waldron.Moments of Carelessness and Massive Loss[M]// David G.Owen (ed.).Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law.Oxford: Clarendon Press,1995.
[31] Joel W.Baar.Let the Drug Dealer Beware:Market-share Liability in Michigan for the Injuries Caused by Illegal Drug Market[J].Valparaiso University Law Review,1997,32:139.
[32] Jules Coleman,Arthur Ripstein.Mischief and Misfortune[J].McGill Law Journal,1995,41:91-130.
[33] Jules Coleman.Property,Wrongfulness,and the Duty to Compensate[J]. Chicago-Kent Law Review,1987,63:451-470.
[34] Jules Coleman.The Practice of Corrective Justice[M]// David G.Owen(ed.). Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law.Oxford:Oxford University Press,1995.
[35] Jules Coleman.Tort Law and the Demands of Corrective Justice[J].Indiana Law Review,1992,67:349.
[36] Jules Coleman . Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method[M]// Gerald J . Postema(ed.).Philosophy and the Law of Torts.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001:183-213.
[37] Ken Oliphant.Accident Compensation in New Zealand[EB/OL].(2005-12-06) [2008-08-09].http://www.ihej.org/ressources/ccassation_risques_0607/05-12-06 _ken_oliphant-en.
[38] Kenneth R.Lepage.Lead-based Paint Litigation and the Problem of Causation: Toward a Unified Theory of Market Share Liability[J].Boston College Law Review,1996,37:155-186.
[39] Kenneth W.Simons.Deontology,Negligence,Tort,and Crime[J].Boston University Law Review,1996,76:273.
[40] Kurt M.Zitzer,Marc D.Ginsberg.Illinois Rejects Market Share Liability: A Policy Based Analysis of Smith v.Eli Lilly & Co.[J].Kentucky Law Journal,1991,79:617-689.
[41] Mark A.Geistfeld.The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability and Market-share Liability[J].University of Pennsylvania Law Review,2006,155:447-501.
[42] Mark A.Geistfeld.Economics,Moral Philosophy,and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law[M]// Gerald J . Postema (ed.) . Philosophy and the Law of Torts.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001.
[43] Mark J.Sundahl.Unidentified Orbital Debris:The Case for A Market-ShareLiability Regime[J].Hastings International and Comparative Law Review,2000,24:125.
[44] Mark Reeve.Washington Survey:Washington Adopts Market Share Liability for DES Producers-Martin v.Abbott Laboratories,102 Wn.2d 581,689 P.2d 368(1984)[J].Washington Law Review,1985,60:543-553.
[45] Market Share Liability:An Answer to the DES Causation Problem[J].Harvard Law Review,1981,94(3):668-680.
[46] Mary Jane Sheffet.Market Share Liability: A New Doctrine of Causation in Product Liability[J].Journal of Marketing,1983,47:35-43.
[47] Neilk Komesar.Injuries and Institutions:Tort Reform,Tort Theory and Beyond[J].New York University Law Review,1990,65.
[48] Nomi Sheiner.DES and A Proposed Theory of Enterprise Liability[J].Fordham Law Review,1978,46:997.
[49] Prosser.The Fall of the Citadel( Strict Liability to the Consumer )[J].Minnesota Law Review,1966,50:791-848.
[50] R.H.Coase.The Problem of Social Cost[J].Journal of Law and Economics,1960,3:1-44.
[51] Richard Abel.A Critique of Torts[J].UCLA Law Review,1990,37:785.
[52] Richard A . Epstein . Causation and Corrective Justice-A Reply to Two Critics[J].Jounal of Legal Studies,1979,8:477-496.
[53] Richard A.Posner.A Theory of Negligence[J].The Journal of Legal Studies,1972,1:29-96.
[54] Richard A.Posner.The Concept of Corrective Justice in Recent Theories of Tort Law[J].The Journal of Legal Studies,1981,10:187-206.
[55] Richard A.Posner.Strict Liability-A Comment[J].The Journal of Legal Studies,1973,2:205.
[56] Richard W.Wright.Causation in Tort Law[J].California Law Review,1985,73:1735-1820.
[57] Robert A.Kors.Refining Market Share Liability: Sindell v.Abbott Laboratories[J].Stanford Law Review,1981,33(5):937-950.
[58] Robert F.Daley.A Suggested Proposal to Apportion Liability in Lead PigmentCases[J].Duquesne Law Review,1997,36:79.
[59] Shirley H.Fang.Santiago v.Sherwin-Williams Co.: Rejection of Market Share Liability in Lead-Based Paint Litigation[J].Buffalo Law Review,1995,43:725-769.
[60] Stephen R.Perry.On The Relationship between Corrective and Distributive Justice[M]//J.Horder (ed.).Essays in Jurisprudence.Oxford:Clarendon Press,2000.
[61] Stephen R.Perry.Responsibility for Outcomes,Risk,and the Law of Torts [M]// Gerald J.Postema (ed.).Philosophy and the Law of Torts.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001:72-130.
[62] Stephen R.Perry.The Mixed Conception of Corrective Justice[J].Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy,1992,15:63.
[63] Sugarman.Doing Away with Tort Law[J].California Law Review,1985,73:555-660.
[64] Suzanne Ernst Drummond.DES and Market Share Liability in Ohio-A Lesson in How What You Don't Know Can Hurt You: Sutowski v.Eli Lilly, 696 N.E.2d 187(Ohio 1998)[J].University of Cincinnati Law Review,1999,67:1331-1362.
[65] Weinrib.Causation and Wrongdoing[J].The Chicago-Kent Law Review,1983,63:407-440.
[66] Wright.Actual Causation v.Probabilistic Linkage:The Bane of Economic Analysis[J].The Journal of Legal Studies,1985,14:435.
②Mary Jane Sheffet, Market Share Liability: A New Doctrine of Causation in Product Liability, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 47, 1983, pp. 35-43; Market Share Liability: An Answer to the DES Causation Problem, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 94, 1981, pp. 668-680.
③美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述第三版:产品责任》,肖永平等译,法律出版社2006年版,第328页。本文按照惯常译法将American Law Institute译为美国法律学会,将Restatement of the Law, Third, Torts: Products Liability译为《侵权法第三次重述:产品责任》。但在引用有关本次重述的相关中文文本时,仍按其出版时所采纳的译法引用。
④Robert F. Daley, A Suggested Proposal to Apportion Liability in Lead Pigment Cases, Duquesne Law Review, Vol. 36, 1997, p. 79.
①Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 219.
②Mark A. Geistfeld, The Doctrinal Unity of AlternativeLliability and Market-shareLiability, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 2006, p.453.
③Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 364.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.184.
②以“市场份额责任”为“题名”在“中国知网”进行跨库检索,即在中国期刊全文数据库、中国博士学位论文全文数据库、中国优秀硕士学位论文全文数据库、中国重要会议论文全文数据库、中国重要报纸全文数据库中,仅有一篇与此相关的论文(怀宇:《市场份额责任理论刍议》,载《人民司法》2006年第6期)。以“市场份额责任”为“关键字”在“中国知网”进行跨库检索,仅有五篇文章涉及市场份额责任(岳彩申:《论严格产品责任的新发展》,载《社会科学研究》2000年第5期;祝磊:《美国产品责任法归责原则的嬗变》,载《社会科学研究》2003年第2期;张民宪、马栩生:《荷兰产品责任制度之新发展》,载《法学评论》2005年第1期;齐爱武:《我国产品责任适用严格责任的几点建议》,载《山西高等学校社会科学学报》,2006年第12期;金磊:《国外产品质量责任的发展、现状及借鉴》,载《决策借鉴》1995年第4期)。而在各种著作中,就目前笔者所涉及的,仅有李响编著的《美国侵权法原理及案例研究》(中国政法大学出版社2004年版,其中有一节对市场份额责任做出了简单的介绍)以及美国法律学会颁布的《侵权法第三次重述:产品责任》与此相关。
③纽约州上诉法院,即Court of Appeals of New York,是纽约州法院系统中的最高审级,相当于其他州的州最高法院。
④Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 73 N.Y.2d 487 (1989).
①Richard A. Posner, The Concept of Corrective Justice in Recent Theories of Tort Law, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 10, 1981, p.187.
②为探寻一种有效且合理的市场份额规则模式,就必须对两种侵权法理论的进行比较分析,并对其正当性问题及其哲学基础进行探讨。
①市场份额规则确立过程中另一具有代表性的案件是纽约州上诉法院在1989年审理的海默维茨诉埃里里公司案(Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 73 N.Y.2d 487 (1989).),在该案中法院确立了与辛德尔案完全不同的市场份额规则模式。
②Abel v. Eli Lilly & Company, 418 Mich. 311, 317; 343 N.W.2d 164 (1984).
③Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,http://www.cdc.gov/DES/consumers/about/history.html, 2008-05-15.
④Abel v. Eli Lilly & Company, 418 Mich. 311, 317; 343 N.W.2d 164 (1984).
⑤Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,http://www.cdc.gov/DES/consumers/about/history.html, 2008-05-15.
①美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述——纲要》,许传玺等译,法律出版社2006年版,第123页。
②Franklin and Rabin, Tort Law and Alternatives, Foundation Press, 2001, p. 341.
③Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①Rest.2d Torts,§433B, com. f, p. 446.
②Section 433B, subdivision (3) of the Restatement provides: Where the conduct of two or more actors is tortious, and it is proved that harm has been caused to the plaintiff by only one of them, but there is uncertainty as to which one has caused it, the burden is upon each such actor to prove that he has not caused the harm.
③Mark A. Geistfeld, The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability and Market-share Liability, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 2006, p. 447.
①Hall v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 1972) 345 F. Supp. 353.
②Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307 (E.D.N.Y. 1996).
③本案的原告都是些有亲属死在被告生产出来的手枪下的人,比如一位名叫Freddie Hamilton的原告就是因为儿子Njuzi Ray在一起冲突中死于Beretta或Taurus牌的9毫米口径的手枪才参加诉讼的,而另一名叫Katina Johnstone的原告的丈夫David Johnstone则被一把偷来的Smith & Wesson牌左轮手枪所射杀。参见李响编:《美国侵权法原理及案例研究》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第316页。
④参见李响编:《美国侵权法原理及案例研究》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第315页。
①Nomi Sheiner: DES and a Proposed Theory of Enterprise Liability, Fordham Law Review, Vol.46, 1978, p. 997.
②Nomi Sheiner: DES and a Proposed Theory of Enterprise Liability, Fordham Law Review, Vol.46, 1978, p. 997.
①Mary Jane Sheffet, Market Share Liability: A New Doctrine of Causation in Product Liability, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 47, 1983, pp. 35-43.
②侵权法第三次重述中的产品责任部分中规定:一份产品在销售或者分销的时候,包含制造缺陷,产品设计存在缺陷,或者因为缺乏使用说明或警示而存在缺陷,该产品构成缺陷产品。参见美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述第三版:产品责任》,肖永平等译,法律出版社2006年版,第1-15页。
①参见美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述第三版:产品责任》,肖永平等译,法律出版社2006年版,第40-41页。
①Franklin and Rabin, Tort Law and Alternatives, Foundation Press, 2001, p. 341.
①Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 150 P.2d 436, 24 Cal.2d 453, (1944).
②Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1, 2 (Cal. 1948).
③Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 150 P.2d 436, 24 Cal.2d 453, (1944).
④Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 73 N.Y.2d 487 (1989).
②Restatement of the Law, Third, Torts: Products Liability.
③参见美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述第三版:产品责任》,肖永平等译,法律出版社2006年版,第328页。
④目前在美国的各州中,已经有加利福尼亚州,佛罗里达州,夏威夷州,马萨诸塞州,密歇根州,纽约州,南达科特州,德克萨斯州,华盛顿州,威斯康辛州共十个州在不同的程度上已经对DES案件适用市场份额规则。参见Ben T. Greer, Market Share Liability 30 Years Later: A Need to Focus on Profits in The Calculations of Liability, unpublished paper。其它州也有逐渐采纳这一规则的趋势,并且这一规则的适用正扩大到其它有毒物质致损案件。
⑤参见美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述第三版:产品责任》,肖永平等译,法律出版社2006年版,第332页。
①“(1) the generic nature of the product; (2) the long latency period of the harm; (3) the inability of plaintiffs to discover which defendant’s product caused plaintiff’s harm, even after exhaustive discovery; (4) the clarity of the causal connection between the defective product and the harm suffered by plaintiffs; (5) the absence of other medical or environmental factors that could have caused or materially contributed to the harm; and (6) the availability of sufficient‘market share’data to support reasonable apportionment of liability.”Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability§15, comment c.
②美国法律研究院:《侵权法重述第三版:产品责任》,肖永平等译,法律出版社2006年版,第329页。
①Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 73 N.Y.2d 487 (1989).
①Martin v Abbott Labs., 102 Wash. 2d 581, 689 P. 2d 368.
①Martin v Abbott Labs., 102 Wash. 2d 581, 689 P. 2d 368.
②Brown v Superior Ct., 44 Cal. 3d 1049, 751 P. 2d 470.
①H.L.A. Hart and T. Honore, Causation in the Law, Oxford University Press, 1985, p.161.
②以下论述中对瑞普斯坦和兹普斯利的具体观点做出注释,而对其论证过程的批判则参见Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 217-222。
③Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 218.
①[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第135-136页。
①G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 8.
②60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 292 (1850).
③G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 19.
④注意义务在普通法中作用为何?学者认为“如果普通法中注意义务的概念服务于一个有效目的的话,则这一目的就是综合法院在决定过错责任的范围时所适用的众多的不同标准。另外,注意义务具有优于因果观念的优势在于其使得决定责任问题的人完全意识到政策决定了最终的结果。”Simon Deskin, Angus Johnston and Basil Markesinis, Markesinis and Deakon’s tort law, Clarendon Press, 2003, p. 77.
①Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 219.
②此处为对两位作者观点的总结,具体可见Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 220-221.
③Simon Deskin, Angus Johnston and Basil Markesinis, Markesinis and Deakon’s tort law, Clarendon Press, 2003, p. 74.
①转引自王泽鉴:《侵权行为法(1)·基本理论·一般侵权行为》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第51-52页。
②此处借重道德评价在侵权责任确立方面的作用以及传统的过错侵权行为的理论框架,由于瑞普斯坦和兹普斯利也以此二者作为其论证的基础,因而其论证与本文存在相同的理论前提。
①Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 219.
②Christopher H. Schroeder, Corrective Justice and Liability for Increasing Risks, UCLA Law Review Vol. 37, 1990, p. 439.
①John G. Fleming, An Introduction to the Law of Torts, Clarendon Press, 1985, p. 105.
②Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 1984, p. 263,转引自[美]威廉·.M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳著:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第249页。
③[美]威廉·.M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳著:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第1页。
①Christopher H. Schroeder, Corrective Justice and Liability for Increasing Risks, UCLA Law Review Vol. 37, 1990, p. 444.
②Anthony M. Marino, Market Share Liability and Economic Efficiency, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 57, 1991, pp. 667-675.
③我们将这种理论称为单纯道德论。将这种道德论观点称为单纯道德论,是与当今美国法中以道德哲学以及矫正正义为基础而对侵权法进行解释的道德理论相区别。
①Gerald J. Postema, Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 2.
②Christopher H. Schroeder, Corrective Justice and Liability for Increasing Risks, UCLA Law Review Vol. 37, 1990, p. 439.
③Jeremy Waldron, Moments of Carelessness and Massive Loss, in David G. Owen (ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law, Clarendon Press, 1995, p. 387.
①Richard A. Posner , The Concept of Corrective Justice in Recent Theories of Tort Law, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 10, 1981, p.187.
②Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory: Preliminary Reflection on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
③Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory: Preliminary Reflection on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 184.
④Wright, Actual Causation v. Probabilistic Linkage: The Bane of Economic Analysis, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 14, 1985, p. 435.
⑤Weinrib, Causation and Wrongdoing, The Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 63, 1983, pp.407-410.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory: Preliminary Reflection on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 186.
①G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.12.
②L. M. Friedman, A History of American Law, Simon & Schuster/Touchstone, 1985, p. 300.
③[美]威廉·.M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳著:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第3页。
①[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第10页。
②Gerald J. Postema , Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 2.
③[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第35页。
④[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第42页。
①关于霍姆斯的观点,可以参见[美]斯蒂文.J.伯顿:《法律的道路及其影响——小奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯的遗产》,张芝梅等译,北京大学出版社2005年版。
②Gerald J. Postema, Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 3-4.
③Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law,转引自[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳著:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第5页。
①Guido Calabresi, Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts, The Yale Law Journal, Vol.70, 1961, 499-553.
②Richard A. Posner, A Theory of Negligence, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 1, 1972, pp. 29-96.
③Gerald J. Postema, Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 4.
④George P. Fletcher , Fairness and Utility in Tort Theory, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 85, 1972, pp. 537-573.
①与此同时,耶鲁大学教授朱尔斯·科尔曼(Jules Coleman)提出了一种与其他理论不同的矫正正义理论,并且主张这一以亚里士多德提出的概念所命名的理论是不必然与正义、优点等道德因素相关联的,从而开辟了一条有别于以上任何一种理论的、新的侵权法解释理论。
②[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第153页。
③Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 253.
①[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第1页。
②[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第156-157页。
③Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 256.
①R. H. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 3, 1960, pp. 1-44.
②G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 219.
③Richard A. Posner, A Theory of Negligence, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.1, 1972, pp. 29-96.
④Richard A. Posner, A Theory of Negligence, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.1, 1972, p. 34.
①Jules coleman, Efficiency , Utility and Wealth Maximization, in Avery Wiener Katz (ed.), Foundation of the Economic Approach to Law, Foundation Press, 1998, pp.10-17.
②[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第19页。
③科尔曼所使用的帕累托次优(pareto superiority)的概念,是依据进行帕累托改进(pareto improvement)所得结果而确定的。
④科尔曼认为,在卡尔多—希克斯公式下,对受害人的补偿并非是实际存在的,因此也不可能转变为真正的帕累托次优。参见Jules coleman, Efficiency , Utility and Wealth Maximization, in Avery Wiener Katz (ed.), Foundation of the Economic Approach to Law, Foundation Press, 1998, pp.10-17。同时,彭诚信教授认为,即使财富增加者真的想补偿,或许也找不到直接受害人,卡尔多—希克斯公式的本意无非是社会产出如果不小于损失,依然是有效率的。参见彭诚信:《主体性与私权制度研究》,中国人民大学出版社2005年版,第178页。
①[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第26-27页。
②[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第10页。
③参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言。
④[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第13页。
⑤参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第13页。
①参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第14页。
②参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第15页。
③Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, Little Brown, 1977, p.5.
④此处的市场交易成本是指市场机制运行的费用,即当事人双方在通过市场进行交易时,搜集有关信息、进行谈判、订立契约并检查、监督契约实施所需要的费用。参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第16页。
⑤参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第18页。
①参见[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,中文版译者序言,第31页。
②G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 213.
③即通过判决侵害人对受害人的损失进行赔偿来实现当事人及社会成员对于公平与正义的追求。
④[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,第212-213页。
①[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,第218页。
②参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第316页。
③[美]理查德·A.波斯纳:《法律的经济分析(上)》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,第221页。
④G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 220.
①Richard A. Posner, Strict Liability-A Comment, The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 2, 1973, 205.
②除非由于某种特殊的原因,使其作为低成本的事故避免者的地位发生变化。参见Calabresi and Hirschoff, Toward a Test for Strict Liability in Torts, 81 Yale Law Journal, Vol. 81, 1972, pp.1061-1064。
①G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 221.
②Calabresi and Hirschoff, Toward a Test for Strict Liability in Torts, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 81, 1972, pp. 1057-1058.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 187- 188.
①参见[美]乔纳森·特纳:《社会学理论的结构(上)》,邱泽奇等译,华夏出版社2001年版,第11页。
②参见[美]乔纳森·特纳:《社会学理论的结构(上)》,邱泽奇等译,华夏出版社2001年版,第12页。
③参见[美]乔纳森·特纳:《社会学理论的结构(上)》,邱泽奇等译,华夏出版社2001年版,第12页。
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 195.
②Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 196.
③Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 197.
④[古希腊]亚里士多德:《尼各马克伦理学》,廖申白译著,商务印书馆2006年版,第138页。
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 185.
②Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 185.
③Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 189.
④Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 204.
⑤Jules Coleman, The Practice of Corrective Justice, in David G. Owen (ed), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 72.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 207.
②Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 208;此外,在新西兰,事故所造成的损害是通过税收系统进行填补的,而无论这些损害是由人的行为造成的还是其他因素引起的。在此种情形下,矫正正义的实践也就不复存在了。当然这也并不意味对于造成损害一方来说这不存在任何义务,其仍然要承担除了赔偿损害以外的其他义务,如赔礼道歉。这表明矫正正义的实践在一定程度上要受到现实的法律制度和政治安排的影响。由于矫正正义可以促进社会与个人责任的紧密联系,因此当社会中不存在矫正正义的实践时,社会中个人之间联系的纽带以及维系整个社会存在的自由理念都会受到威胁。
③Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 253.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.198.
②Stephen R. Perry, Responsibility for Outcomes, Risk, and the Law of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp.72-130.
③Stephen R. Perry, Responsibility for Outcomes, Risk, and the Law of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 119.
④Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 200.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 201.
②Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 202.
③Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 203.
①佩里的这一有限制的结果责任的观点十分重要,我们在下文中所使用的结果责任即是这种有限制的结果责任。
②Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 303.
③Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 361.
④另外,两种理论所立基的前提也是完全不同的。科尔曼就认为,矫正正义作为道德原则的吸引力以及国家施行矫正正义的权威性是两个问题,前者涉及道德哲学问题,而后者则涉及到政治哲学的问题。国家创立并施行针对于个人或团体的侵权责任,其性质和范围涉及相应的政治理论。自由主义的政治哲学,如诺齐克所倡导的,主张将国家的权力限制为对个人权利侵犯所做出的救济。而功利主义的政治理论则对合法的政治权威进行了延伸,其允许国家创立和施行一种损害赔偿体系,这一体系基于将事故成本最小化的考量而进行规制。参见Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 363。
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.186.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.192.
②Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.193.
③Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.194.
①Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 361.
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 250.
②通过此种实证的方法可以使侵权法体系获得逻辑一致性,同时也使得在此理论指引下的法院判决更具有连贯性。由此,使侵权法所要追寻的公平、正义等价值获得维护和提升。但与此同时,尽管实证方法表明绝大部分侵权法实践可以被描述为服务于某些目标的规则,但此种目标若未经过道德层面的检验则无法为案件的判决提供合理充分的理由。任何为实证方法所归结于侵权法的目标,都需要通过规范的方法加以正当化。由此,侵权法中的描述性方法的使用并不能对规范性方法加以替代。参见Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 250。德举例加以证明:“传统的经济分析理论在解释侵权规则时主张威慑,而矫正正
①[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第10页。
②Gerald J. Postema , Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 5.
③Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 251-252。
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 251.
②Gerald J. Postema, Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 18.
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 258.
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 259.
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 260.
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 262.
②Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 262.
③[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第63页。
①[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第63页。
②[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第63 -64页。
③Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 263.
①Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 380.
①Jules Coleman, Risks and Wrongs, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 362.
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 187- 188.
①参见[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第4 -7页。
②[英]边沁:《道德与立法原理导论》,时殷弘译,商务印书馆2005年版,第58页。
①Mark A. Geistfeld, Economics, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 263.
①转引自王泽鉴:《侵权行为法之危机及其发展趋势》,载《民法学说与判例研究》(第二册),中国政法大学出版社1997年版,第143页。
①History of ACC, http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/WCM001275, 2008-08-06.
②Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury, Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand: Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (1967),§5.
①Ken Oliphant, Accident Compensation in New Zealand, http://www.ihej.org/ressources/ccassation_risques_0607/05-12-06_ken_oliphant-en, 2008-08-09.
①[古希腊]亚里士多德:《尼各马克伦理学》,廖申白译著,商务印书馆2006年版,第138页。
②[古希腊]亚里士多德:《尼各马克伦理学》,廖申白译著,商务印书馆2006年版,第137页。
①History of ACC, http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/WCM001275, 2008-08-06.
②Colleen M. Flood, New Zealand’s No-Fault Accident Compensation Scheme: Paradise or Panacea?, Health Law Review, Vol. 8, 1999, p.3.
③[美]威廉·M.兰德斯、理查德·A.波斯纳:《侵权法的经济结构》,王强、杨媛译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第12-13页。
①当然,修正后的损害赔偿体系能否满足社会的需要,其自身的运转能够正常,则是另外的问题了。
②Queenstown Lakes District Council v. Palmer, CA83/98,http://www.brookers.co.nz/legal/judgments/default.htm, 2008-08-09。
③Ellison v. L. [1998] 1 NZLR 416,http://www.brookers.co.nz/legal/judgments/default.htm, 2008-08-09。
①H. Luntz, Looking Back at Accident Compensation: An Australian Perspective, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, Vol. 34, 2003, pp.285-288.
②另一个重要原因是,执政的工党政府此时在参议院中并不占有多数席位。
③Sugarman, Doing Away with Tort Law, California Law Review, Vol. 73, 1985, p.555; J. O’Connell, No-Fault Insurance for All Accidents, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 13, 1975, p.461.
①王泽鉴:《侵权行为法(1)·基本理论·一般侵权行为》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第36页。
②邓正来教授在其翻译的《自由秩序原理》一书中将non-rational factors翻译为理性不及因素,意指社会进化过程中和人的日常生活中所存在的大量的为个人之理性所不及的因素,这些因素虽然为个人理性所不及,但却在人们的生活实践中起着重要作用,有些甚至是人虽不理解但却在行动中遵循的基本规则。但这种因素绝不意味着人的理性永远不能企及它们,亦不意味着人们不应当去努力发现它们和认识它们。参见[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(上),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第24页。
③[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(上),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第20页。
④[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(上),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第21页。
①[英]冯·哈耶克:《哈耶克论文集》,邓正来译,首都经济贸易大学出版社2001年版,第122页。
②[美]莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁(1780-1860)》,谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第346-347页。
①[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(上),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第39页。
②[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(下),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第50页。
①[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(下),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第46页。
②[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(下),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第46页。
①[英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(下),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997年版,第47-48页。
②Ken Oliphant本人则可以说是这类制度性专家中的一员,参见Ken Oliphant, Accident Compensation in New Zealand, http://www.ihej.org/ressources/ccassation_risques_0607/05-12-06_ken_oliphant-en, 2008-08-09.
③G. Edward White, Tort Law In America-An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.287.
①Ken Oliphant, Accident Compensation in New Zealand, http://www.ihej.org/ressources/ccassation_risques_0607/05-12-06_ken_oliphant-en, 2008-08-09.
②该部法律的名称为the Accident Insurance Amendment Act and Accident Insurance (Transitional Provisions) Act。
①Jules Coleman, Tort Law and Tort Theory: Preliminary Reflection on Method, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 186.
①Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 232.
②Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 233.
③Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 233.
①Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 234.
②Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
②Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 235.
③Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 236.
①Senn v. Merrell-Dow Pharms., Inc., 751 P.2d 215, 223 (Or. 1988).
②Mark A. Geistfeld: The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability And Market-Share Liability, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 2006, p. 447.
①David Rosenberg, The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A "Public Law" Vision of the Tort System, 97 Harvard Law Review, Vol. 97, 1984, pp. 849-868; Richard W. Wright, Causation in Tort Law, 73 California Law Review, Vol. 73, 1985, pp.1735-1820.
②Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1, 2 (Cal. 1948).
①Mark A. Geistfeld: The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability And Market-Share Liability, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 2006, p. 460.
②Rest.2d Torts,§433B, com. f, p. 446.
①Mark A. Geistfeld: The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability And Market-Share Liabilit, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 2006, p. 469.
②Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1, 2 (Cal. 1948).
③Ybarra v. Spangard, 154 P.2d 687 (Cal. 1944).
④事实自证规则,即在过失造成伤害的案件中,推定被告有过失。适用此项规则,必须:造成伤害的工具(器械)由被告控制或管理;按照当时的环境,根据一般的经验和常识,如果不是被告的疏忽大意,事故不会发生;原告所受伤害是事故造成的。被告如要推翻此项推定,必须提出相反的证据。参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第1189页。
⑤Mark A. Geistfeld: The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability And Market-Share Liabilit, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 2006, p. 474.
①David A. Fischer, Successive Causes and the Enigma of Duplicated Harm, Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 66, 1999, pp. 1127-1130.
②Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liab. for Physical Harm &8 cmt. f (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 2005).
③Stephen R. Perry, Responsibility for Outcomes, Risk, and the Law of Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp.119-120.
①Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky, Corrective Justice in an Age of Mass Torts, in Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 238.
②Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①Brown v Superior Ct., 44 Cal. 3d 1049, 751 P. 2d 470.
①Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①叶正明:《国外药品不良反应损害救济制度述评及其对我们的启示》,载《时代法学》2005年第1期,第96页。
①吴晨光、法伊莎:《谁对“龙胆泻肝丸”受害者负责?》,载《南方周末》2004年3月11日,第5版。
②《三鹿牌婴幼儿奶粉事件滚动报道》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2008-09/12/content_9935963.htm,2008年11月1日。
③《婴幼儿配方奶粉三聚氰胺专项检查阶段性检查结果公布》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2008-09/17/content_10047162.htm,2008年11月1日。
④据报道,内蒙古赤峰市翁牛特旗消费者王晓华状告“龙胆泻肝丸”经销企业胜诉,被判获得赔偿3.9304万元,这是国内第一起胜诉的龙胆泻肝丸受害人要求赔偿的案件。参见宫靖:《举证倒置破解龙胆泻肝丸案僵局服药受害者获赔》,http://finance.sina.com.cn/20050728/1102236359.shtml,2008年9月27日。
①Sindell v. Abbott Labs. , 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
②Sindell v. Abbott Labs. , 607 P.2d 924, 928 (Cal. 1980).
①王利明:《侵权行为法研究:上卷》,中国人民大学出版社2004年版,第738页。
②杨立新:《试论共同危险行为》,载《法学研究》1987年第5期,第52-53页。
①张新宝:《中国侵权行为法》,中国社会科学出版社1998年版,第171页。
②史尚宽:《债法总论》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版,第169页。
①受理第一起三聚氰胺民事诉讼的石家庄市新华区法院要求受害人家属提供的证据有:身份证原件、户口本、儿童出生证明书,购买奶粉书证(发票或购物票据或销售商证明等),奶粉物证(奶粉袋/罐),受害者诊断证明书、化验结果、住院记录、出院通知等医疗单据,以及护理婴幼儿的家长(或其他护理人员)的工资收入证明、医疗期间支出的交通费票据等证据。参见叶逗逗:《河北法院受理三鹿民事赔偿第一案》,http://www.caijing.com.cn/2009-03-25/110128054.html,2009年3月28日。
②百度百科:《石棉肺》,http://baike.baidu.com/view/718142.htm,2008年11月22日。
③罗素琼等:《大姚县青石棉污染的危害及预防与控制》,载《中华劳动卫生职业病杂志》2000年第4期。
①Calabresi, J., dissenting, McCarthy v. Olin Corp., 119 F.3d 148, 161 (2d Cir. 1997).
[1]王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究:第1-8册[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1997.
[2]王泽鉴.侵权行为法(1):基本理论:一般侵权行为[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[3]王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[4]江平.侵权行为法研究:中美侵权法国际研讨会文集[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2004.
[5]曾世雄.损害赔偿法原理[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[6]黄茂荣.法学方法与现代民法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[7]王家福.中国民法学:民法债权[M].北京:法律出版社,1991.
[8]梁慧星.为权利而斗争[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2000.
[9]梁慧星.民商法论丛:第1卷[M].北京:法律出版社,1994.
[10]梁慧星.民法学说判例与立法研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1993.
[11]梁慧星.中国民法经济法诸问题[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1999.
[12]王利明,杨立新.侵权行为法[M].北京:法律出版社,1996.
[13]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,1997.
[14]王利明.侵权行为法研究:上[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[15]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,1992.
[16]王利明.民法:侵权行为法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1993.
[17]杨立新.侵权法热点问题法律应用[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2000.
[18]杨立新.侵权行为法案例教程[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2003.
[19]杨立新,等.侵权法三人谈[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[20]杨立新.民法判解研究与适用[M].北京:中国检察出版社,1997.
[21]杨立新.侵权法论[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2000.
[22]张新宝.中国侵权行为法[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[23]张新宝.侵权法评论:2003年第1辑[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2003.
[24]张新宝.侵权法评论:2003年第2辑[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2003.
[25]张新宝.侵权责任法原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[26]潘维大.英美侵权行为法案例解析[M].台北:瑞兴图书股份有限公司,2002.
[27]陈聪富.因果关系与损害赔偿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[28]陈聪富.侵权归责原则与损害赔偿[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[29]王军.侵权行为法比较研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[30]王军.侵权法上严格责任的原理和实践[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[31]熊进光.侵权行为法上的安全注意义务研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[32]于敏.日本侵权行为法[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[33]王文杰.侵权行为法之立法趋势[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006.
[34]麻昌华.侵权行为法地位研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[35]张民安.侵权法报告:第1卷[M].北京:中信出版社,2005.
[36]史尚宽.债法总论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[37]苏永钦.走进新世纪的私法自治[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[38]刘得宽.民法诸问题与新展望[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[39]孔祥俊.民商法新问题与判解研究[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1996.
[40]杨与龄.民法概要[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[41]王卫国.过错责任原则:第三次勃兴[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2000.
[1] [德]克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.欧洲比较侵权行为法[M].张新宝,焦美华译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[2] [德]克里斯蒂安·冯·巴尔,乌里希·德罗布尼希.欧洲合同法与侵权法及财产法的互动[M].吴越,王洪,等译.北京:法律出版社,2007.
[3] [德]马克西米利安·福克斯.侵权行为法[M].齐晓琨译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[4] [美]格瑞尔德·J·波斯特马.哲学与侵权行为法[M].陈敏,等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[5] [美]文森特·R·约翰逊.美国侵权法[M].赵秀文,等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[6]美国法律研究院.侵权法重述第三版:产品责任[M].肖永平,等译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[7]美国法律研究院.侵权法重述:纲要[M].许传玺,等译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[8] [美]布兰代斯,等.哈佛法律评论·侵权法学精粹[M].徐爱国译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[9] [德]卡尔·拉伦兹.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥译.北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[10] [德]罗尔夫·克尼佩尔.法律与历史:论《德国民法典》的形成与变迁[M].朱岩译.北京:法律出版社,2003.
[11] [德]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M].邵建东译.北京:法律出版社,2000.
[12] [德]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论[M].王晓晔,程建英,等译.北京:法律出版社,2003.
[13] [美]威廉·M.兰德斯,理查德·A.波斯纳.侵权法的经济结构[M].王强,杨媛译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[14] [美]理查德·A.波斯纳.法律的经济分析[M].蒋兆康译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1997.
[15] [美]康芒斯.制度经济学[M].于树生译.北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[16] [美]罗伯特·考特,托马斯·尤伦.法和经济学[M].张军译.上海:上海三联书店,1994.
[17] [日]青木昌彦.比较制度分析[M].周黎安译.上海:上海远东出版社,2001.
[18] [英]巴里·尼古拉斯.罗马法概论[M].黄风译.北京:法律出版社,2004年.
[19] [英]梅因.古代法[M].沈景一译.北京:商务印书馆,1959.
[20] [美]斯蒂文·J·伯顿.法律的道路及其影响:小奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯的遗产[M].张芝梅,等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[21] [英]边沁.道德与立法原理导论[M].时殷弘译.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[22] [英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克.自由秩序原理[M].邓正来译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.
[23] [英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克.哈耶克论文集[M].邓正来译.北京:首都经济贸易大学出版社,2001.
[24] [德]柯武刚,史漫飞.制度经济学:社会秩序与公共政策[M].韩朝华译.北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[25] [美]艾伦·沃森.民法法系的演变及形成[M].李静冰,姚新华译.北京:中国法制出版社,2005.
[26] [美]约翰·亨利·梅利曼.大陆法系[M].顾培东,禄正平译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[27] [意]彼德罗·彭梵得.罗马法教科书[M].黄风译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1992.
[28] [日]田山辉明.物权法[M].陆庆胜译.北京:法律出版社,2001.
[29] [古希腊]亚里士多德.尼各马可伦理学[M].苗力田译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1990.
[30] [古希腊]亚里士多德.政治学[M].吴寿彭译.北京:商务印书馆,1983.
[31] [美]波斯纳.法理学问题[M].苏力译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[32] [美]乔纳森·特纳.社会学理论的结构:上[M].邱泽奇,等译.北京:华夏出版社,2001.
[1] [美]索尔·莱夫莫尔.侵权行为法基础:影印本[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[2] [美]爱德华·柯恩卡.侵权法:影印本[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.
[3] [美]理查德·A·爱泼斯坦.侵权法[M].北京:中信出版社,2003.
[4] [美]理查德·A·爱泼斯坦.侵权法:案例与资料[M].北京:中信出版社,2003.
[5] [美]史蒂文·L·伊曼纽尔.侵权法[M].北京:中信出版社,2003.
[6] [英]John Cooke.Law of Tort[M].北京:法律出版社, 2003.
[7] A.R.Leal,N.Coleman.Objective Tests in Tort[M].London:Longman,1981.
[8] B . S . Markesinis . A Comparative Introduction to the German Law ofTort[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1986.
[9] David G.Owen (ed.).Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1995.
[10] Ernest J.Weinrib.The Idea of Private Law[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1995.
[11] Ewoud Hondius.Modern Trends in Tort Law:Dutch and Japanese Law Compared[M].Alphen aan den Rijn,the Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,1999.
[12] Franz Werro,Vernon Valentine Palmer.The Boundaries of Strict Liability in European Tort Law[M].Durham NC:Carolina Academic Press,2004.
[13] Franklin,Rabin.Tort Law and Alternatives[M].New York:Foundation Press,2001.
[14] G.Edward White.Tort Law in America-An Intellectual History[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003.
[15] Gerald J.Postema(ed.).Philosophy and the Law of Torts[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001.
[16] Gerhard Wagner (ed.).Tort Law and Liability Insurance[M].NewYork:SpringerWienNewYork,2005.
[17] Harris.Remedies in Contract and Tort[M].London:Butterworths LexisNexis,2002.
[18] H.L.A.Hart,T.Honore.Causation in the Law[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1985.
[19] Izhak Englard.The Philosophy of Tort Law[M].Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing Company,1993.
[20] J.Horder (ed.).Essays in Jurisprudence[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,2000.
[21] Jules Coleman.Risks and Wrongs[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1992.
[22] John G.Fleming.An introduction to the Law of Torts[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1985.
[23] J.Spier(ed.).Unification of Tort Law:Causation[M].Alphen aan den Rijn,the Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2000.
[24] L.M.Friedman.A History of American Law[M].New York:Simon & Schuster/Touchstone,1985.
[25] Mark Lunney,Ken Oliphant.Tort law:Text and Materials[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
[26] M.Stuart Madden.Exploring Tort Law[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[27] Peter Kaye.Private International Law of Tort and Product Liability: Jurisdiction,Applicable law , and Extraterritorial Protective Measures[M] . Aldershot :Dartmouth,1991.
[28] Peter Cane.Tort Law and Economic Interests[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1991.
[29] Prosser.Law of Torts[M].Wisconsin:West Publishing,1971.
[30] Richard A.Posner.Economic Analysis of Law[M].London:Little Brown, 1977 .
[31] Robert E.Keeton,Lewis D.Sargentich.Tort and Accident law:Cases and Materials[M].Weisconsing:West Group,2004.
[32] Simon Deskin,Angus Johnston,Basil Markesinis.Markesinis and Deakon’s Tort Law[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,2003.
[33] Tony Weir.A Casebook on Tort[M].London:Sweet & Maxwell,1988.
[34] U.Magnus,M.Martin-Casals(ed.).Unification of Tort Law:Contributory Negligence[M].Alphen aan den Rijn,the Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2004.
[35] U.Magnus(ed.).Unification of Tort Law:Damages[M].Alphen aan den Rijn,the Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2001.
[36] W.V.H.Rogers(ed.).Unification of Tort Law:Multiple Tortfeasors[M].Alphen aan den Rijn,the Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2004.
[1]王传辉,黄迎.美国产品责任法革命述评[J].政治与法律,1997(5):57-61.
[2]张骐.在效益与权利之间:美国产品责任法的理论基础[J].中国法学,1997 (6):103-109.
[3]孔祥俊.论侵权行为法的归责原则[J].中国法学,1992(5):77.
[4]米健.再论现代侵权行为法的归责原则[J].政法论坛,1991(2):22-26.
[5]孙波.完善我国产品责任法之思考[J].政法论坛,2001(1):98-105.
[6]孙波.论美国产品责任法的几个重大突破[J].国家检察官学院学报,2001(1):123-128.
[7]梁慧星.中国产品责任法:兼论假冒伪劣之根源和对策[J].法学,2001(6):38-44.
[8]杨兴定.论产品责任主体之间的责任关系[J].河北法学,1999(4):72-73.
[9]张桂红.美国产品责任法的最新发展及其对我国的启示[J].法商研究,2001(6):100-105.
[10]千省利,薛平智.我国产品责任归责原则的法学与经济学分析[J].河北法学,2002(3):30-33.
[11]罗素琼,等.大姚县青石棉污染的危害及预防与控制[J].中华劳动卫生职业病杂志,2000,(4):213-215.
[12]徐孟洲,谢增毅.一部颇具经济法理念的产品质量法:兼评我国《产品质量法》的修改[J].法学家,2001(3):60-65.
[13]金磊.国外产品质量责任的发展、现状及借鉴[J].决策借鉴,1995(4):21-22.
[14]张骐.中美产品责任的归责原则比较[J].中外法学,1998(4):59-66.
[15]周新军,容缨.论我国产品责任归责原则[J].政法论坛,2002,(3):67-71.
[16]侯怀霞,汪渊智.产品责任之抗辩[J].法律科学,1998(4):73-75.
[17]黄芬.侵权责任法制定中的重大疑难问题:中国法学会民法学研究会2008年年会述评[J].河北法学,2009(2):20.
[18]杨立新.试论共同危险行为[J].法学研究,1987(5):52-53.
[19]怀宇.市场份额责任理论刍议[J].人民司法,2006(6):84-86.
[20]岳彩申.论严格产品责任的新发展[J].社会科学研究,2000(5):66.
[21]祝磊.美国产品责任法归责原则的嬗变[J].社会科学研究,2003(2):93-95.
[22]张民宪,马栩生.荷兰产品责任制度之新发展[J].法学评论,2005(1):105.
[23]齐爱武.我国产品责任适用严格责任的几点建议[J].山西高等学校社会科学学报,2006(12):47-49.
[24]叶正明.国外药品不良反应损害救济制度述评及其对我们的启示[J].时代法学,2005(1):96.
[25]吴晨光,法伊莎.谁对“龙胆泻肝丸”受害者负责?[N].南方周末,2004-03-11,(5).
[26]新华网.三鹿牌婴幼儿奶粉事件滚动报道[EB/OL] .( 2008-09-12 ) [2008-11-01]http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2008-09/12/content _9935963.htm.
[27]新华网.婴幼儿配方奶粉三聚氰胺专项检查阶段性检查结果公布[EB/OL].(2008-09-17)[2008-11-01] .http://news.xinhuanet.com/ newscenter/2008-09/17/content_10047162.htm.
[28]刘京京.“毒奶粉”患儿医疗赔偿方案正式公布[EB/OL].(2009-02-25)[2009-02-25] .http://www.caijing.com.cn/2009-02-25/110073791.html.
[29]叶逗逗.善后未了局[EB/OL].(2009-01-02)[2009-02-25] .http://magazine. caijing.com.cn/2009-01-02/110056971.html.
[30]叶逗逗.河北法院受理三鹿民事赔偿第一案[EB/OL].(2009-03-25)[2009-03-28].http://www.caijing.com.cn/2009-03-25/110128054.html.
[31]宫靖.举证倒置破解龙胆泻肝丸案僵局:服药受害者获赔.[EB/OL].(2005-07- 28)[2008-09-27].http://finance.sina.com.cn/20050728/1102236359.shtml.
[1] Allen Rostron.Beyond Market Share Liability:A Theory of Proportional Share Liability for Nonfungible Products[J].UCLA Law Review,2004,52:151.
[2] Andrew B.Nace.Market Share Liability:A Current Assessment of A Decade-Old Doctrine[J].Vanderbilt Law Review,1991,44:395-415.
[3] Andrew R.Klein.Rejecting the Application of Market Share Liability in Blood Products Litigation[J].Tulane Law Review,1994,68:883-936.
[4] Anthony M.Marino.Market Share Liability and Economic Efficiency[J]. Southern Economic Journal,1991,57:667-675.
[5] Arthur Ripstein and Benjamin Zipursky.Corrective Justice in An Age of Mass Torts[M]// Gerald J . Postema (ed.) . Philosophy and the Law of Torts.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001:214-249.
[6] Christopher H.Schroeder.Corrective Justice and Liability for Increasing Risks[J].UCLA Law Review,1990,37:439-478.
[7] Christopher J.McGuire.Market Share Liability after Hymowitz and Conley:Exploring the Limits of Judicial Power[J].University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform,1991,24:759-783.
[8] Colleen M.Flood.New Zealand’s No-Fault Accident Compensation Scheme:Paradise or Panacea?[J].Health Law Review,1999,8:175.
[9] Cynthial Chase.Market Share Liability:A Plea for Legislative Alternatives[J]. University of Illinois Law Review,1982:1003-1049.
[10] Dalmau Garcia.Revisiting Payton v.Abbott Laboratories: Is Market Share Libility A Viable Theory of Recovery in Massachusetts? [J].Boston University Law Review,2000,80:1127-1173.
[11] Daniel J.Grimm.Accounting for Risk Disparity: An Alternative to Market Share Liability[J].Columbia Business Law Review,2006,549.
[12] Daniel J.Grimm.Global Warming and Market Share Liability: A Proposed Model for Allocating Tort Damages among CO2 Producers[J].Columbia Journal of Environmental Law,2007,32:209-257.
[13] David A . Fischer . Successive Causes and the Enigma of Duplicated Harm[J].Tennessee Law Review,1999,66:1127-1130.
[14] David G.Owen.The Distributive Turn:Mischief,Misfortune,and Tort Law[J].Quinnipiac Law Review,1996,16:315-338.
[15] David G.Owen.On The Relationship between Corrective and Distributive Justice[M]// J.Horder (ed.).Essays in Jurisprudence.Oxford:Clarendon Press,2000.
[16] David Rosenberg.The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A Public Law Vision of the Tort System[J].Harvard Law Review,1984,97:849-868.
[17] Donald G.Gifford,Paolo Pasicolan.Market Share Liability Beyond DES Cases:The Solution to the Causation Dilemma in Lead Paint Litigation?[J].South Carolina Law Review,2006,58:115-184.
[18] Emily H.Damron.Reviving the Market for Liability Theories:The Commingled Product Theory of Market Share Liability Enters the Judicial Lexicon[J].PennState Law Review,2007,111(2):505-526.
[19] Ernest J.Weinrib.Rights,Justice,and Tort Law[M]// David G.Owen (ed.). Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law.Oxford:Clarendon Press,1995.
[20] Gary T.Schwartz.The Ethics and Economics of Tort Liability Insurance[J]. Cornell Law Review,1990,76:313.
[21] Gerald J.Postema.Search for An Explanatory Theory of Torts [M]// Gerald J.Postema (ed.).Philosophy and the Law of Torts.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001:1-21.
[22] George P.Fletcher.Fairness and Utility in Tort Theory[J].Harvard Law Review,1972,85:537-573.
[23] Guido Calabresi . Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts[J].The Yale Law Journal,1961,70:499-553.
[24] Harold L.Korn.Rethinking Personal Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Multistate Mass Torts[J].Columbia Law Review,1997,97(7).
[25] Harvey Teff.Market Share Liability:A Novel Approach to Causation[J].The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,1982,31:840-844.
[26] Henderson,Twerski.Closing the American Products Liability Frontier:The Rejection Liability without Defect[J].New York University Law Review,1991,66:1263.
[27] H . Luntz . Looking Back at Accident Compensation : An Australian Perspective[J].Victoria University of Wellington Law Review,2003,34:279-292.
[28] James A.Henderson,Theodore Eisenberg.The Quiet Revolution in Products Liability:An Empirical Study of Legal Changes[J].UCLA Law Review,1990,37:479-553.
[29] James A.Henderson.The Efficacy of Organic Tort Reform[J].Cornell Law Review,1992,77:596-611.
[30] Jeremy Waldron.Moments of Carelessness and Massive Loss[M]// David G.Owen (ed.).Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law.Oxford: Clarendon Press,1995.
[31] Joel W.Baar.Let the Drug Dealer Beware:Market-share Liability in Michigan for the Injuries Caused by Illegal Drug Market[J].Valparaiso University Law Review,1997,32:139.
[32] Jules Coleman,Arthur Ripstein.Mischief and Misfortune[J].McGill Law Journal,1995,41:91-130.
[33] Jules Coleman.Property,Wrongfulness,and the Duty to Compensate[J]. Chicago-Kent Law Review,1987,63:451-470.
[34] Jules Coleman.The Practice of Corrective Justice[M]// David G.Owen(ed.). Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law.Oxford:Oxford University Press,1995.
[35] Jules Coleman.Tort Law and the Demands of Corrective Justice[J].Indiana Law Review,1992,67:349.
[36] Jules Coleman . Tort Law and Tort Theory-Preliminary Reflections on Method[M]// Gerald J . Postema(ed.).Philosophy and the Law of Torts.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001:183-213.
[37] Ken Oliphant.Accident Compensation in New Zealand[EB/OL].(2005-12-06) [2008-08-09].http://www.ihej.org/ressources/ccassation_risques_0607/05-12-06 _ken_oliphant-en.
[38] Kenneth R.Lepage.Lead-based Paint Litigation and the Problem of Causation: Toward a Unified Theory of Market Share Liability[J].Boston College Law Review,1996,37:155-186.
[39] Kenneth W.Simons.Deontology,Negligence,Tort,and Crime[J].Boston University Law Review,1996,76:273.
[40] Kurt M.Zitzer,Marc D.Ginsberg.Illinois Rejects Market Share Liability: A Policy Based Analysis of Smith v.Eli Lilly & Co.[J].Kentucky Law Journal,1991,79:617-689.
[41] Mark A.Geistfeld.The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability and Market-share Liability[J].University of Pennsylvania Law Review,2006,155:447-501.
[42] Mark A.Geistfeld.Economics,Moral Philosophy,and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law[M]// Gerald J . Postema (ed.) . Philosophy and the Law of Torts.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001.
[43] Mark J.Sundahl.Unidentified Orbital Debris:The Case for A Market-ShareLiability Regime[J].Hastings International and Comparative Law Review,2000,24:125.
[44] Mark Reeve.Washington Survey:Washington Adopts Market Share Liability for DES Producers-Martin v.Abbott Laboratories,102 Wn.2d 581,689 P.2d 368(1984)[J].Washington Law Review,1985,60:543-553.
[45] Market Share Liability:An Answer to the DES Causation Problem[J].Harvard Law Review,1981,94(3):668-680.
[46] Mary Jane Sheffet.Market Share Liability: A New Doctrine of Causation in Product Liability[J].Journal of Marketing,1983,47:35-43.
[47] Neilk Komesar.Injuries and Institutions:Tort Reform,Tort Theory and Beyond[J].New York University Law Review,1990,65.
[48] Nomi Sheiner.DES and A Proposed Theory of Enterprise Liability[J].Fordham Law Review,1978,46:997.
[49] Prosser.The Fall of the Citadel( Strict Liability to the Consumer )[J].Minnesota Law Review,1966,50:791-848.
[50] R.H.Coase.The Problem of Social Cost[J].Journal of Law and Economics,1960,3:1-44.
[51] Richard Abel.A Critique of Torts[J].UCLA Law Review,1990,37:785.
[52] Richard A . Epstein . Causation and Corrective Justice-A Reply to Two Critics[J].Jounal of Legal Studies,1979,8:477-496.
[53] Richard A.Posner.A Theory of Negligence[J].The Journal of Legal Studies,1972,1:29-96.
[54] Richard A.Posner.The Concept of Corrective Justice in Recent Theories of Tort Law[J].The Journal of Legal Studies,1981,10:187-206.
[55] Richard A.Posner.Strict Liability-A Comment[J].The Journal of Legal Studies,1973,2:205.
[56] Richard W.Wright.Causation in Tort Law[J].California Law Review,1985,73:1735-1820.
[57] Robert A.Kors.Refining Market Share Liability: Sindell v.Abbott Laboratories[J].Stanford Law Review,1981,33(5):937-950.
[58] Robert F.Daley.A Suggested Proposal to Apportion Liability in Lead PigmentCases[J].Duquesne Law Review,1997,36:79.
[59] Shirley H.Fang.Santiago v.Sherwin-Williams Co.: Rejection of Market Share Liability in Lead-Based Paint Litigation[J].Buffalo Law Review,1995,43:725-769.
[60] Stephen R.Perry.On The Relationship between Corrective and Distributive Justice[M]//J.Horder (ed.).Essays in Jurisprudence.Oxford:Clarendon Press,2000.
[61] Stephen R.Perry.Responsibility for Outcomes,Risk,and the Law of Torts [M]// Gerald J.Postema (ed.).Philosophy and the Law of Torts.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001:72-130.
[62] Stephen R.Perry.The Mixed Conception of Corrective Justice[J].Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy,1992,15:63.
[63] Sugarman.Doing Away with Tort Law[J].California Law Review,1985,73:555-660.
[64] Suzanne Ernst Drummond.DES and Market Share Liability in Ohio-A Lesson in How What You Don't Know Can Hurt You: Sutowski v.Eli Lilly, 696 N.E.2d 187(Ohio 1998)[J].University of Cincinnati Law Review,1999,67:1331-1362.
[65] Weinrib.Causation and Wrongdoing[J].The Chicago-Kent Law Review,1983,63:407-440.
[66] Wright.Actual Causation v.Probabilistic Linkage:The Bane of Economic Analysis[J].The Journal of Legal Studies,1985,14:435.