【作者】 王钦杰；

【导师】 梁慧星；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 民商法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 侵权法的注意义务起源于英美判例法。注意义务的存在和注意义务的违反是英美侵权法判断侵权人是否存在过失和承担侵权责任的前提和基础。近两个世纪以来,英美侵权法上的注意义务迅猛发展,形成了较为完善且独具特色的检验方法、判断标准及抗辩事由,其适用范围也逐渐从“有形损害”领域,拓展到“精神损害”及“纯经济损失”领域。大陆法系侵权法在发展进程中也确立了可与英美法相媲美的注意义务,两大法系注意义务的比较对于我国制订完备的《侵权责任法》具有重要的借鉴意义。本文以英美侵权法上的注意义务为题展开论述,全文共分八章,大致分为三个部分。第一部分为注意义务总论,包括第一章至第四章,内容涵盖了注意义务概述、注意义务检验方法、注意义务违反的判断标准和抗辩事由。第二部分为注意义务个别论,主要阐述英美侵权法的注意义务在特殊领域的发展与适用,内容涉及第五章至第七章,包括精神损害赔偿案件中的注意义务、纯经济损失赔偿案件中的注意义务以及与第三人相关的注意义务。第三部分为附论,通过研究英美侵权法的注意义务及与大陆法系注意义务作比较,来看我国侵权立法中是否应当确立注意义务理论,以及确立怎样的注意义务理论。具体内容如下:第一章:注意义务概述。本章共分四节,分别阐述英美侵权法上注意义务的历史考察、注意义务的概念、注意义务的产生依据和注意义务的作用。从历史的角度来看,英美侵权法上的注意义务起源于中世纪时期普通法上的“令状”制度,伴随着工业革命的步伐,注意义务从“相对义务”逐步发展成为“普遍性义务”,其中,以英国著名的Donghue v.Stevenson判例阐明的“邻人”规则最具有标志性意义。尔后,英美法的注意义务在“Anns案两步检验法”的推动下“阔步前进”,但二十世纪九十年代之后代之而起的“Caparo三步检验法”,注定了注意义务的发展只能“小步向前”。从注意义务的涵义来看,它不是凭空产生的,也不是漫无边际的,不同的环境、不同的案情对行为人要求的注意程度不同。注意义务具有双重性,首先它是人们行为时应当遵守的义务,其次,它是人们行为导致他人损害后赖以赔偿的基础,所谓注意义务只有在损害发生后行为人进行赔偿时才能确定的观点是不对的。注意义务的来源广泛。行为人积极作为时,其注意义务是普遍性的,即不得损害他人的人身、财产利益,但特定情况下,行为人的注意义务可予免除。行为人消极不作为时,其注意义务是相对性的,通常情况下,行为人并不负有为他人利益积极行为的义务,如救助他人、防止第三人侵害他人等,但在一定情况下,行为人的这种注意义务仍是存在的,主要有:双方具有合同或类似合同的关系;一方对另一方具有监管、控制关系、合理的信赖或依赖关系;行为人对导致损害发生的实际侵权人具有监护、监管、控制关系;行为人对导致损害发生的物具有控制、管领关系等。另外,行为人自愿参与救助、受人之托等使其自担责任的行为,也使其负有相应的注意义务。正如前文所述,注意义务堪称英美侵权法的“精髓”,它优越的价值功能主要表现在:打破了合同相对性的束缚,推动了侵权法特别是过失侵权制度的迅猛发展;积极应对社会变迁,保持侵权法的开放性、包容性和社会适应性;实现行为自由、权益保护及社会效益三者之间的协调平衡;规范人们的行为标准,将法律的精神和目的性融入利益衡量之中,从而内化为人们的自觉行动。第二章:注意义务的检验方法。本章分为概述、可预见性、近邻性和政策衡量四节。其中,概述主要介绍注意义务检验方法的发展历程,“Anns两步检验法”衰落的原因及“Caparo三步检验法”兴起的背景及其内容,同时本节还就有学者提出的其他检验法,如“自担责任”、“渐进主义原则”,作了深入的分析和批驳。在可预见性一节中,重点论述了可预见性的涵义、可预见性的内容——可预见性原告与可预见性损害,指出可预见性是行为人承担注意义务的基础,同时也是一个弹性很大的概念,可预见的范围和对象难以界定;作为可预见性的原告,受害人必须在侵权人可预见的范围之内,或是侵权人实施侵权行为时能够预见的某个特定的具体的人,或是处于侵权人侵权行为损害的某一类人群之中;行为人并不对所有因其行为引起的损害负有责任,只有这种损害发生的危险是行为人可以预见的,且大到不合理的程度,行为人才负有避免损害发生的注意义务,可预见性与当时当地人们的认知水平息息相关,损害发生的可能性大小也影响着可预见的程度;作为可预见性原则的例外,“蛋壳原则”、“救援原则”进一步拓展了行为人注意义务的范围。近邻性是注意义务是否存在的决定性因素或控制性因素。近邻性涵义深邃,灵活多变,在不同的案件中需要作出不同的理解和解释。可预见性是近邻性的基础,近邻性是约束和控制可预见性范围的实质性要件,具有独立的价值。适用近邻性原则需要把握好几个方面的问题:防止行为人“对不确定的人群、在不确定的时间承担不确定的责任”;引导正确的侵权法道德价值取向;避免法庭卷入涉及公共资源分配等非司法性问题的裁断;优先保护公共利益等。注意义务的确立不仅涉及争议双方的利益平衡,而且关系对可能受案件影响的社会公众利益的考察和评估,因而需要政策衡量。政策衡量的结果可能使符合可预见性和近邻性条件的注意义务仍然被否定。法官通常用以政策衡量的因素包括:“滥诉”的可能性因素;矫枉是否过正的因素;损失分担的因素;经济效益的因素;公共利益的因素。政策衡量与可预见性、近邻性三者是“同一事物的不同侧面”,在三步检验法中各自扮演着不同的角色。第三章:注意义务违反的判断标准。总体上,注意义务违反的判断标准可分为法官创设的标准和制定法上的标准,其中,法官创设的标准包括理性人标准、总风险效益检验标准、事实自证标准。本章设专节对上述各标准进行阐述。理性人标准是英美侵权法上最常见、最常用、最普通的标准,它是法律所拟定的具有正常精神状态、普通知识和经验及处事能力的人的行为标准,是一种虚拟的客观化的标准。理性人与周围的正常人并没有什么不同,他不是完美无缺、没有任何弱点的,只不过他的缺点和错误总是保持在社会所能容忍的合理的限度内。理性人标准其实是主客观相统一的标准,理性人标准的前提是具有“理性”,不同的法官、陪审员头脑中的理性人面孔是不同的,单纯把理性人标准看成客观标准是不全面的。对于限制行为能力人、具有专门知识的专业人士以及某些特定事实状态下的行为人要适用不同于正常情况下的理性人标准。总风险效益检验标准是英美学者和法官运用经济分析法创造性地设立的一个判断标准。该标准通过数学公式计算损害发生的可能性(P)、损害的严重程度(L)以及预防损害发生的成本(B)三个变量的关系,来决定行为人是否负有相应的注意义务。若B＜P*L,行为人就负有避免损害发生的注意义务,反之,则没有。这一标准的提出,促进了法律经济分析学派的崛起,给侵权行为制度赋予了经济学上的涵义,在美国及其影响下的其他国家得到积极的响应,但也遭到英国及其影响下的其他国家的抵制。标准自身的几个变量往往是难以精确计算的,因此,该标准更多地在于“它的分析意义,而不在于其操作价值”。尽管如此,这种把行为人活动的价值及避免损害发生的经济因素作为认定注意义务的标准仍然有其独特的价值。事实自证标准实质上是通过事件发生本身来推断行为人是否尽到合理的注意义务的标准。这一标准适用的条件是:事件若无过失通常不会发生;事件的发生排除了被告之外的其他原因;原告处在被告的注意范围之内;事件的发生不是因原告的主动行为而引起。适用事实自证标准,并没有免除原告的举证责任,原告仍然要通过间接证据来证明被告违反了注意义务,法官或陪审团也可以拒绝依据这些间接证据推定被告负有责任。因此,事实自证并不产生举证责任倒置的效力,而是给予法官或陪审团作出被告违反注意义务的一个合理的推论,该推论在被告不能提供充分证据进行反驳时可以裁定被告承担侵权责任。制定法的规定是全体社会成员应当遵守的行为标准,若偏离这一标准,就意味着行为人可能承担相应的责任。十九世纪中后期,英美法的法官们认为并非任何违反制定法的行为都可以成为侵权诉因,只有该制定法意图对包括原告在内的受害人提供法律上的保护时,它才能成为原告提起侵权诉讼的依据。由于立法的精神要通过法院的司法活动来贯彻,因此,法院如何解释法律就成为行为人违反制定法后应否承担损害赔偿责任的关键。适用制定法上的标准,需要根据制定法的意图、制定法旨在保护的对象、制定法意图防止的损害等综合加以判断。第四章:注意义务违反的抗辩事由。为保护行为人正当行为的积极性,公平合理地分担侵权责任,英美侵权法确定了与注意义务相对应的抗辩事由,包括:原告的同意或自冒风险;促成过失与比较过失;特权等。本章设专节对这些抗辩事由进行阐述。同意意味着对他人行为的认可、允许、接受、肯定甚至容忍,同意的表现形式即可以是明示的,也可以是暗示的。同意必须是由具备相应行为能力的人作出,必须是原告了解事实真相的基础上自愿作出,且必须在限定的范围内作出。“知情后的同意”要求在特定专业领域,如医疗行业,只有行为人尽到足够的信息披露义务,使对方充分知悉行为的风险后作出同意表示的,才能作为注意义务的抗辩理由。“自冒风险”是“同意”的抗辩事由在故意侵权之外其他侵权领域内的适用,其表现形式及适用的条件与“同意”基本相同。对于“免责协议”,如果影响到公共利益和公共政策时,免责协议的效力则需要重新考虑。对于救助者的行为,不适用“自冒风险”的抗辩事由。普通法上,如果原告对于损害的发生也有过错的,就构成了促成过失,可能成为阻止其获得侵权法上救济的事由。促成过失的原则对于受害人来说近乎苛刻。实践中,英美法通过“最后避免机会”原则限制其适用。二十世纪以后,英美法又以比较过失的原则对损害赔偿加以合理分担。比较过失损失分配的方式通常有“纯正的比较过失”和“修正的比较过失”两种。出于公共政策和保护自我或第三人的需要,英美侵权法赋予行为人一定的特权,以免除行为人因此可能面临的侵权责任。这些特权主要有:人身防卫权、财产防卫权、紧急避险、豁免权及其他特权等。人身防卫权涵盖了对配偶及其他家庭成员的保护,除进攻者即违法挑起冲突的人之外,每个人都有自卫的特权。行为人在行使财产防卫权时,不得使用致命的或严重身体伤害的暴力方式保护他的财产,除非其本人或他人的人身安全受到暴力的侵害或威胁。紧急避险可分为公共紧急避险和私人紧急避险,紧急避险应避免的损害应当大于为避险而导致的损害。基于公共政策的考虑,英美侵权法为那些处于特殊地位、履行特殊职能、适用特殊程序的人群设定了豁免权,免除他们因未尽到合理的注意义务而可能承担的侵权责任。二十世纪中后期以来,豁免权因不断受到人们的质疑而呈现出废除或限制适用的趋势,如律师的豁免权在英国、新西兰等国已被废除。第五章:精神损害赡偿案件中的注意义务。侵权行为除给受害人造成躯体上的创伤外,还会引起精神上的痛苦。精神损害与一般的人身损害不同,行为人的注意义务也有特别的要求。按照受害者是否属于侵权事件的直接受害者,精神损害又可分为直接受害人的精神损害和间接受害人的精神损害两种。本章第一节概括介绍了精神损害的涵义、特征及其发展情况,指出英美法早期的精神损害附属于躯体损害,独立的精神损害赔偿直至二十世纪初期才被确认。判断精神损害是否存在,除根据受害人是否具有医学上确认的精神疾患外,还应当参照被告行为的严重性、原告遭受精神创伤的程度等因素确定。本章第二节论述了直接受害人精神损害赔偿案件中的注意义务。这类案件中,如果被告的行为使原告有理由相信自身的安全受到危害,从而导致精神损害的,原告就可以要求精神损害赔偿,至于原告是否真正处于危险之中,则无关紧要。在原告主动或被动地参与到事故之中,并因他人的死亡或受伤精神受到创伤,而自己又不是事故发生的直接受害者的情况下,原告究竟属于直接受害人还是间接受害人,英美法官持有不同的观点。对于那些履行职责,负有救助义务的人如警察、消防队员等,在履职过程中受到精神损害的案件,一般不予赔偿。随着英美侵权法的发展,当事人因财产遭受侵害精神受到损害或者因经受长期紧张的工作压力致精神损害的,均可按照直接受害人遭受的精神损害对待。本章第三节论述了间接受害人精神损害赔偿案件中的注意义务。与直接受害人的精神损害相比,间接受害人的精神损害界定起来难度更大,英美法院多持排斥、限制注意义务的态度。从英美一系列的判例确定的原则来看,间接受害人精神损害赔偿案件中注意义务的存在,需满足以下条件:第一,间接受害人与直接受害人具有情感上的亲密关系;第二,间接受害人在时间和空间上与事件及损害后果具有近邻性;第三,间接受害人对事件及其损害后果的感受具有直接性。第六章:纯经济损失赔偿案件中的注意义务。纯经济损失的保护问题被喻为侵权法上的“戈耳迪难结”,处理起来十分棘手。本章分为概述和Hedley Byrne原则与纯经济损失两节展开论述,以期得到合理明晰的答案。在概述中,重点阐述了英美法上纯经济损失的涵义、特征,注意义务在纯经济损失案件中的发展演变,以及这类案件中怠于设定注意义务的原因,通过本节内容,我们可以看出,纯经济损失是行为人给受害人直接造成的与人身或有形财产损害无关的经济或金钱上的损失。纯经济损失具有无形性、直接性和相对确定性的特征,此类案件中注意义务的设定大致经历了排除——发展——限制三个发展阶段。英美侵权法在纯经济损失案件中慎于设定注意义务的原因主要有:“滥诉门”的担忧,契约相对性受到侵蚀的顾虑,侵权法上利益衡量的影响,法律确定性的需要等。由此可见,与有形损害相比,纯经济损失的侵权法保护受到了不少限制。实践中,英美侵权法通常将Hedley Byrne原则作为行为人对因不当陈述造成的纯经济损失承担注意义务的基础。适用Hedley Byrne原则需把握以下条件:行为人拥有或使人相信其拥有某方面的技能、知识或权威;行为人自担责任;受损失者合理的信赖。判断行为人的陈述是否使其自担责任,则要根据陈述的场合、陈述的意图、当事人间特定的关系等综合加以判断。Hedley Byrne原则的适用可以拓展到第三人信赖被告的陈述致原告纯经济损失或疏于作为致原告纯经济损失的情形等。第七章:与第三人相关的注意义务。普通法上,人们并不负有约束、控制第三人不得损害他人或者警告那些可能受到第三人行为的威胁而陷入损害危险的人的义务。但作为一般原则的例外,特定情形下,被告仍然负有这样的注意义务,这种情形主要有:一是被告与第三人具有特殊的关系;二是第三人进入或使用被告拥有、控制或提供的场所或财产实施了侵权。就被告与第三人具有特殊的关系来看,主要表现为被告对第三人具有控制、监督、管理等方面的特征。在雇佣关系中,雇主为雇员的行为承担替代责任,需满足的条件是雇佣关系的存在和雇员的行为属于雇佣活动的范围。雇主明令禁止雇员从事某些行为,并不说明雇主对雇员已尽到了应有的注意义务,这要看禁止性的规定是针对雇佣范围作出的,还是针对从事雇佣活动的方式作出的。这一规则同样适用子委托代理关系,如公司要为其董事的代理行为承担替代责任。当第三人进入被告拥有或控制的场所以及使用被告掌管或提供的动产时,被告就对第三人负有相应的注意义务。被告除在其拥有或控制的场所负有保护来访者的人身、财产安全的注意义务外,还负有防止进入其场所的第三人给他人造成损害的注意义务,但被告无法采取相应的措施避免第三人进入其场所给他人造成损害的除外。普通法上,权利人有妥善管理其动产,防止其损害他人的注意义务,其中包括防止第三人利用其财产给他人造成损害的注意义务,但这一注意义务不适用于产品的制造者或销售者,除非他确切地知道第三人具有使用其产品损害他人的不良企图。第八章:附论:两大法系注意义务之比较及对我国侵权立法的启示。尽管两大法系差异巨大,各具特色,但也不乏融通性和共同点,侵权法上的注意义务就是其中的一个缩影,这对我国借鉴吸纳注意义务理论,制订完备的侵权法具有重要的意义。本章第一节重点与大陆法系国家侵权法的注意义务作比较,并得出相应的结论。受古罗马法的影响、过失主观化向客观化的转变、刑法过失犯理论的推动,大陆法系国家的侵权法纷纷吸收了注意义务理论,以此构筑过失侵权制度。法国确定了高度严格且适用广泛的注意义务,法院多运用“善良家父”标准判断行为人是否具有过失。德国通过著名的枯树案、撒盐案、兽医案确立了相应的注意义务,以弥补立法的缺失。日本民法界比照刑法过失犯注意义务理论,将结果回避义务作为注意义务的核心,同时参照英美法上汉德公式经济分析的方法,通过几个要素的对比衡量行为人是否负有结果回避义务,司法实务中,安全关照义务是日本法院适用较多的一类特殊的注意义务。通过比较,我们不难发现:两大法系注意义务产生的时代背景基本相同:注意义务的渊源及适用范围都具有广泛性;注意义务都反映了主观性因素与客观性因素的结合;其价值功能都具有不可或缺性。本章第二节着重论述注意义务理论对我国侵权立法的启示。在我国,侵权立法是否吸纳注意义务理论问题存在争议。我认为,判断一项法律制度能否被吸收和运用,有没有用武之地,不能简单地看其产生于何种法系,是外来的还是自生的,关键在于它是否具有成熟的理论作支撑,价值功能有无实用性以及是否符合本国法律完善和发展的需求。吸收英美法系的注意义务不会造成我国侵权立法的体系违反,我国侵权法的理论发展及司法实践表明吸纳注意义务理论不仅急需而且可行。立法机关及专家学者的四个立法方案中均有注意义务的表述。通过比较四个立法方案,我认为我国侵权立法可以吸收注意义务理论,基本思路是在一般条款中对注意义务作出规定,注意义务的含义宜规定为:注意义务是指根据法律法规、交易习惯、社会生活交往的共同准则、善良风俗等,行为人在作为或不作为时,通常情况下,应当负有的预见其行为是否会造成损害并谨慎从事,采取合理措施避免该损害发生的义务。注意义务的判断标准一般应当以与行为人处于同一情形下的当地社会公众普遍接受或遵守的行为标准为标准;行为人属特殊人群时,应适用特殊人群的注意义务标准;同时辅之以英美法汉德公式经济效益的判断标准。此外,注意义务的设定,必须符合社会公共政策的要求,要从达到行为自由、权益保护和社会功效三方面的协调平衡出发,从不同方面对注意义务加以限制,使注意义务的设定即不能过低,也不能过高。更多还原

【Abstract】 Duty of Care on Torts originates from Anglo-American cases law.The existence of Duty of Care and the breach of it are the prerequisite and foundation to determine whether or not the behavior has committed Negligence and should shoulder the related responsibilities.From these two centuries, Duty of Care on Anglo-American Torts booms quickly and has developed relatively consummate and distinguished tests,standards and defenses for Duty of Care.Its applicable scope developed gradually from the fields of "Physical Damage" to the fields of "Psychiatric Injury" and "Pure Economic Damage".In the developing courses,Continental Torts also founded Duty of Care which can compare with Anglo-American Torts.The comparison of Duty of Care between two legal systems has the important referent significance for making our country’s perfect Torts law.This dissertation focuses on the issue of Duty of Care on Anglo-American Torts,which composes of eight chapters falling in three parts.The first part is the general research of Duty of Care,covering four chapters from Chapter One to Chapter Four with such focuses as the outline,tests of Duty of Care, standards and defenses of its breaching.The second part is the individual research of Duty of Care,covering three chapters from Chapter Five to Chapter Seven and focusing on specific development and application of Duty of Care on Anglo-American Torts,such as Duty of Care in cases of compensation of Psychological Damage,Pure Economic Damage as well as Duty of Care related with third parties.The third part is supplementary research which can submit us some suggestions whether or not the Theory of Duty of Care should be founded in our country’s Torts legislation and how to found it,through the research of Duty of Care on Anglo-American Torts and the comparison on Duty of Care with Continental Torts.Specifically,the eight chapters include the following points:Chapter One:The Outline of Duty of Care.There are four sections in this chapter,respectively on the history review,connotation,causes and function of Duty of Care on Anglo-American Torts.From the point of history,Duty of Care on Anglo-American Torts originated from the "assumpsit" system of Common Law in Middle Ages.With the progress of Industrial Revolution,the Duty of Care gradually develops from "relative duty" to "widespread duty". The most marking event is the famous "Neighborhood Principle" ruled by Donghue v.Stevenson in British history.Afterwards,with the promotion from "Anns two-stage test",the duty of care made great advancement.However,the "Caparo tripartite test" that flourished since the 1990s destined that the development can only be made in limited steps.From the connotation of Duty of Care,it does not originate from air and does not go around without limits,and different situations and cases lead to different degrees of Duty of Care which the behaviors carry.Duty of Care has dualism.First,it is the duty that people should obey when they are engaged in their behaviors;secondly,it also constitutes the compensation basis when their behaviors bring other’s damage.It is not correct that Duty of Care can be determined only when damage happens and actors need compensate victims.Duty of Care has wide origins.When actor behaves positively,his Duty of Care is universal,in other words,He shoulders the duty not to damage the physical safety and property interest of others.However,this Duty of Care can be exempted in specific situations.When actor behaves negatively,the Duty of Care is relative,which means that he does not shoulder any positive obligations which bring others benefits,such as providing relief or preventing third party damage others.But the Duty of Care still exists in some cases, which mainly covers the contracted or contract-like relationship between the two parties involved,the supervision,domination,reliable reliance or trust of one party over the other,the actor’s supervision,wardship and domination over the person who actually constitutes tort,as well as the actor’s supervision, wardship and domination over the property that actually leads to tort.In addition,the assumption of responsibility resulted from the actor’s voluntary providing relief or performance of consignation can also make the actor shoulder the related Duty of Care.Just as we discussed thereinbefore,Duty of Care can be regarded as the "essence" of Anglo-American Torts.Its advantageous functions can be illustrated as such:It breaks the limits of relativity of contracts,and promotes the rapid progress of Torts development,especially that of Negligence.It also reacts swiftly to social changes,and maintains the openness,tolerance and social adaptability of Torts.It helps to balance between freedom of activity, protection of victim and social interest,and to regulate people’s activity,so that legal orientation and spirit can melt with interest discretion and get internalized into people’s actions by self-consciousness.Chapter Two:Test for Duty of Care.This chapter falls into four sections: Outline,Foreseeability,Proximity and Policy Discretion.The outline mainly introduces the history development of the test for Duty of Care,specifically the reasons for the decline of"Anns two-stage test" as well as the background about the prosperity of "Caparo tripartite test" and its contents.In addition, this section also analyses and criticizes tests advocated by scholars deeply, such as "assumption of responsibility" and "inerementalism".The section of Foreseeability focuses on the meaning and content of Foreseeability--the foreseeable plaintiff and damage.It points out that Foreseeability is the basis for an actor to take Duty of Care,and that it is also a flexible term whose object and realm are hard to define.As a foreseeable plaintiff,he must be within the realm of Foreseeability,either as a particular person predicated by the actor when tort actually being inflicted,or as a member of the specific group being inflicted by the tort of the actor.In other words,the actor does not take the responsibility for all the damages resulted from his acts.Only when the damage is predictable and unreasonably serious is the actor responsible for the Duty of Care.Foreseeability is closely relevant to local recognition within particular place and time,and the likeliness of damage will also influence the depth of predictability.As exceptions of Foreseeability, "Eggshell Skull Doctrine" and "Rescue Doctrine" further extend the range of the actor’s Duty of Care.Proximity is the decisive or controlling factor in deciding the existence of Duty of Care.With a profound and flexible meaning,it needs to be understood and interpreted according to different cases.Foreseeability is the basis of Proximity,and Proximity is an essential factor to restrict and control Foreseeability,so Proximity has an independent value.In the application of Proximity,the following principles should be observed:The actor should be prevented from "taking uncertain responsibility for uncertain people at uncertain time";reasonable value orientation should be channeled;court should avoid trying non-judicial issues such as the distribution of public resources;public interest should be given priority.The foundation of Duty of Care does not only involve the interest balance between conflicting parties,but also affects the investigation and assessment of the public interest afflicted by the case.Therefore,Policy Discretion is necessary.The result of Policy Discretion may still deny Duty of Care although it is compatible with Foreseeability and Proximity.The factors of Policy Discretion frequently employed by judges include the possibility of flood of suits,overkill,loss allocation,economic profit and public interest. Policy Discretion,Foreseeability and Proximity constitute the different facets of one thing,and play different roles in "Tripartite Test".Chapter Three:Standards of Duty of Care Breaching.In general,the standards of Duty of Care Breaching include the standards ruled by judges and those made by legislations.The standards ruled by judges include Reasonableman Standard,An-Aggregate-risk-utility Test Standard,Res ipsa loquitur Standard and Legislation Standard.Specific sections in this chapter elaborate on these standards.Reasonableman Standard is the most common,frequent and popular standard used on Anglo-American Torts.It is the standard of behavior of a person personified by law with average level of mentality,common knowledgeable and experience,and normal ability to handle social matters. The standard is thus objectified but fabricated.Reasonableman is no more different from average person around,and is not as perfect as flawless.The only difference is that his defects and mistakes can always be tolerated by society within the permissible and reasonable range.Reasonableman Standard in fact signifies the unification of subjectivity and objectivity.As its prerequisite is "reasonable",the image of Reasonableman differs among different judges and jurors,it is thus far from being an objective standard.It needs to apply different standard from that of Reasonableman to such groups as actors with restricted ability,professionals or people in particular situations.An-Aggregate-risk-utility Test standard is a standard created by Anglo-American scholars and judges applying economic analysis.By counting the results of the three variables,namely the possibility of damage（P）, severity of damage（L） and cost of damage（B）,the court can decide whether the actor is supposed to take relevant Duty of Care.For instance,if B＜P^*L,the actor will take the Duty of Care to prevent the occurrence of damage, otherwise,the actor will not take the Duty.The establishment of this standard promotes the rise of the school of legal-economic analysis,and adds economic value to the system of Torts.It has been warmly welcomed in the U.S.and its followers,but resisted in Great Britain and its followers.The values of the variables are often hard to count,rendering the standard more significant in statistics other than in application.In spite of this,it is still uniquely meaningful by providing an economic definition of the value of the actor’s behavior and avoidance the occurrence of the damage.Res ipsa loquitur Standard is in essence used to deduce through the incident itself whether the actor has fulfilled his Duty of Care.The conditions for the application of the standard include:without Negligence,the incident would not have happened;the occurrence of the incident excludes factors other than the defendant;the plaintiff is within the range of Duty of Care of the defendant; the occurrence of the incident is not caused by the initiative action of the plaintiff.This standard does not remit the onus of the plaintiff to provide the court proofs,therefore,he is still required to provide indirect evidence to prove the defendant’s violation of his Duty of Care.The judges and jurors are empowered to refuse adopting the evidence to inflict the defendant responsibility.So Res ipsa loquitur Standard does not facilitate the inversion of onus for parties of law suit to provide the court their supporting evidence. Instead,it submits the judge and jurors a reasonable deduction to prove the defendant’s failure to perform his Duty of Care,since this deduction can be used to decide the faults of the defendant when he fails to provide adequate evidence to refute.Legislation Standard signifies norms of behaviors for all social members, and the violation may indicate that the actor is likely to take relevant responsibilities.In the later half of the ¹⁹th century,Anglo-American judges did not believe that any activity violating legislations could be sued as reasons for Torts,and only when these legislations intended to protect the victims including the plaintiff was it possible for them to use as evidence to bring an action against the defendant’ Torts.Since legislations have to be carried out through the judicial activities of the court,the interpretation of them thus becomes the key factor to decide whether the actor will take the responsibility of compensating for the damage.The application of the standard needs to be considered comprehensively according to the intention of legislations,the object of their protection and the damage that they design to prevent against.Chapter Four:Defenses for Duty of Care Breaching.In order to protect the positive acts of the actor and to share the responsibility of Torts on the basis of justice,Anglo-American Torts have established the equivalent defenses for breaching Duty of Care,which include Consent or Assumption of Risk on the part of the plaintiff,Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence,and Privileges.Specific sections in this chapter will focus on these defenses.Consent means the recognition,permission,acceptance,confirmation and even tolerance of the acts of others,and the expression of Consent can be either apparent or implied.Consent shall be made by the person with relevant ability of behaving,and willingly made by the plaintiff with full knowledge of facts,and be limited within specific ranges."Informed Consent" can only be carried out as a defense to Duty of Care in specific areas,such as medical treatment,when the actor has disclosed adequate information and enabled the opposing party to be fully informed of the risk of action.Assumption of Risk can be applicable as a defense to Duty of Care on other fields of Torts other than those caused by intention,and its expression and condition are basically same as Consent.In the case of exculpatory agreements,their effect needs to be reconsidered if they involve public interest or policy.In addition,the rescuer’s action cannot be regarded as Assumption of Risk.In Common Law,if the plaintiff is also responsible for the occurrence of Negligence,he will commit Contributory Negligence,which in turn prevents him from getting relieves provided by Torts.The principle of Contributory Negligence is rather harsh for the victim.In practice,Anglo-American Torts limit its application through the principle of "last clear chance".In the 20^th century and after,Anglo-American Torts have adopted Comparative Negligence to settle the issue of rational sharing of compensations. Specifically,the methods of Comparative Negligence include "Pure Comparative Negligence" and "Modified Comparative Negligence". On meeting the needs of public policy,protection of oneself or others, Anglo-American Torts provide some privileges for the actor,in order to exempt him from the possible responsibility.These privileges mainly include Defense of Oneself or Others,Defense of Property,Necessity,Immunity and other Privileges.The Defense of Oneself or others also involves protection of the spouse or other family members.Everyone,other than the attacker or the person who illegally invokes aggression,is entitled to the defense.When practicing Defense of Property,the actor cannot use fatal or dangerous ways, but for that his safety or that of others is engendered by damaging or threat of instant damaging.Necessity includes Public Necessity and Private Necessity. Generally,the damage avoided by Necessity should be larger than that caused by Necessity.From the consideration of public policy,Anglo-American Torts endow the right of Immunity for the people who have special status,perform special functions or who are in special procedures,so as to exempt them from the possible responsibilities due to their failure to fulfill their Duty of Care. From middle of 20^th century,owing to the ever-increasing doubts concerning the right of Immunity,it has been either eliminated or limited to use.For instance,in Great Britain and New Zealand,the Immunity of lawyers has been eliminated.Chapter Five:Duty of Care in Cases of Compensation Caused by Psychiatric Injury.In addition to the physical damage to the victim,the act of tort also causes psychological sufferings.Different from the ordinary physical injury,Psychiatric Injury necessitates special duty of care of the actor. Psychiatric Injury can be divided into two categories which are respectively applicable to primary victims and secondary victims,to differentiate the direct and indirect victims of the act of tort.The first section of the chapter provides a comprehensive introduction of the meaning,characteristics and development of Psychiatric Injury.It clarifies that Psychiatric Injury had been regarded as affiliated to physical injury,and it is not until the beginning of the 20^th century that the independent Psychiatric Injury began to be identified.To judge the existence of Psychiatric Injury, various factors should be taken into consideration,such as the seriousness of the defendant’s act,the degree of the plaintiff’s psychological injury,as well as the victim’s mental problems as confirmed by medical test. The second section of the chapter focuses on the actor’s Duty of Care in cases of compensation caused by secondary victim’s Psychiatric Injury.In such cases,if defendant’s act is believed to constitute the threat to plaintiff’s safety and thus leads to Psychiatric Injury,plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation.It does not matter whether plaintiff is really endangered.If plaintiff participates either actively or passively in the incident and suffers from Psychiatric Injury due to the death or injury of others,and if he is not the direct victim of the incident,his status is judged differently by different judges, either as the primary or secondary victim.For those who suffer from Psychiatric Injury when performing their responsibilities,such as policemen and firemen,their claim for compensation is generally rejected.With the development of Anglo-American Torts,when the person involved suffers from Psychiatric Injury as a result of his endangered property or his perpetual stressful work,he can claim for compensation as primary victim.The third section of the chapter elaborates on the actor’s Duty of Care in cases of compensation caused by secondary victim.In comparison with Psychiatric Injury of primary victim,that of secondary victim is harder to define,and the majority of courts either reject or limit the claim for compensation.Judging from the series of cases in Anglo-American Torts, when the actor is judged as the violator of his Duty of Care and thus to be responsible for Psychiatric Injury of secondary victim,the following conditions should be meet:firstly,there should be sufficiently close ties of love and affection between primary and secondary victim;secondly,secondary victim should bear some spatial and temporal proximity with the incident and its damaging effect;thirdly,secondary victim should feel the incident and its damaging effect directly.Chapter Six:Duty of Care in Cases of Compensation Caused by Pure Economic Loss.The protection of Pure Economic Loss has been considered as "Gordian knot".This chapter covers an outline as well as the point of Hedley Byrne Principle and Pure Economic Loss.The outline emphasizes on the meaning,characteristics and development of Pure Economic Loss on Anglo-American Torts,the reason for the caution of inflicting Duty of Care on Pure Economic Loss.It can be illustrated through this section that Pure Economic Loss refers to the monetary loss,other than the safety threat or physical damage,directly inflicted on the victim due to the actor’s tort.Pure Economic Loss is characterized by invisibility,directness and relative certainty.It has experienced three stages of development: rejection,growth and limitation,which are compatible with the development of Duty of Care.The courts are very cautious in defining Duty of Care in dealing with cases of Pure Economic Loss on Anglo-American Torts.The reasons may involve the concerns over the floodgate of lawsuits,the possible damage to the relativity of contracts,potential negative influence on the interest of Torts and the demand of legal certainty.Therefore,in comparison with visible damage,Pure Economic Loss is more limited in the protection on Anglo-American Torts.Pure Economic Loss is widely accepted in the realm of misstatement.In judicial practice of Anglo-American Torts,Hedley Byrne Principle is often used as the basis to judge the actor’s responsibility for Pure Economic Loss as a result of misstatement.The following principles should be observed in application of Hedley Byrne Principle:the actor possesses,or is believed to possess special skill,knowledge or authority in particular area;the actor constitutes Assumption of Responsibility and the victim lays reasonable reliance on him.In the judgment of whether the actor’s statement is ruled as Assumption of Responsibility,the occasion,purpose and the specific relations between parties involved should be considered comprehensively.The application of Hedley Byrne Principle can be extended to judge Pure Economic Loss the plaintiff suffered either by third party’s trust on misstatement of defendant or by the omission of defendant.Chapter Seven:Duty of Care Related with Third Party.In Common Law, people do not take Duty of Care to limit or control the act of the third party to avoid possible damages,or to warn those who are likely to incur the danger of damage from the third party.However,as an exception,in some specific situations,the actor is still supposed to take such Duty.The situations include: some special relationship exist between the defendant and the third party;the third party inflicts the act of tort on premises or using chattels owned, controlled or provided by the defendant.Both two sections in this chapter will elaborate on these points.As for the special relationship between the defendant and the third party,it mainly involves the defendant’s control,supervision and administration over the third party.In employment,the employer may take vicarious liability for the employee’s behavior,on the condition that the employment really exists and the employee’s behavior is within the realm of employment.Even if the employer prohibits the employee from performing certain activity,it does not mean that the employer has already fulfilled his Duty of Care.The issue should be decided according to the fact that whether the prohibitive regulation is designed to define the realm of employment or the way of fulfilling the employment activity.This principle is also applicable for agent.For instance, the corporation shall take vicarious responsibility for its directors.When third party enters premises owned,controlled,or operated by defendant,or use chattels possessed or provided by defendant,the defendant is supposed to take relevant Duty of Care.Generally,the defendant undertakes responsibility to safeguard the personal and property safety for the person paying visit to the premises owned,controlled or operated by him.Similarly, the defendant is also obliged to take Duty of Care to prevent third party from damaging the visitor on the premises.However,exception of such Duty exists when the defendant is unable to take any measure to prevent third party from doing it.In Common Law,property owner is obliged to properly handle his chattel so as to avoid possible damages to other people,including Duty of Care to prevent third party damaging others when using his property.However,such Duty of Care is not applicable to the manufacturer or seller of merchandize, unless he knows for sure that third party use the product to pursue illegal intent.Chapter Eight:Supplementary Research:Comparative Study on Duty of Care of Two Legal Systems and Inspiration to Chinese Torts Legislations.Although the two legal systems are greatly different and respectively characteristic,they still share some common features and accommodate with each other.Duty of Care on Torts is just a reflection in point.It is significant and inspiring to make mature Chinese Torts.The first section of the chapter makes comprehensive comparative studies on Torts between Anglo-American Legal System and Continental Legal System. Due to the influence of ancient Roman laws,the change of Negligence from subjectivism to objectivism,and the promotion of Negligence theory in criminal laws,the countries of Continental Legal System have adopted in succession the theory of Duty of Care,so as to establish Negligence system on Torts.France has set up a highly rigorous and widely applicable system of Duty of Care,and the courts largely use "prudent et diligens paterfamilias" to judge on Negligence of the actor.Germany has established relevant Duty of Care through such cases as damage by withered branches of street trees,not splashing salt on steps covered by snow in front of gate,and the butcher’s damage caused by a sick cow treated by a veterinarian in order to make up for the absence of relevant legislations and to deal with various tort cases. Japanese scholars of Civil Law,on the basis of comparative studies with Duty of Care on Negligence Crime,have taken duty of avoidance of damage as the core of Duty of Care,and refer to the economic analysis method of Hand Formula to measure whether the actor shall take duty of avoidance of damage or not by a few factors.In judicial practice,the Duty of Safety Caring is much widely used by Japanese courts.In comparison,it is not hard to discover that the historical background of rise of Duty of Care in two legal systems are basically same,that the origin and application of Duty of Care are universally applicable,that Duty of Care reflects the combination of subjective and objective factors,and that functions of Duty of Care are both indispensable.The second section of the chapter focuses on the inspirations that the theory of Duty of Care provided to Chinese Torts legislations.In China,there is disagreement on the issue whether the theory of Duty of Care should be guided into Torts legislation.The author of the dissertation holds that,to judge whether a legal system can be adopted and applied,and whether it is functional, it is not enough to simply study which legal system it comes from,or whether it is native or borrowed.Instead,the decisive factors are whether there is mature theory,whether the value function is practical,and whether it accords with the development and perfection of native laws.To absorb Duty of Care on Anglo-American Torts will not cause system converse of Chinese Torts legislation.The theory development and law practice of Chinese Torts show that the absorption of Duty of Care is urgent and feasible as well.Legislature and some experts all mention Duty of Care in their legislation advice.Through the comparison of 4 legislation schemes,the author of the dissertation thinks that Chinese Torts legislation should regulate Duty of Care.Duty of Care can be listed in general articles,with its concept being defined as this:Duty of Care refers to the duty for an actor,on the basis of legislation,exchange tradition,common norms of social communication and good customs,to predict and judge whether his act will cause damage,to act cautiously accordingly,and to take reasonable measures to avoid the occurrence of potential damages.Criteria of Duty of Care should be compatible with the widely acceptable criteria observed by local citizens who share similar situations with the actor.If the actor belongs to some special groups,the criteria of Duty of Care should be applicable to those groups.At the same time, the standard of An-Aggregate-Risk-Utility Test on Anglo-American Torts is also recommended.In addition,the establishment of Duty of Care should be compatible with the need of social public policy,and should also be limited from various aspects to balance freedom of behavior,interest protection of others and social efficacy.It is not suitable to design a too low or too high gate for Duty of Care.更多还原