【作者】 王颖；

【导师】 张学军；

【作者基本信息】 浙江工商大学 ， 民商法学， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 当代美国侵权法上的连带责任的主要特征是：(1)如果多个被告的侵权行为被证明是造成原告一个不可分损害的近因,则原告可以起诉其中任何一个或者多个被告要求其支付全部损害的赔偿；(2)一旦原告通过判决、和解或者通过其他方式从一个或者一部分侵权人处得到了满足,则其不能再向其他侵权人提出请求；(3)如果其中一个或者一部分非故意侵权人支付了超过其应支付份额的赔偿金,则其有权要求其他侵权人进行分摊；(4)因一个或者多个共同侵权人破产、免责或者其他原因导致该份额不能获得的风险将由诉讼中的其他有偿付能力的被告承担。从历史渊源上看,现代侵权法意义上的连带责任最早可以追溯到1613年英格兰的约翰海登爵士一案。1691年英国法院判决的史密森诉盖茨案是普通法上明确阐述连带责任规则的第一个也是最典型的案例,此时的“英国法规则”仅在故意侵权行为中适用连带责任,且遵循“禁止分摊规则”。19世纪40年代末期,连带责任规则传入美国并逐渐得以运用,威斯康星州是最早一批追随美国联邦接受连带责任规则的州之一,该州最高法院在1854年的瑞查森诉艾默生案中首次采用了连带责任规则。从19世纪60年代开始,美国各州将连带责任规则扩张适用于共同过失侵权行为,随后又允许因一个或者多个共同侵权人破产、免责或者其他原因而不能获得的份额在其他有偿付能力的被告之间分摊。经过200余年的发展,连带责任规则在20世纪70年代发展成为在美国侵权法领域占主导地位的一项制度。而从20世纪80年代开始的现代侵权法改革运动引发了关于连带责任制度存废问题的大讨论,学者们纷纷加入到讨论中,并逐渐形成主张废除连带责任制度并以个别责任取代连带责任的“废除派”和主张保留连带责任制度的“保留派”两方面的观点。“废除派”学者认为连带责任制度让某些仅对损害的发生负有部分责任的侵权人为其他侵权人行为所造成的损害进行赔偿是不公平的,它会造成被告之间的利益失衡、原告与被告之间的利益失衡、滥用诉讼行为的大量发生和社会成本的剧烈增加等一系列负面影响,且其与侵权法的基本目标是相矛盾的。而“保留派”学者则主张：连带责任制度应当被保留下来,从而保证侵权行为的受害人可以取得充分的损害赔偿。他们认为连带责任制度的风险转移方法是合理的,“废除派”学者对连带责任制度的理解是有偏差的,“深口袋被告”在美国并非普遍现象,而且以个别责任取代连带责任制度的做法也有其缺陷。受现代侵权法改革运动的影响,到2007年初为止,美国约有43个州采纳了不同类型的连带责任改革方案用以限制连带责任的适用范围。连带责任在美国侵权法历史上经历了从萌芽到扩张再到限制的一系列发展过程,这一过程从连带责任最初适用于共谋的侵权行为开始,随后在侵权行为中广泛适用而达到鼎盛,最后又在现代侵权法改革运动中以其适用范围的不断缩小而结束,这不仅反映了美国社会政策的变迁,而且反映了侵权法顺应社会发展所作的调整。目前,我国侵权法上的连带责任主要规定在《民法通则》和《最高人民法院关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》中。前者仅对连带责任做了原则性的规定,后者则将连带责任扩大适用于无意思联络的共同侵权行为、共同危险行为、雇主责任、雇工受到损害的责任、帮工致害责任和人工构筑物设置缺陷责任,如此大规模扩大适用的合理性值得商榷。在我国法学研究领域,学者们对于大陆法系各国民法典有关侵权的法理和学说已经有较深入的研究,但对于英美法系的侵权法理论却少有涉及,与连带责任有关的研究则更为鲜见。尽管我国侵权法与美国侵权法在理论基础和司法实践方面都存在不少差异,但是连带责任在美国法上发展历程,对于重新审视我国侵权法上连带责任具有重要的借鉴意义。本文采用比较法的研究方法,分四个部分对美国侵权法上的连带责任进行研究。第一部分对连带责任的相关概念进行解析,重点介绍了美国侵权法上的不可分损害、清偿、和解和分摊这四个重要的法律概念,以此作为下文深入研究美国侵权法上的连带责任的基础。第二部分首先阐述了传统普通法下连带责任规则的确立与早期发展,其次分析了英美普通法下连带责任规则的现实基础与理论基础。第三部分从介绍现代侵权法改革运动的背景入手,对现代美国侵权法上连带责任制度的新发展进行深入研究,比较全面地归纳了美国现代侵权法改革运动之下,“废除派”与“保留派”学者关于连带责任制度的存废问题的不同观点,介绍了现代侵权法改革运动对美国各州连带责任立法实践的影响。第四部分提出美国侵权法上的连带责任对我国的几点启示,以期为我国侵权责任法的立法提供一定的借鉴。更多还原

【Abstract】 Joint and several liability in American tort law has four important features, (1)A plaintiff may collect all of his damages from any one of several tortfeasors who are found to be a proximate cause of his injuries. (2)Once the judgment was satisfied, by settlement or otherwise, the plaintiff was barred from pursuing a claim against any other joint tortfeasor. (3)Jointly liable defendants can seek contribution from their fellow tortfeasors. (4)The risk that one or more co-defendants will be insolvent, immune or otherwise unavailable falls completely on solvent defendants.From the historical point of view, modern tort law sense of joint and several liability can be traced back as early as 1613 in England, Sir John Heydon case.1691 Smithson v. Gates is the first and the most typical case which clearly stated the joint and several liability rules in common law. Under this original English rule, the plaintiff could join multiple tort-feasors together only when they acted in concert and followed the English "no-contribution" rule.In the late 1940s, Joint and several liability was introduced to the United States and applied. Wisconsin was one of the first batch of states which followed the Federal to accept joint and several liability, the Wisconsin Supreme Court first addressed joint and several liability in 1854, in Richardson v. Emerson.From the 1860s, the states of America start to expand the appliance of joint and several liability to the concurrent torts, and then allowed jointly liable defendants to seek contribution from their fellow tortfeasors. After 200 years of development, joint and several liability became a system which played the leading role of tort law in the United States in 1970s. But the modern tort law reform movement which started from the 1980s led to a great debate about abolition of joint and several liability system, scholars have joined in the discussion,and gradually form two aspects of view. One is "repeal faction",the other one is "reservations faction". The "repeal faction" believes that joint and several liability request some joint tortfeasors paying damages which were also caused by other defendants is unfair, It will result in an imbalance between the interests of the defendants, an imbalance between the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant, a high incidence of abuse of legal action and dramatic increase in social costs, furthermore it is is inconsistent with the principles of tort law. The "reservations faction" believes joint and several liability should be preserved to ensure full damage recovery for tort victims and prevent tort victims from having to bear the burden of damages done to them. They believe the risk transfer method of joint and several liability systemis reasonable, and the understanding of joint and several liability system of the "repeal faction" is inaccurate, the"deep pocket defendanf"is not a common phenomenon in United States, and it also have shortcomongs to replace joint and several liability system with several Liability. By the impact of the modern tort law reform movement, forty-three states of the United States have adopted some sort of joint and several liability reform Until early 2007. Joint and several liability in the United States has experienced the history of tort law to expand from the bud and then to a series of restrictions on the development process, this process was originally from the joint and several liability for complicity in violations, followed by a widely applicable in tort to reach its peak, and finally in modern tort law reform movement continued to narrow its scope of application of an end, which not only reflects the changes in American social policy, but also reflect the social development of tort law conform to the adjustments made.At present, China’s mainly provides for joint and several liability is in General Principles of the Civil Law of he People’s Republic of China and Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court of Some Issues concerning the Application of Law for the Trial of Cases on Compensation for Personal Injury. The former one only made some principle provisions of joint and several liability, the later one extended the scope of joint and several liability applies to quasi joint act of tort,joint dangerous act, employer’s liability, the responsibility for injured workers, helper virulence responsibility and artificial structures set up defects liability. Such a large scale extended rationality is open to question.In the field of China’s law study, Scholars for the common-law tort theories rarely involved, with joint and several liability-related research is even more rare. While there are many differences between China’s Tort Law and American tort law, but the development process of joint and several liability in American tort law has an important significance as reference for us to re-examine our joint and several liability.By employing a comparative study, this paper is divided into four parts to research joint and several liability in American tort law. The first part analyzed some concepts which related to joint and several liability in American tort law,highlighting the concept of indivisible injury, satisfaction, settlement and contribution, as a basis of the below-depth research on joint and several liability in American tort law. The second part begins by describing the traditional joint and several liability under the common law rules of establishment and early development, followed by the analysis of the real foundation and theoretical basis of joint and several liability under the Anglo-American common law. The third part start with the introduction of the background start of the modern tort reform movement, in-depth study on the new development of joint and several liability in American tort law, more comprehensively summed up the different viewpoints of the "repeal faction" and the "reservations faction" about abolition of joint and several liability system, and introduced the effect of the modern tort reform movement on the American states’ legislative practice of joint and several liability. The fourth part presents the enlightenment of joint and several liability in American tort law, with a view to provide a reference to the legislation of China’s Tort Liability Act.更多还原