Dissertation > Excellent graduate degree dissertation topics show

Causal logic of tort law in the United States

Author: YuZuoYao
Tutor: ZhangXueJun
School: Zhejiang Technology and Business University
Course: Civil and Commercial Law
Keywords: Cause of the fact that For legal reasons The principle of the underlying cause Causal relationship
CLC: D971.2
Type: Master's thesis
Year: 2010
Downloads: 123
Quote: 0
Read: Download Dissertation

Abstract

With the rapid development of modern science and technology, the complexity of the causal relationship is pushed to the extreme, thereby greatly increasing the difficulty of the determination of causation. Judged by the American Law causality through, take the \Factual causation is used to explore whether the defendant's conduct actually damage occurred, if the defendant's conduct, the damage will continue to occur; legal causality are legal policy considerations, mainly to limit the defendant responsibility to achieve the purpose of fairness, justice, social needs, as well as legal norms. Factual causation is also known as the cause of the fact that many scholars have tried to give the fact reason a precise definition or description of the the tort purpose it serves. Malone and Green is one of the most successful, their doctrine became the basis of contemporary American tort law. Professor Green obligations - risk analysis theory, the generalized causal relationship is divided into two parts: Facts reasons (the narrow causal relationship) and obligations. Same obligations - Hazard Analysis advocates, Malone does not agree with the Green fact that analysis of the causes and his inference, Malone believes that the causal relationship is not purely a question of fact, it requires policy intervention. The biggest difference lies in the fact that whether the reasons for including policy factors. I believe that value judgment completely stripped out from the fact that it is unrealistic, but the Green cause of separation theory is a valid analysis tool, is conducive to the practical operation. This is not to allow the experimenter to ignore the limitations of the policy, but that policy and the facts should be separated from the factual causation should absolutely avoid policy intervention. The cause of the fact that the criteria include: first, if not, is not the rule in American law \Refers to the absence of the defendant's conduct (act or omission), the damage will not occur, the behavior is the damage the contrary, the absence of the defendant's conduct, the damage may still occur, the defendant's conduct does not damage reasons. \substantive element of others injured. \The so-called sufficient condition refers to the interaction of the complex reasons led to the occurrence of the damage results, but only the possibility of the occurrence of any one of the reasons for the results. As the combined effect of the A and B leads to C, separately A possible but not necessarily caused by C, B may or may not lead to C, but A and B combined effect results in the generation of C results. Fourth, the market share theory, this theory applies to product liability, if the plaintiff can prove that the product caused the damage by a manufacturer, the manufacturer established tort liability. But if the production of similar products manufacturers too much lead plaintiff can not determine the specific manufacturer, the majority of the U.S. Court of method is recognized in accordance with the product manufacturer market share liability. Fifth, to reduce the favorable opportunity theory, which applies specifically to medical malpractice cases, a branch of the real factor theory. Legal causality, also known as the proximate cause, the theory for the responsibility to establish the boundary. Although its definition is still controversial, but it's an accurate understanding should at least contain the following: First, the immediate cause will be part of the reason for the fact, that is the proximate cause of the fact that the criterion must be met; proximate proximate cause will contain valuable judgment, the value judgment is for the United States tort law legal policy considerations, and considerations throughout most fundamental; Third, by the legal policy considerations derived criterion. Legal policy is related to the fundamental problem of the public interests and social, essentially reflects the overall goal of social groups, so that the members of the body social, economic or political benefits to be improved overall, even if this may lead to restrictions of individual rights policy will be implemented. From different according to legal liability; limitation of liability of those factors; proceedings the issue of causation expression program; discusses the policy implications of the burden of responsibility on this matter proved responsibility. The proximate cause criterion is divided into: First, the direct result of the rule, also known as the direct cause of the rules, contains two meanings: (1) behavior of people responsible for the behavior directly caused the damage results, which means between the behavior and results can not substitute factors; (2) as long as the behavior is a direct result of the effects of damage, regardless of whether the results can be expected, the behavior is harmful consequences occurred proximate cause. A direct result of the rules used for willful infringement cases, most of the other cases the court consider the causal relationship and confirm that the responsibility is also based on the predictability of rules as the standard. Second, the predictability of rules, refers to the act as a normal intelligence and prudent person should reasonably have foreseen its negligence cause danger to others (whether it is caused due to events or similar) the acts themselves are believed to be what happens or behavior foreseen due to his cause hazardous conditions will cause the kind of damage will not be considered, wrongdoing that someone does not just be a consequence of responsibility, and the only possible result in accordance with the ordinary or usual experience to judge responsible for . In this paper, the content and significance of the predictability of rules, trial practice, intervening causes were discussed. To discuss the immediate cause have to mention the underlying cause, proximate cause theory is equivalent to many factual reasons to elect meet its criteria for legal reasons, ie the liability limit, the principle of the underlying cause is equivalent in principle of proximate cause on the basis of further limitation of liability. The basis of the principles of the underlying cause of the common law that no-fault liability principle, the name suggests is a behavior compared to the \It is the basis of principle of proximate cause to exclude further restrictions on tort liability to exclude identified as \The principle is the concentrated expression of legal policy in the theory of causality, the choice of policies is mainly reflected in rule out the involvement of the independent factors (the plaintiff suffered damage and the defendant's behavior), to avoid multiple compensation for the same damage, to avoid too large litigation, excluding indirect economic losses, through unpopular defendants as a practical case analysis of four aspects of Appeal. Finally, this paper presents a dichotomy of American law causality theory, the criteria of the reason of the facts and legal reasons, the underlying cause principle of legal policy choice significance in China.

Causal logic of tort law in the United States

Abstract

Related Dissertations