Research On Joint-Torts

This dissertation deals with some issues concerning Joint-Torts,which turn out to be valuable both in academic and practical fields. Six parts are included into this paper. Introductory part puts forward some problems related to Joint-Torts,pointing out that because the laws and regulations are relatively simple,various plights and puzzles emerge onto the stage of judicial and otherdisputes settlement stage. The first part of this paper summarizes and compares the legislationand case-doctrines throughout the world. It comes to a conclusion thatestablishing the Joint-Torts with a wide angle is the trend of thedoctrines of cases and theories. The second part of this paper probes into the value orientation ofthe institution of the Joint-Torts. To protect the rights of the victims,prevent and cover up the damages, the value orientation of the legislationon Joint-Torts should be as follows: Protect the rights with theincreasing of the remedies measures; Completely recover the damages withthe decentralization of social risks; Strengthen the prevention on thetorts with the enhancement on the duties of individual Joint-Torts party.The third part of this paper focuses on the components of Joint-Torts.The essential point of Joint-Torts, most scholars believe, is the natureof joint aspects. In this regard, four types of doctrines are presentedas listed below: First one is the doctrine of subjectivism, which statesthat the fundamental characteristic of Joint-Torts is that the individualparties subjectively share the joint faults, based on which the individualparties can be seen to combine their minds and actions into one. The secondis the doctrine of objectivism, stating that the nature of joint aspectsshould not be examined with the subjective contact as the pre-requisite.Instead, it argues, Joint-Torts can be established with the objectivejoint relevance. Just like a hamburger, the third doctrine, can bedescribed as the compromise doctrine, judge the nature of joint aspectswith both the subjective and objective perspective. The last doctrine ismentioned as sorting doctrine, which holds that Joint-Torts should beclassified to examine to view with more concrete rules and standards. Asa rule of thumb, doctrine of subjectivism and doctrine of objectivism aretwo basic theories, while the compromise doctrine and sorting doctrineare derivative theories of the previous two. The fourth part of this paper discusses the effects and valuation ofvarious doctrines. The prevailing doctrines with the value of widespreadapplication are the doctrine of subjectivism and doctrine of objectivism.Based on the analysis of the standing points, practical effects,theoretical basis, value orientation, trend of cases doctrine, it is morereasonable to adopt the doctrine of objectivism. With that in mind, wecan examine the nature of joint efforts from the subjective aspect of thetrespassers or the causation of the action and the result. When several trespassers share the common intents, they are deemedto have the unanimous reorganization on the consequence of the acts,therefore, their acts should be recognized as the integrate one. On thecontrary, when several trespassers do not have the intents contacts, thejoint nature of their action relevancy could be distinguished as follows:The first is that the damage results from the common action of alltrespassers; The second is that damages resulted from all individualtrespassers are intractably inter-dependent, and the causation exist inthe separate actions and the damages. Also, this type still can be dividedinto three modes: The first mode is that the acts of all individualtrespassers commonly play or interact in the same time and the same placeleading to damage; The second mode is that damage resulted from individualacts occurring at different places cannot be detached. The third mode isthat the sequential acts result in the same damage. We should also notethat some differ...