侵权法.docx

侵权法.docx

《侵权法.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《侵权法.docx（15页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

侵权法

TheoriesofTortLaw

FirstpublishedMonSep22,2003;substantiverevisionThuAug26,2010

Tortisabranchofprivatelaw.Theothermainbranchesarecontract,property,andrestitution（sometimesknownasunjustenrichment）.

Section1offersabriefoverviewoftortlawandtorttheory.Section2discusseseconomicanalysis,whichisthehistoricallydominanttorttheoryandtheprimaryfoilforphilosophicalperspectivesontortlaw.Section3discussesthemostinfluentialnon-economictorttheories,theoriesthatemphasizesuchnormativeconceptsasjustice,rights,andduties.

∙1.OverviewofTortLawandTortTheory

o1.1TortLaw:

BasicFeatures

o1.2TheDifferencebetweenStrictLiabilityandFaultLiability

o1.3TheoreticalPerspectivesonTortLaw

∙2.TheoriesofTortLaw:

EconomicAnalysis

o2.1TheEconomicInterpretationofFaultLiability

o2.2TheEconomicInterpretationofStrictLiability

o2.3ObjectionstoEconomicAnalysis

∙3.TheoriesofTortLaw:

Justice,Rights,andDuties

o3.1CorrectiveJustice

o3.2CivilRecourseTheory

∙Bibliography

∙OtherInternetResources

∙RelatedEntries

1.OverviewofTortLawandTortTheory

1.1TortLaw:

BasicFeatures

Atortsuitenablesthevictimofsomeinjurytomakeherproblemsomeoneelse'sproblem.Unlikeacriminalcase,whichisinitiatedandmanagedbythestate,atortsuitisprosecutedbythevictimorthevictim'ssurvivors.Moreover,asuccessfultortsuitresultsnotinasentenceofpunishmentbutinajudgmentofliability.Suchajudgmentnormallyrequiresthedefendanttocompensatetheplaintifffinancially.Inprinciple,anawardofcompensatorydamagesshiftsalloftheplaintiff'slegallycognizablecoststothedefendant.（Itiscontroversialwhethertortreallylivesuptothisprincipleinpractice;seeRoss1970.）Onrareoccasions,aplaintiffmayalsobeawardedpunitivedamages,definedasdamagesinexcessofcompensatoryrelief.Inothercases,aplaintiffmayobtainaninjunction:

acourtorderpreventingthedefendantfrominjuringherorfrominvadingoneofherpropertyrights（perhapsharmlessly）.

Thelawdoesnotrecognizejustanyinjuryasthebasisofaclaimintort.Ifyoubeatmeintennisorincompetitionfortheaffectionsofanother,Imaywellbeinjured.YetIhavenoclaimintorttorepairmybruisedegoorbrokenheart.Sinceyoulackalegaldutynottobeatmeintennisorincompetitionfortheaffectionsofanother,youdonotacttortiouslywhenyousucceedatmyexpense.

Tortdistinguishesbetweentwogeneralclassesofduties:

（i）dutiesnottoinjure‘fullstop’and（ii）dutiesnottoinjurenegligently,recklessly,orintentionally.Whenyouengageinanactivitythelawregardsasextremelyhazardous（e.g.,blastingwithdynamite）,youaresubjecttoadutyofthefirstsort—adutynottoinjure‘fullstop.’Whenyouengageinanactivityofordinaryriskiness（e.g.,driving）,youaresubjecttoadutyofthesecondsort—adutynottoinjurenegligently,recklessly,orintentionally.Yourconductisgovernedbystrictliabilitywhenitfloutsadutynottoinjure‘fullstop.’Yourconductisgovernedbyfaultliabilitywhenitfloutsadutynottoinjurenegligently,recklessly,orintentionally.

1.2TheDifferencebetweenStrictLiabilityandFaultLiability

Strictliability.SupposeImakeamessonmypropertyandpresentyouwiththebillforcleaningitup.Absentsomeprioragreement,thiswouldseemratherodd.Itismymess,afterall,notyours.Nowsupposethatinsteadofmakingamessonmypropertyandpresentingyouwiththebill,Isimplymovethemesstoyourpropertyandwalkaway,claimingthatthemessisyourproblem.IfitwasinappropriateofmetopresentyouwiththebillforthemessImadeonmyproperty,ithardlyseemsthatIhaveimprovedmattersbyplacingmymessonyourproperty.IhaveadutytocleanupmymessesandtheexistenceofthisdutydoesnotappeartodependonhowhardIhavetriednottomakeamessinthefirstplace.Thisistheunderlyingintuitionexpressedbytheruleofstrictliability.

Faultliability.Unlesswestayhomeallday,weareeachboundtomaketheoccasionalmessinanother'slife.Thisbeingso,itwouldbeunreasonableofmetodemandthatyounevermakeanykindofmessinmylife.WhatIcanreasonablydemandisthatyoutakemyinterestsintoaccountandmoderateyourbehavioraccordingly.Inparticular,Icanreasonablydemandthatyoutakeprecautionsnottoinjureme—thatyouavoidbeingcarelesswithrespecttomyinterestsand,allthemoreso,thatyounotinjuremeintentionally.Thisistheunderlyingintuitionexpressedbytheruleoffaultliability.

Peoplesometimesmisunderstandthenatureoffaultliabilitybecausetheyequatestrictliabilityintortwithstrictliabilityinthecriminallaw.Strictliabilityinthecriminallawisaformofresponsibilitywithoutculpability.Ifyouarestrictlyliableforacriminaloffense,youarepunishablefortheoffenseevenifyourconductisnotmorallyblameworthy.Thestandardwaytoexpressthisistosaythatstrictliabilityincriminallawisnotdefeasiblebyexcuse.Ifweconceivedsimilarlyofstrictliabilityintort,wewouldthenunderstandfaultliability,incorrectly,asliabilitythatisdefeasiblebyexcuse,inotherwords,asliability（only）forone'sculpableconduct.Butyoucanbeatfaultintortevenifyouaremorallyfaultless,thatis,evenifyourconductisnotmorallyblameworthy.Underaregimeoffaultliability,youareliableforinjuriesyoucausewhilefailingtocomportyourselfasareasonablepersonofordinaryprudence.Itwon'tgetyouoffthehookthatyouarenotareasonablepersonofordinaryprudence.Norwillitmatterthatyourfailuretocomportyourselfasareasonablepersonofordinaryprudenceisafailureforwhichyouareutterlyblameless.Faultliabilityissimplynotdefeasiblebyexcuse.

Strictliabilityisnotdefeasiblebyexcuse,either.Underneitherregimedoesyourliabilityforalossdependonyourdegreeofculpability.Whatdistinguishesthetworegimesisthis:

youcanavoidfaultliabilityifyoucomportyourselfasareasonablepersonofordinaryprudence—inotherwords,ifyouactreasonablyorjustifiably—whereasyouremainsubjecttostrictliabilityevenifyouactimpeccably.Thus,faultliabilityalonecanbeunderminedbyjustification.

Somefindithelpfultodistinguishbetweenstrictliabilityandfaultliabilityintermsofthecontentoftheunderlyinglegalduty.Inthecaseofblasting—anactivitytraditionallygovernedbystrictliability—theblasterhasadutynot-to-injure-by-blasting.Inthecaseofdriving—anactivitytraditionallygovernedbyfaultliability—thedriverhasadutynot-to-injure-by-driving-faultily.Nomatterhowmuchcarehetakes,theblasterfailstodischargehisdutywheneverheinjuressomeone.Incontrast,thedriverfailstodischargehisdutyonlywhenheinjuressomeonenegligently,recklessly,orintentionally.

Onlyifwefirstgetclearonthecontentofalegaldutycanwedetermineanactivity'struecost.Supposearancher'scowstrampleafarmer'scorn,causingthefarmerafinancialloss.Towhatactivityshouldweascribethiscost?

Isitacostofranchingoracostoffarming?

Wecannotanswerthisquestionjustbydeterminingwhethercropdamageissomethingthatranchingcauses.Wemustfirstdeterminewhethertherancherowesthefarmeraduty.Iftherancherhasadutytopreventhiscowsfromtramplingthefarmer'scorn,thentheresultantdamageisacostofranching.Butiftherancherhasnosuchduty—ifitisthefarmer'sresponsibilitytoprotecthiscorncrop,say,bybuildingafence—then,otherthingsbeingequal,theresultantdamageisnotacostofranchingbutacostoffarming.

1.3TheoreticalPerspectivesonTortLaw

1.3.1AnalyticalandNormative

Analyticaltheoriesseektointerpretandexplaintortlaw.Morespecifically,theyaim（i）toidentifytheconceptsthatfigurecentrallyintort'ssubstantivenormsandstructuralfeatures（thelatterbeingtheproceduresandmechanismsbywhichtheinstitutionoftortlawenforcesitssubstantivenorms）and（ii）toexplainhowtort'ssubstantivenormsandstructuralfeaturesarerelated.Keysubstantivenormsincludetherulesofstrictliabilityandfaultliability.Keystructuralfeaturesincludethefactthattortsuitsarebroughtbythevictimratherthanbythestateandthefactthatsuchsuitsare‘bilateral’:

victims（plaintiffs）suetheirputativeinjurersinsteadofdrawingonacommonpoolofresources,asinNewZealand（auniqueoutlier）.

Normativetheoriesseektojustifyorreformtortlaw.Justificatorytheoriesaimtoprovidetortwithanormativegrounding,oftenbydefendingthevaluestortembodiesorthegoalsitaimstoachieve.Reformisttheoriesseektoimprovetortlaw,say,byrecommendingchangesthatwouldbringtheinstitutioncloserinlinewithitscorevaluesorwouldhelpitdoabetterjobofachievingitsgoals.

Thedistinctionbetweenanalyticalandnormativetheoriesisnotexclusive.Onthecontrary,fewanalyticaltheoriesarealtogetherdevoidofnormativeelementsandnonormativetheoryiseverdevoidofanalyticalelements.Analyticaltheoriesfrequentlyinvokeconceptsthatarefundamentallynormative,sincesuchtheories（followingDworkin）oftenseektoportraytort'ssubstantivenormsandstructuralfeaturesintheir‘bestlights.’Allthemoreso,normativetheoriesarealwaysatleastpartlyanalytical,sincesuchtheoriesmusteitherprovideorpresupposesomeaccountoftheinstitutiontheyseektojustifyorreform.

1.3.2InstrumentalandNon-Instrumental

Alonganotheraxis,wecandistinguishbetweentheoriesoftortbasedonwhetherth