|
In the United States, the plaintiff filed a negligence infringement complaint, must prove to the court: the defendant breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. Therefore, how to judge the defendant violated the duty of care, has become a key factor in whether the defendant bear negligence tort liability. American jurisprudence and doctrine in the negligence tort litigation to determine that the defendant is in breach of its duty of care owed to the plaintiff, or to determine negligence standard is \The reasonable person standard is essentially an objective standard, that is, whether the defendant's conduct constitutes negligence is measured by an external standard, rather than his own subjective ability to measure. Judicial practice in the United States, usually in the negligence tort cases to determine the fault of the parties, the approach adopted by the Court of total risk-benefit standard. This is actually a method of economic analysis to decide the question of fault of the parties. Usually the main factors to consider are: the possibility of damage, the severity of the damage, take the cost of preventive measures, the social value of the behavior of the perpetrator. The reasonable person standard when applied to specific cases, according to the different circumstances involved in the case, the specific rules applicable there is a difference. People with mental defects, the general rule is that of the vast majority of jurisdictions in the United States: their mental state will not be considered, and that the same applies to the usual and normal \However, there are exceptions to the rules. Hurt by the detained person may not negligent tort damages for the harm caused by the sudden people suffering from mental defects, have supervisory responsibilities for people with mental defects. For people with physical defects usually depends reason of physical defect, and different rules apply. For the blind, deaf, dumb, and other people with disabilities, the United States Court to judge whether their behavior is at fault, will generally consider their physical defects, if the defendant is blind by a rational behavior of deaf people in the same circumstances as the standard the blind person to determine whether it constitutes negligence. As long as it seems in a rational blind, the blind defendant's behavior is reasonable, he will not constitute negligence. A drunken man, the general rule is, drunk and sober, like people bear the same duty of care, that is, if their behavior sober person is negligent, then drunk as negligence. For most people do not have some special skills, such as some of those people need to have the qualifications industry, doctors, lawyers, accountants, auditors, driver, etc., the general rule is based on the industry qualifications by the exercise of ordinary care to determine whether the perpetrator is at fault. However, in practice, the rules of the field is not uniform. For minors, usually, in determining whether minors minors need to determine whether the fault negligence before. For minors, the general rules to determine whether the fault is: as long as he reached with his actual age, intelligence, experience similar to the minors the attention it deserves in the same circumstances, would not constitute negligence, and vice versa constitutes negligence. Attention to the use of a the adult \In the case comes to a sudden emergency, many jurisdictions in the United States usually do not use the usual reasonable person standard, the reasonable person standard and replaced by sudden emergency circumstances, that a sudden emergency person, if the event is not entirely or in part is caused due to no fault of his own, then, according to his best judgment, he acted, or because of the time constraints reflected not act in the most sensible way, as long as the fulfillment of his level of attention is a in the degree of care that a reasonable person in similar circumstances will be taken, then he pays negligence liability, even though the show that he made the wrong decision. Negligence liability litigation involving particularly dangerous goods, usually, the reasonable person standard requires that the perpetrator must fulfill the attention of their behavior commensurate with the risk involved. Therefore, when a reasonable person faced with a situation involving the use of dangerous goods, he must perform a \lt; WP = 3 gt; cases involving the practices and habits, and usually does not require the perpetrator to take in the circumstances that others do not or will not take the time-consuming and laborious precautions to guard against the less big risk, only The behavior of people's behavior is consistent with the practices and habits, the general court on the presumption that their behavior is reasonable. In a particular case, if there is no evidence to the contrary, such a presumption allows the judge to make a direct ruling, without requiring the intervention of a jury. However, industry practice or habit is not an absolute defense, while the judge to consider only one factor. In the U.S., the behavior of the defendant in violation of the statute in a negligence action, the legal consequences are different in the states. In most states, if the purpose of the statute law is designed to protect the plaintiff belongs to that class of people from the class of injury suffered by the plaintiff, the defendant's offenses recognized by law they can not find reasons, then, usually, the defendant's illegal belongs to the fault of their own. In such proceedings, means that the plaintiff's favor is almost certain. Negligence tort litigation in the United States the reasonable person standard flexibility, suitable, and open, to keep pace. However, there is also the problem of predictability is not strong, and sometimes difficult to operate in practice. At present, because of infringement rules basically a blank state negligence tort judgment standard. Laws and regulations, judicial interpretation words unknown criteria negligence, scholars benevolent see benevolence and the wise see wisdom, opinion is highly non-uniform. Resulting in China's judicial practice, negligence infringement judgment standard is confusing, non-uniform. Negligent criteria requirements from the current release of the \Although the United States is negligent criteria rules there are still some problems, but I believe that these problems are not insurmountable, and still be able to draw a negligence standard of tort judgment provisions.
|