Font Size: a A A

The Influence Of Fault To The Scope Of Damages Under No-fault Liability In Tort Law

Posted on:2011-09-24Degree:DoctorType:Dissertation
Country:ChinaCandidate:H A LiuFull Text:PDF
GTID:1116360305953729Subject:Civil and Commercial Law
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
Basis of imputation is the guideline and formula for confirming the foundation of tort liability based on a certain values. The basis of no-fault liability is the guideline and formula for confirming the foundation of tort liability based on not fault but damages and mandatory implicative relations. No-fault liability is the liability based on the basis of no-fault liability. From the angle of functionalism, the consideration of no-fault liability can be acknowledged as protecting the intolerable damages, maintaining the balance of the parties'advantages and disadvantages and keeping the efficiency of rules. The considerations above can contain what most countries have prescribed about no-fault liability.Fault, classified as negligence and intention, is the combine of the flaws of mind and act. Negligence can be considered as the combine of the lack of mind and the flaws of act. Intention can be considered as the combine of the overflow of mind and the flaws of act. The key difference is the flaws of mind, but this does not influence the same nature of the two, such as the breach of the duty to avoid damage, and the core nature of moral condemnation. Though the confirming of fault takes the objective approach as the chief one and the subjective approach as the secondary one, it can not get rid of the concern of condemnation. Victim's fault, as one kind of fault, is the combine of flaws of mind and act that gave rise to damages, the mind and act is under the standard for self protection. The standard of the victim's fault is same to the afflicter's. It seems only to influence the victim's interests; in fact, it also influences the afflicter's interests.Wrong risk belongs to its owner. Both the afflicter's and the victim's fault can not influence the foundation of no-fault liability, can only influence the scope of no-fault liability. The theory of the afflicter's fault influencing the scope of liability, especially the scope of no-fault liability, should be admitted. The influence can be classified as the one in compensatory liability and the one in punitive liability. The influence of the afflicter's fault to the scope of compensatory liability can exist where different kinds of damage gets different protection from law and where the scope of damage can not be ascertained. The degree of fault influences the scope of damages, because it gave rise to different risk of damage, accords to the retributive principle, owns the function of education and prevention. After uncover the confusions of the conflict between the theory above and the full compensation principle, of the blurring of civil liability and penal liability, of the disadvantages of the victim, the theory of fault influencing damages can be justified. The influence of the afflicter's fault to the punitive liability can be embodied as the punitive damages. Punitive damages, as the additional transferring of money, take punishment and prevention as the chief aim, accord with the retributive principle and the acknowledged moral sense, own the function of private enforcement of law, do good to the efficiency of rules, so own the huge value.The influence mentioned above can exist in both sole tortfeasorship and joint tortfeasorship. In the condition of sole tort liability, if the afflicter has no fault or has only ordinary negligence, the limit of compensation is the scope ascertained by the legal causation, but the limit should be the cap when the law prescribed the cap. If the afflicter's fault is more severe than ordinary negligence, he should pay more damages proportionally for the actual damages thanks to his act and for damages out of reasonable remedy. If the afflicter causes damage intentionally, or has not avoid damage he has anticipated and the law wants to avoid strongly, he should pay additional due damages outside of the actual damage.In the condition of joint tortfeasorship, the theory of the afflicter's fault influences his compensatory and punitive damages generally can not be applied for the confirming of the scope of joint and several liability, and can be applied for the confirm of the sole scope of damages. The sole scope of damages refers to the damages not contained the damages based on which the joint tortfeasorship founds, such as the damages from the joint act of the afflicter in the joint tortfeasorship before other risk source relevant to other afflicters became the cause, the indivisible damages caused by the afflicters'joint action but not belong to the one in the legal causation. The situation where the afflicter's fault influences the joint and several liability in joint tortfeasorship can only exist where it contains vicarious liability. Take employer and employee for example, the joint tort of the employer and the employee bases on one act and one damage, once the scope of the employee's liability is ascertained, the scope of the employer's is ascertained too. As the inner proportion, the afflicter's fault can not influence his scope of punitve damages, but can influence his scope of compensatory damages. The influence of the afflicter's fault to the liability proportion is embodied as the risk proportion rue and the modified by the afflicter's subjective condemnation. The risk proportion risk purport to ascertain each party's burden through the proportion of the risk each party subject to in the risks all parties subject to. The rule accords to the aim of tort law, makes the comparing more certain and more concrete, so it makes the ascertainment of the liability proportion more scientific and to some degree prevents at will. The rule embodied the influence of the weight of damage's avoidance, based on which the degree of fault can be ascertained, to the liability proportion, so it's relevant to fault.The influence of the victim's fault to the afflicter's scope of damages in no-fault liability has special reasonability. The victim should responsible for the enhanced risk of damage because of his fault; the responsibility is good to the protection for the afflicter's reasonable reliance. The approach of the victim's fault influencing his scope of damages in no-fault liability should also be the risk proportion rule together with the modification by the parties'subjective condemnation. This approach can exist in both sole tortfeasorship and joint tortfeasorship.
Keywords/Search Tags:Fault, No-fault Liability, Scope of Damages, Risk Proportion Rule
PDF Full Text Request
Related items