The Study Of Pure Economic Loss In Tort Liability

Pure economic loss in tort responsibility refers to the loss of pure economic benefits or loss of pure money the victim suffers directly, rather than the loss caused by the contractual relation or the loss in terms of body or physical properties. This concept was firstly proposed by Great Britain and America for the sake of limiting the compensate range of loss in tort responsibility and keeping balance of civil subjects' action freedom and protection of rights. However, new types of civil relations appear with the development of economy and social vicissitudes, which makes the rule of "limit of liability" face serious challenges. A lot of cognizance and judgment breaks through the limitation of the rule, compensating the victims who suffer pure economic loss in tort responsibility. In the present, no matter in the law system of Great Britain, America and France, or in the law system of continental countries, the pure economic loss caused by the negligent tort behavior no longer pays no compensation, but pays certain price selectively through different ways.The study of pure economic loss in tort responsibility doesn't start until the resent years. The translated works the Tort Law of Comparison in Europe (Zhang Xinbao,2001) involves a lot treatise about pure economic loss in tort responsibility. Afterwards, the related legal treatise and thesis have been published successively in the following ten years. In the present, the concept of pure economic loss in tort responsibility only exists in scholastic works, but it hasn't been identified explicitly in current laws. However, it doesn't demonstrate that such problem doesn't exist in our county's conflict. In fact, the laws including the same content exists massively in China's legislation and justice.As to pure economic loss in tort responsibility, the General Provisions of the Civil Law and the Tort Liability Law prescribe the general rules model, and other department laws judicial interpretation adopt categorized criterion model. The general rules model is too abstract, general and insufficient in maneuverability, while the categorized criterion model is definite and concrete but without integral system as well as too narrow in protecting range. As to the defects stated in the above, the author proposed that the current laws should integrate the two models. On one hand, to protect the pure economic loss in tort responsibility led by the intent behaviors according to the general rules model, judging the corresponding responsibilities by the elements in the case. On the other hand, to protect pure economic loss in tort responsibility caused by negligence behavior based on the categorized criterion model.