Research On Joint Strict

The issue of joint strict was brought forth because of the expansion ofpeople's activities. The distance between two persons is becoming nearer in timeand space now, so they are more likely to be hurt by others, but sometimes it isdifficult to determine who the real defendant is, for conditional and technicallimitation. Germany, Japan and Taiwan all stipulated joint strict in their CivilCodes, but China didn't stipulate do so in "General Rules of Civil law". Thereare many lawsuits about joint strict appear, but the results are always different. Inthis paper, the author made systematic research on joint strict, and put forwardher own opinion about this issue on the basis of legislation and theories. Thepaper can be divided into three parts, which are summarized as the following: The first part deals with "the concept of joint strict", which can be dividedinto two parts, the opinions on the theories about the concept of joint strict andthe views about the concept by the author. In order to discuss the issue of jointstrict, we must make the concept clear first, which is the basis of the issue of theconstructive requirements and civil liability. In this paper, according to theenumeration and comparison among the legislations of other countries, and thecomments on the theories about this issue, we get the concept of joint strict andmake it clear what are the difference and relationship among joint strict, joint tortand several concurrent torts. In this part, we also analyze the foundation ofconstructive requirements and civil liability. The second part deals with "the constructive requirements of joint strict". Inthis part, according to the comparison among the provisions to the constructiverequirements made by Germany, Japan and Taiwan, we draw a conclusion thatdifferent provisions depend on different legislative aim. Then according to"four-requiremented theory", we examine on the constructive requirements,which are tortious act, fault, causation and damage. As for tortious act, wediscuss the issues whether the acts are possible to make others injured, whetherthey are illegal and whether some relation among them is necessary. The authorbelieves that the acts must be possible to make others injured and illegal, with norelations of them required. In order to become joint strict, the acts must bepossible to make others injured and threat others'some rights. If the acts are notjustifiable defense, necessity or act of helping oneself, the acts needn't certain 51relation in time or space. As for fault, we mainly discuss three issues. Firstly theform of fault, the author thinks that actors can be negligent or intentional. Thelegislation aim of joint strict is to help the injured party when the real defendantis undermined, because the actors'potential damage acts can prove their faults,which include negligence and intent. Secondly, the issue about the fault of actorswhose acts didn't leads to damage, for their potential damage acts can beoutward aspects of their fault. Thirdly, the issue about joint fault amongtortfeasors is the difference to joint tort. As for damage, it must be similar andcan't be divided. One of the most salient features of joint strict is theundetermined defendant, so the causation is deduced. In case of undeterminedportion, it also applies to the stipulation about joint strict. The third part deals with "the civil liability of joint strict", which mainlydiscusses the question about the form of civil liability, the contribution of civilliability and indemnity. The countries of Civil Law systems, all stimulate jointand several liability in joint strict in their Civil Codes. In United States,Industry-wide liability and Market share liability were set up to handle thelawsuits in which the defendant is undetermined in product liability field. It is thecombination of the joint several liability with the Market share liability thatmakes the in...