Study On The Foreseeablity Rule In Tort Law

Causation is an important document of responsibility in tort law. It is important to confirm when we can transfer victim's damages to inflicter. The Foreseeablity Rule as an important standard on legal causation is of great value and significance. This article is divided into three part to discuss this rule. The first part introduces the Foreseeablity Rule which is an important means to judge legal causation. This part contains several sections: the Foreseeablity Rule's definition of the content, Modified Foreseeablity and Foreseeablity Rule's restrictions. The second part analyses how the Foreseeablity Rule is incarnated in continental law system. Correspondence of considerable causation is estimated by doer increasing risk and exceptional and absolute cause interposition. In the last part of this article, the author argues that China should abandon the"Necessary Causation Theory"and import the Foreseeablity Rule. Judge legal causation by"Foreseeable Consequences Theory"and other theories to achieve a fair, just, and balance the interests of society function.The first part is mainly found on the Foreseeablity Rule. Legal cause is considered based on the premise that no one should go without saying to be responsible for the consequences of their actions, particularly when certain consequences are unforeseeable circumstances."Foreseeablity"is based on what ordinary people can see adopting objective criteria and including : plaintiff's foreseeablity, foreseeablity in the scope of damages, foreseeablity of the incident process. In practice, states'courts adopt Modified Foreseeablity Theory, that is, if the perpetrator could have predicted general scope of the damage, the perpetrator should be held responsible for violations : First, if the perpetrator have foreseen the possibility of harm, it is enough to make the infringer liable for the damage even if the possibility is very small ; Secondly, if the actual damage is to the same type of damage which should be anticipated by the perpetrator, he must be liable for the damage even though it is not foreseeable; Thirdly, the extension of harm must be foreseeable no more than the exact details; Fourthly, in accordance with"eggshell skull rule", the perpetrators are still responsible for unforeseen damage. In determining whether the alternative reason becomes the interruption cause, the Foreseeablity Rule played an important role. If involved cause is foreseeable, it isn't a substitute cause, or else, it is replaceable.The second part analyses how the Foreseeablity Rule have an embodiment in continental law system. Correspondence of considerable causation is estimated by doer increasing risk and exceptional cause interposition. First, the criteria is based on what doer can foresee when he behavored. Second, what most people have knowledged or experienced is as predictable basis in both the U.S. tort law and continental law system. Thirdly, there are same conclusions in continental law system correspond to Anglo-American law system in judging whether intervention cause breaks off causation. In this section, the paper also introduced the complementarity of Foreseeablity Rule——the Legal Intention Theory , for the former the latter added two points: One is Legal Intention Theory can be borrowed to judge whether the damage is foreseeable consequences; the other is Legal Intention Theory is directly handled to determine whether there is legal causation between initial action and the final damage..Thirdly, this article suggests that we must spurn the traditional tort causation theory because of its great disadvantages: It is not only inconsistent with the requirements necessary to achieve the purpose of tort law, but also is unrealistic. It is not in line with the social justice , fairness and efficiency, and it increases the the social costs of value judgment. This article finds that inducing the Foreseeablity Rule is a good choice, especially in judging legal causation which in fact has nothing to do with the value judgment but only objective evidence. The Foreseeablity Theory must be adopted to judge whether there is legal causation. In exceptional cases and marginal cases, we can adopt"Legal Intention Theory"for fairness. In the part of this case, through the analysis of the actual case in China, this article claim that we must abandon necessary causation theory, adopt Foreseeablity Rule Theory, and apply the standard of law policy on a case-by-case analysis.In short, Foreseeablity Rule for judging legal causation is of great value and significance. China should introduce the rule to cases in the tort liability judgment for a more reasonable and fair result. Therefore, for the legal causation judgment, Foreseeablity Rule can be applied to be leading standard . In simple cases on the edge, we could adopt the Legal Intention Theory to judge causation to meet the law and social fairness and justice.