搜索

會(huì)員登錄

文章分類

翻譯語種行業(yè)翻譯成功案例

網(wǎng)站優(yōu)化日志展會(huì)動(dòng)態(tài) 同傳交傳口譯風(fēng)采

美國侵權(quán)法（中英文翻譯模板）

發(fā)表時(shí)間:2019/12/14 00:00:00 瀏覽次數(shù):2738

字體大小: 【小】【中】【大】

　　Restatement of the Law，Third，Torts by The American Law Institute

　　美國法學(xué)會(huì)《侵權(quán)法第三次重述》
Part One: Intoduction of Torts 侵權(quán)法概述

　　Part Two： Apportionment of Liability(Rule Sections)第一部分：責(zé)任分擔(dān)

　　Part Three: Products Liability 產(chǎn)品責(zé)任

　　Part One: Intoduction of Torts 侵權(quán)法概述

　　在美國，侵權(quán)法主要屬于各州的法律范疇，而且主要由判例法組成。侵權(quán)行為可分為故意侵權(quán)行為(intentional tort)、過失侵權(quán)行為(negligence or negligent tort)和嚴(yán)格責(zé)任侵權(quán)行為 (strict liability tort). 對(duì)侵權(quán)行為的一般救濟(jì)方法是對(duì)侵權(quán)行為所造成的損害予以一定的金錢補(bǔ)償，在涉及交通事故等領(lǐng)域的侵權(quán)賠償已廣范采用了保險(xiǎn)賠償?shù)姆绞健?/span>

　　Part One: Introduction 基本概念

　　1. The law of tort is still the source of most civil suits in the United States, with damage claims for automobile accidents taking first place. Many circumstances contribute to this: (a) the plaintiff in an American civil suit is ordinarily entitled to try his claim before a jury which will often--and understandably--rely more on human than on legal considerations, for instance when a child has been injured in an automobile accident or through a defective product of a large enterprise; (b) Compensation and damages include not only the actual loss but also the intangible damage. A plaintiff can therefore often play on the human reaction of the jury: for instance, what is appropriate compensation for a permanent disability such as the loss of a limb? (c) American law permits the participation of the attorney in the plaintiff’s recovery (contingent fee) which not uncommonly amounts to 25 to 33 percent of the verdict. As a result of all of these factors, a tort action may be a lengthy proceeding, result in large expenses, for instance through honoraria for experts (which may deter the "small "plaintiff from suing at all), and may end in the award of a very large verdict. It is no linger uncommon that a jury will aware a verdict in excess of $100,000. These conditions have been the touchstone for several reform endeavors which will be discussed in more detail below.

　　在美國，侵權(quán)行為法產(chǎn)生的訴訟仍是大多民事訴訟案件的主要來源，其中基于交通事故產(chǎn)生的損害賠償案件居于首位。很多因素造成了這一現(xiàn)象：(a)在美國民事訴訟案件中的原告通常利用法律賦予他的訴訟權(quán)利主張賠償，因?yàn)榕銓張F(tuán)更多的是基于可以理解的人性考慮而非法律考慮，例如當(dāng)一個(gè)孩子在一起交通事故或因購買大公司的瑕疵產(chǎn)品而受到傷害往往能得到陪審團(tuán)的同情理解。(b)補(bǔ)償費(fèi)和損害賠償金不僅包括實(shí)際的損害而且包括了無形損害。原告經(jīng)?？梢岳门銓張F(tuán)的人性反應(yīng)：比如，當(dāng)永久的失去肢體時(shí)怎樣才算是一個(gè)適當(dāng)?shù)馁r償金額。(c)美國法律允許律師分享原告所獲得的賠償金(勝訴酬金)。這種酬金達(dá)到法院判付賠償金金額的百分之二十五到百分之三十的情況并非罕見。由于以上所有因素的存在，在侵權(quán)案件中若想獲得巨額的賠償金必將經(jīng)歷一個(gè)冗長的審判過程。這方面的一個(gè)例子是在陪審團(tuán)對(duì)一個(gè)重大的侵權(quán)案件做出裁決后，專家(證人)的酬金可能是“渺小”的原告所獲得的損害賠償金的全部。陪審團(tuán)做出一個(gè)超過100，000美元的裁決已不再是不可能的，而是極其常見的。這些因素都將成為若干改革努力的試金石，我們將在下文中更多的討論其細(xì)節(jié)。

　　2. Tort law and the law of contracts often overlap since an injured party frequently has the choice between a tort claim(for instance, unauthorized use of property--conversion--or personal injury)and a suit in contract, for instance, in implied contract or, in the case of personal injuries, for breach of warranty. Since the law of torts permits the recovery of intangible damage (which is usually not the case with respect to contract claims), the plaintiff will ordinarily choose the tort claim for personal injuries when the facts so permit.

　　侵權(quán)行為法常常與合同法產(chǎn)生競合，受損害的一方也常常在侵權(quán)之訴(例如將未經(jīng)授權(quán)使用的財(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移和因非法占有他人財(cái)產(chǎn)所造成的個(gè)人損害)和違約之訴中做出選擇。比如，在格式合同及在個(gè)人損害賠償案件中或因?yàn)檫`反保證諾言的案例中。因?yàn)榍謾?quán)行為法還將賠償無形損失(而違約責(zé)任往往不賠償無形的損失)，因?yàn)榍謾?quán)行為法如此的規(guī)定，在現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中原告往往選擇它提起個(gè)人損害賠償。

　　3. Everyone is liable for his tortious act, in limited form also children (however, parents only then when they acted as the child’s agent or did not comply with their duty to supervise), but not the state unless express statutory provision has abolished state immunity.

　　每個(gè)人都要對(duì)其侵權(quán)行為承擔(dān)責(zé)任，在有限的形式下兒童亦然(但是，父母僅當(dāng)其作為該兒童之代理人或未能按照其監(jiān)護(hù)義務(wù)行事時(shí)才負(fù)此責(zé)任)，但國家不在此例，除非法律明確規(guī)定取消了國家的豁免權(quán)。

　　4. Everyone is protected against tortious acts, including the embryo. The heirs or next of kin may have a damage claim for the intentional or negligent death of their relative or testator (wrongful death action).The statutes of some States provide protection, and a tort claim, to third parties for injuries arising out of the intoxication of the tortfeasor; under these so-called "dram-shop acts", a party injured as a result of the intoxication of the tortfeasor has a claim against him who contributed to the tortfeasor's intoxication.

　　每個(gè)人包括嬰兒都受到侵權(quán)法的保護(hù)。繼承人或近親屬可以提起損害賠償之訴，當(dāng)其被繼承人或近親屬被故意或過失導(dǎo)致死亡時(shí)(非正常死亡之訴)。一些州的法律規(guī)定，對(duì)于第三方的行為使侵權(quán)行為人醉酒從而導(dǎo)致受害人受傷的可以提起侵權(quán)之訴，這些規(guī)定被稱為“小酒店法令”，作為侵權(quán)行為人醉酒之結(jié)果而受到傷害的一方有權(quán)向那些造成該侵權(quán)行為人醉酒的人提出索賠請(qǐng)求。

　　5. Finally it should be emphasized again that the law of torts is, in the main, State Law.

　　最后需要強(qiáng)調(diào)的是侵權(quán)行為法主要是各州的立法。

　　Part Two: Intentional Torts 故意侵權(quán)

　　The case law contains the usual catalogue of intentional torts. For instance: battery, assault, conversion of property, false imprisonment, trespass to personal and real property. Some torts, for instance, alienation of affection have been abolished by statute in many States. Others, such as defamation, have recently been modified significantly through constitutional case law. New torts, unknown to the traditional common law, have also been introduced by the case law; particularly important among them are the torts for invasion of privacy and for products liability.

　　以往的判例包含了各類故意侵權(quán)。例如毆打、故意傷害、非法占有他人財(cái)產(chǎn)、非法拘禁和對(duì)動(dòng)產(chǎn)和不動(dòng)產(chǎn)權(quán)的侵犯。一些侵權(quán)行為，例如破壞他人夫妻關(guān)系在很多的州的法律中都被廢除了。另外一些，例如誹謗，最近就在憲法判例法中得到顯著的修改。判例法也增加了一些傳統(tǒng)的普通法所未包含的新的侵權(quán)行為;其中特別重要的是侵犯隱私權(quán)的行為和產(chǎn)品責(zé)任侵權(quán)行為。

　　Part Three: Liability for Negligence 過失侵權(quán)責(zé)任

　　Tort liability for negligence presupposes causality between the negligent act and the injury to person or property. A person is negligent if he has not complied with his "duty of care" and, seen objectively, has not acted as "a reasonable and prudent man." The latter test takes into account the special professional qualification of the tortfeasor. Thus, different criteria apply, say, to an architect than for a construction worker, the case law has given a restrictive interpretation to the concept of "duty of care”. The duty must be owed toward the particular plaintiff: there is no duty of care to the public at large. Thus, a lesser duty of care is owed to him who trespasses on property than to an incited guest. Some State statutes go even further and exclude, for instance, a duty of care by the driver of a motor vehicle--toward passengers whom he transports gratuitously (guest statutes). Even if a duty of care exists and has not been observed, the injured party may still not have a claim for compensation. This will be the case, for instance, when he has been guilty of contributory. This will be the case, for instance, when he has been guilty of contributory negligence or has assumed the rise, the harshness of the contributory negligence defense, the result of which would not only be a deduction from the compensation but exclude any liability on the part of the tortfeasor has been softened in some States by adoption of the "comparative negligence" doctrine. It requires that the respective degree of negligence of both parties be determined and compensation assessed accordingly. The bar of the contributory negligence defense to a recovery may furthermore be excluded by the doctrine of the "last clear chance", according to which even the contributory negligent plaintiff will be compensated if he can prove that the defendant had the "last clear chance" to prevent the damage.

　　過失侵權(quán)責(zé)任以過失行為和對(duì)人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)的侵害之間的因果關(guān)系為前提要件。一個(gè)人若沒有盡到其注意義務(wù)就被認(rèn)為是有過失的。客觀地講，他沒有像一個(gè)理性且謹(jǐn)慎的人那樣行為。最新的修正案中包含了特殊行業(yè)侵權(quán)行為所該承擔(dān)的責(zé)任。這樣，比方說對(duì)一名建筑師就要適用不同于一名建筑工人的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。判例法已經(jīng)對(duì)“注意義務(wù)”給出了限制性解釋。這種責(zé)任必定屬于特殊的原告而非普通的社會(huì)大眾。這樣，一個(gè)人對(duì)于非法進(jìn)入其土地者所負(fù)有的照看義務(wù)就小于其邀請(qǐng)的客人。一些州的侵權(quán)立法發(fā)展得更加迅速，例如，對(duì)于免費(fèi)搭乘乘客的司機(jī)的照看義務(wù)做出了規(guī)定。即使司機(jī)未盡到小心與觀察的義務(wù)，受害一方仍不能主張賠償請(qǐng)求。下面就是一個(gè)因共同過失或承擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)而獲罪的案例。共同過失辯護(hù)的嚴(yán)格性，其結(jié)果并不是減少賠償數(shù)額而是完全排除侵權(quán)行為人的責(zé)任，已經(jīng)因一些州采用了“比較過失”原則而得到減弱。比較過失原則又可譯為相對(duì)過失原則，即通過比較雙方的過失來確定雙方的責(zé)任。該原則要求共同過失的雙方基于造成的損害程度來確定賠償數(shù)額。該法令的貢獻(xiàn)在于過失侵權(quán)的賠償責(zé)任可能因?yàn)椤白詈竺黠@機(jī)會(huì)”原則得到排除，有過失的原告可能得到賠償，如果它能夠證明被告因“最后明顯機(jī)會(huì)”原則而避免損害。

　　The extraordinarily complex law of negligence--with its difficulties of proof in a jury trial and the possibility that a jury sympathetic to the plaintiff will let him win despite his contributory negligence but consider the latter in its calculation of damages--today leads to two, sometimes inconsistent, efforts of reform. One would provide for strict liability in many cases, the other would introduce a system of compensation for the injured without regard to fault, resembling a form of insurance. The following section briefly reviews these two trends.

　　過失侵權(quán)法極其復(fù)雜，因?yàn)樵谕忂^程中很難避免陪審團(tuán)對(duì)原告產(chǎn)生同情從而不考慮原告的過錯(cuò)也不考慮接下來的損失計(jì)算。如今對(duì)此現(xiàn)象可以從兩方面努力進(jìn)行改革，盡管有時(shí)這兩者不相一致。一方面可以在很多案件中規(guī)定嚴(yán)格責(zé)任，另一方面可以創(chuàng)設(shè)一種不考慮過錯(cuò)的賠償制度，例如類似保險(xiǎn)制度的形式。下面的章節(jié)將簡要評(píng)論這兩種立法趨勢。

　　Part Four: Tort Law Reform: Strict Liability and “No-Fault”

　　侵權(quán)法改革：嚴(yán)格責(zé)任和無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任

　　a. Strict Liability 嚴(yán)格責(zé)任

　　Originally, strict liability existed only in a few special cases, for instance with respect to the maintenance of dangerous animals, defamation, and by way of a rebuttable presumption, known as the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which deduced fault or negligence from the nature of the thing or act itself, such as defective construction or negligent use.

　　首先，嚴(yán)格責(zé)任只存在于幾種特殊情形，比如飼養(yǎng)危險(xiǎn)動(dòng)物、誹謗，通過一個(gè)被稱之為“不言自明法則”的可反駁之推定，從事實(shí)或行為本身的性質(zhì)推定過錯(cuò)或者過失，例如施工缺陷或者是疏忽使用。

　　Beginning with the use of contract law concepts, particularly that of warranty which permits suit either based on contract or on tort and thus obvious the need to show negligence, the more recent case law recognizes strict liability in the area of product liability. This new tort claim no longer derives from contract law notions but has become independent; the liability of a seller today extends to all "dangerous products”, without regard to whether the issue concerns the product itself or its packaging.” Dangerous products” include products” in a defective condition” which are "unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property”, In this context," defective" means that the product does not meet the reasonable expectations of the ordinary consumer concerning the safety of the product. Everyone is protected whom the seller "should expect to be endangered by the product's probable use”. In view of the extensive interstate commerce in the United States, this formula, for all practical purposes, extends protection to the public in general.

　　從合同法概念的作用說起，尤其是在合同或侵權(quán)中提供擔(dān)?？梢员苊獬霈F(xiàn)過失，更多的近期判例法承認(rèn)在產(chǎn)品責(zé)任領(lǐng)域的嚴(yán)格責(zé)任。這一新的侵權(quán)主張不再依據(jù)合同法主張從而獨(dú)立存在：銷售商的責(zé)任如今擴(kuò)大到所有“危險(xiǎn)產(chǎn)品”，而不在乎是產(chǎn)品本身的問題還是包裝問題?！拔ｋU(xiǎn)產(chǎn)品”包括產(chǎn)品“在有缺陷的條件”下對(duì)使用者或消費(fèi)者或其財(cái)產(chǎn)有不合理的危險(xiǎn)。在此，“缺陷”一詞意指該產(chǎn)品未達(dá)到一般消費(fèi)者關(guān)于該產(chǎn)品安全性能的合理期望標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。銷售商“應(yīng)該預(yù)見到會(huì)由于對(duì)該產(chǎn)品的恰當(dāng)使用而帶來危險(xiǎn)的”每一個(gè)人均受保護(hù)?？v觀美國各州，在所有現(xiàn)實(shí)目的中這個(gè)定律總體擴(kuò)大了對(duì)社會(huì)公眾的保護(hù)。

　　b. No-Fault 無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任

　　The trend to strict liability in the area of products liability should be contrasted with another reform endeavor which seeks to find more just solutions for ordinary claims based on negligence, particularly with respect to the great number of automobile accidents. These reform endeavors which are based, in the main, on the plan of Professors Keeton and O'Connell seek to abolish the fault principle in tort law and to award compensation without proof of fault according to insurance principles. This notion has already proved very successful in those States which so far have adopted No Fault statutes. Experience in those jurisdictions shows persons could be compensated. Nevertheless, compensation for losses resulting from automobile accidents and products liability remains a problem of overwhelming dimensions: losses amount to over five billion dollars a year but only 800 million dollars in insurance proceeds are available for their compensation. As claims arising out of products liability have steadily increased, the cost of liability insurance to manufacturers also increased from 25 million in 1950 to 125 million in 1970. Further reform movements, albeit at this time only in their infancy, seek to extend the No-Fault principle to almost all claims, principally to products liability, but also to other kinds of liability such as medical malpractice. In a No-Fault system, a manufacturer agrees--and insures himself accordingly to grant compensation for certain injuries without proof of fault. "Compensation” in this context means compensation for actual losses, but not for intangible damage. Thus, liability will be limited for the manufacturer and will therefore require a relatively lesser insurance premium to cover the rise. On the other hand, the injured person will be in a better positon, compared to traditional tort law, since he will be entitled to receive immediate compensation for his actual loss (expenses loss of profits or wages) without lengthy litigation or difficult proof of fault.

　　產(chǎn)品責(zé)任適用嚴(yán)格責(zé)任的趨勢應(yīng)當(dāng)與另外一種改革努力相比較，就是為了因過失提起的主張，特別是大量的機(jī)動(dòng)車事故，力求尋找更多解決措施。這些主要建立在基頓和奧康內(nèi)爾兩位教授之方案基礎(chǔ)上的改革努力試圖取消侵權(quán)法中的過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則并按照保險(xiǎn)原則在不要過錯(cuò)證明(“無過錯(cuò)”)的情況下給予與賠償。在目前采用無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任制度的國家，已經(jīng)證明了這一主張非常成功。司法實(shí)踐表明，當(dāng)很大部分受害者能得到賠償時(shí)可以降低保險(xiǎn)費(fèi)。然而，機(jī)動(dòng)車事故和產(chǎn)品責(zé)任引起的損害賠償仍然是壓倒性多數(shù)的嚴(yán)重問題。每年超過50億美元的損失數(shù)額卻只有8億美元保險(xiǎn)收益可以用來賠償。鑒于因產(chǎn)品責(zé)任引起的侵權(quán)主張穩(wěn)定增長，生產(chǎn)者的保險(xiǎn)責(zé)任花費(fèi)(保險(xiǎn)費(fèi))也從1950年的2500萬美元增加到1970年的1.25億美元。進(jìn)一步的改革運(yùn)動(dòng)，盡管目前只在初步階段，試圖將無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則擴(kuò)大到幾乎所有的訴求，主要是產(chǎn)品責(zé)任，但是也包括其他的責(zé)任，例如醫(yī)療事故。在無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任體系中，生產(chǎn)者同意并且據(jù)此保證其自身在某些傷害中無須證明過錯(cuò)而承認(rèn)賠償。在此“賠償”意指實(shí)際損失賠償，而不包括無形的損害。因此，生產(chǎn)者的責(zé)任將會(huì)受到限制，這樣就要求相對(duì)較少的保險(xiǎn)費(fèi)以涵蓋這種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。另一方面，相較傳統(tǒng)的侵權(quán)法，受害者能處于更有利的地位，因?yàn)槠溆袡?quán)因其實(shí)際損失(花費(fèi)、收益損失或者薪資)取得立即賠償，而不用通過長時(shí)間的訴訟，也沒有證明過錯(cuò)的困難。

　　Part Two： Apportionment of Liability(Rule Sections)第二部分：責(zé)任分擔(dān)

　　第一題：比較責(zé)任的基本規(guī)則Topic 1- Basic Rules of Comparative Responsibility

　　1 Issues and Causes of Action Addressed by This Restatement

　　第一條本重述所涉及的問題與訴因

　　This Restatement addresses issues of apportioning liability among two or more persons. It applies to all claims[3] (including lawsuits and settlements) for death, personal injury (including emotional distress or consortium), or physical damage to tangible property, regardless of the basis of liability.

　　本重述討論在兩位或多位責(zé)任人之間分配責(zé)任的問題。本重述適用于關(guān)于死亡、人身損害[2](包括精神損害或配偶權(quán))，或?qū)τ行呜?cái)產(chǎn)的物理傷害的所有主張(包括法律訴訟與和解)，無論其責(zé)任基礎(chǔ)如何。

　　2 Contractual Limitations on Liability第二條責(zé)任的合同性限制

　　When permitted by contract law, substantive law governing the claim, and applicable rules of construction, a contract between the plaintiff and another person absolving the person from liability for future harm bars the plaintiff,s recovery[4] from that person for the harm. Unlike a plaintiff,s negligence, a valid contractual limitation on liability does not provide an occasion for the factfinder to assign a percentage of responsibility to any party or other person.

　　在合同法、訴訟請(qǐng)求的實(shí)體法規(guī)則和可適用的解釋規(guī)則允許的情況下，原告與他人之間免除該他人對(duì)未來傷害負(fù)責(zé)的合同，將阻礙原告從該他人處獲得對(duì)該傷害的賠償。與原告的過失不同，一項(xiàng)有效的合同性責(zé)任限制并不構(gòu)成事實(shí)調(diào)查人向任何當(dāng)事人或他人分配責(zé)任份額的理由。

　　3 Ameliorative Doctrines for Defining Plaintiff’s Negligence Abolished

　　第三條定義原告過失的各種嚴(yán)格學(xué)說均已被廢止

　　Plaintiff,s negligence is defined by the applicable standard for a defendant,s negligence. Special ameliorative doctrines for defining plaintiff,s negligence are abolished.

　　原告的過失應(yīng)依據(jù)適用于被告過失的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來定義。特別適用于定義原告過失的各種嚴(yán)格學(xué)說均已被廢止。

　　4 Proof of Plaintiff’s Negligence and Legal Causation

　　The defendant has the burden to prove plaintiff,s negligence, and may use any of the methods a plaintiff may use to prove defendant,s negligence. Except as otherwise provided in Topic 5, the defendant also has the burden to prove that the plaintiff,s negligence, if any, was a legal cause of the plaintiff,s damages.

　　第四條對(duì)原告過失和法律原因的證明

　　被告負(fù)有證明原告過失的舉證責(zé)任，并可采用原告為證明被告過失可以采用的任何方法。除本重述第五題另有規(guī)定外，被告亦負(fù)有舉證責(zé)任證明原告過失——如果原告存在任何過失——構(gòu)成原告所受損害的一項(xiàng)法律原因。

　　5 Negligence Imputed to a Plaintiff第五條可歸責(zé)于原告的過失

　　The negligence of another person is imputed to a plaintiff whenever the negligence of the other person would have been imputed had the plaintiff been a defendant, except the negligence of another person is not imputed to a plaintiff solely because of the plaintiff,s ownership of a motor vehicle or permission for its use by the other person.

　　假設(shè)原告是被告的角色，他人的過失便可以歸責(zé)于他的話，那么該他人的過失可歸責(zé)于原告。除非該他人的過失不是僅僅因?yàn)樵鎸?duì)機(jī)動(dòng)車享有的所有權(quán)，或?qū)υ撍耸褂迷摍C(jī)動(dòng)車的許可而歸責(zé)于原告。

　　6 Negligence Imputed to a Plaintiff When the Plaintiff,s Recovery Derives from a Claim That the Defendant Committed a Tort Against a Third Person and in Claims Under Survival Statutes

　　第六條當(dāng)原告獲得的賠償派生于一項(xiàng)被告對(duì)第三人實(shí)施了侵權(quán)行為的主張和包含于基于遺存訴因法的主張時(shí)，過失可歸責(zé)于原告

　　(a) When a plaintiff asserts a claim that derives from the defendant,s tort against a third person, negligence of the third person is imputed to the plaintiff with respect to that claim. The plaintiff,s recovery is also reduced by the plaintiff,s own negligence.

　　(b) The negligence of an estate,s decedent affects the estate[8],s recovery under a survival statute to the same extent that it would have affected the decedent,s recovery had the decedent survived. The negligence of a beneficiary of the decedent,s estate is not imputed to the estate merely because of the beneficiary,s status as a beneficiary.

　　(a)當(dāng)原告聲稱一項(xiàng)派生于被告對(duì)第三人實(shí)施侵權(quán)行為的主張時(shí)，在該項(xiàng)主張中該第三人的過失可歸責(zé)于原告。原告的賠償額同樣因?yàn)槠渥陨淼倪^失而被減少。

　　(b)根據(jù)遺存訴因法，遺產(chǎn)被繼承人[7](生前)的過失在其生存時(shí)對(duì)其賠償額影響的同樣范圍內(nèi)，影響遺產(chǎn)可獲得的賠償額。遺產(chǎn)受益人的過失不能僅僅因?yàn)槭芤嫒俗鳛槭芤嫒说姆傻匚欢鴼w責(zé)于財(cái)產(chǎn)。

　　7 Effect of Plaintiff’s Negligence When Plaintiff Suffers an Indivisible Injury

　　第七條在原告遭受不可分損害時(shí)原告過失[9]的效力

　　Plaintiff,s negligence (or the negligence of another person for whose negligence the plaintiff is responsible) that is a legal cause of an indivisible injury to the plaintiff reduces the plaintiff,s recovery in proportion to the share of responsibility the factfinder assigns to the plaintiff (or other person for whose negligence the plaintiff is responsible).

　　若原告的過失(或原告應(yīng)為其過失負(fù)責(zé)的其他人的過失)構(gòu)成原告遭受的不可分傷害的一項(xiàng)法律原因，則原告的所獲得的賠償額將依據(jù)事實(shí)調(diào)查人分配給原告(或原告應(yīng)為其過失負(fù)責(zé)的該他人)的責(zé)任份額相應(yīng)比例地減少。

　　8 Factors for Assigning Shares of Responsibility第八條分配責(zé)任份額時(shí)應(yīng)考慮的因素

　　Factors for assigning percentages of responsibility to each person whose legal responsibility has been established include

　　(a) the nature of the person,s risk-creating conduct, including any awareness or indifference with respect to the risks created by the conduct and any intent with respect to the harm created by the conduct; and

　　(b) the strength of the causal connection between the person,s risk-creating conduct and the harm.

　　向法律責(zé)任已被確定的各方分配責(zé)任百分比時(shí)應(yīng)考慮的因素包括：

　　(a)該方造成風(fēng)險(xiǎn)之行為的性質(zhì)，包括任何對(duì)該行為所造成風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的認(rèn)識(shí)或漠視，以及任何對(duì)該行為所造成傷害的意圖;及

　　(b)該方造成風(fēng)險(xiǎn)之行為與該傷害之間因果關(guān)系的強(qiáng)度。

　　9 Offsetting Judgments第九條判決的抵銷

　　If two parties are liable to each other in the same suit, each party is entitled to a setoff of any recovery owed by the other party, except that, in cases in which one or both of the parties has liability insurance, setoff does not reduce the payment of a liability insurer unless an applicable rule of law or statute[10] so provides.

　　如果同一訴訟中的雙方當(dāng)事人都相互負(fù)有責(zé)任，那么各方都有權(quán)抵消對(duì)方享有的任何(相應(yīng))賠償額;除非一方或雙方都有責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)，那么抵消不會(huì)減少責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)人應(yīng)支付的金額，適用的法律規(guī)范或制定法另有規(guī)定的除外。

　　Topic 2- Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors for Indivisible Harm

　　第二題：數(shù)個(gè)侵權(quán)行為人對(duì)不可分傷害的責(zé)任

　　10 Effect of Joint and Several Liability第十條連帶責(zé)任的效力

　　When, under applicable law, some persons are jointly and severally liable to an injured person, the injured person may sue for and recover the full amount of recoverable damages from any jointly and severally liable person.

　　當(dāng)依據(jù)適用的法律，有多人對(duì)某一受害人承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任時(shí)，該受害人可以起訴任一負(fù)連帶責(zé)任者并從該人處獲得可獲得的全部損害賠償[12]。

　　11 Effect of Several Liability第十一條單獨(dú)責(zé)任的效力

　　When, under applicable law, a person is severally liable to an injured person for an indivisible injury, the injured person may recover only the severally liable person,s comparative-responsibility share of the injured person,s damages.

　　當(dāng)依據(jù)適用的法律，某人對(duì)受害人的不可分損害承擔(dān)單獨(dú)責(zé)任時(shí)，該受害人僅可以獲得該負(fù)單獨(dú)責(zé)任者在該受害人應(yīng)得賠償額中的比較責(zé)任份額。

　　12 Intentional Tortfeasors第十二條故意侵權(quán)行為人

　　Each person who commits a tort that requires intent is jointly and severally liable for any indivisible injury legally caused by the tortious conduct.

　　每個(gè)實(shí)施以故意為要件的侵權(quán)行為的人，均應(yīng)對(duì)該侵權(quán)行為作為法律原因造成的任何不可分損害承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。

　　13 Vicarious Liability第十三條替代責(zé)任

　　A person whose liability is imputed based on the tortious acts of another is liable for the entire share of comparative responsibility assigned to the other, regardless of whether joint and several liability or several liability is the governing rule for independent tortfeasors who cause an indivisible injury.

　　無論對(duì)導(dǎo)致不可分損害的獨(dú)立侵權(quán)行為人適用的規(guī)則是連帶責(zé)任或者單獨(dú)責(zé)任，基于他人侵權(quán)性的行為而承擔(dān)責(zé)任的人，對(duì)分配給該他人的整個(gè)比較責(zé)任份額承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

　　14 Tortfeasors Liable for Failure to Protect the Plaintiff from the Specific Risk of an Intentional Tort

　　第十四條未就某一故意侵權(quán)行為的具體風(fēng)險(xiǎn)對(duì)原告提供保護(hù)而承擔(dān)責(zé)任的侵權(quán)行為人

　　A person who is liable to another based on a failure to protect the other from the specific risk of an intentional tort is jointly and severally liable for the share of comparative responsibility assigned to the intentional tortfeasor in addition to the share of comparative responsibility assigned to the person.

　　因未就某一故意侵權(quán)行為的具體風(fēng)險(xiǎn)對(duì)他人提供保護(hù)而承擔(dān)責(zé)任的一方，應(yīng)在分配給他的比較責(zé)任份額之外，對(duì)分配給故意侵權(quán)行為人的比較責(zé)任份額承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。

　　15 Persons Acting in Concert第十五條共同行為人

　　When persons are liable because they acted in concert, all persons are jointly and severally liable for the share of comparative responsibility assigned to each person engaged in concerted activity.

　　當(dāng)多人因共同行為而承擔(dān)責(zé)任時(shí)，所有各方應(yīng)對(duì)分配給參與該共同行為的每一方的比較責(zé)任份額承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。

　　16 Effect of Partial Settlement on Jointly and Severally Liable Tortfeasors’ Liability

　　第十六條對(duì)連帶責(zé)任人之責(zé)任所做部分和解的效力

　　The plaintiff,s recoverable damages from a jointly and severally liable tortfeasor are reduced by the comparative share of damages attributable to a settling tortfeasor who otherwise would have been liable for contribution to jointly and severally liable defendants who do not settle. The settling tortfeasor,s comparative share of damages is the percentage of comparative responsibility assigned to the settling tortfeasor multiplied by the total damages of the plaintiff.

　　原告可從一負(fù)連帶責(zé)任的侵權(quán)行為人處獲得的賠償應(yīng)減去應(yīng)分配給另一已和解，否則將對(duì)負(fù)連帶責(zé)任的其他未和解被告承擔(dān)分?jǐn)傌?zé)任的侵權(quán)行為人的比較賠償份額。該已和解侵權(quán)行為人的比較賠償份額是分配給該已和解侵權(quán)行為人的比較責(zé)任份額與原告賠償總額的乘積。

　　17 Joint and Several or Several Liability for Independent Tortfeasors

　　第十七條獨(dú)立侵權(quán)行為人的連帶責(zé)任或單獨(dú)責(zé)任

　　If the independent tortious conduct of two or more persons is a legal cause of an indivisible injury, the law of the applicable jurisdiction determines whether those persons are jointly and severally

　　如有兩人或多人的獨(dú)立侵權(quán)行為構(gòu)成某一不可分損害的法律原因，將由該案司法管轄區(qū)的法律確定這些侵權(quán)人應(yīng)否承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任、單獨(dú)責(zé)任或連帶責(zé)任與單獨(dú)責(zé)任的某種混合責(zé)任形態(tài)。

　　liable, severally liable, or liable under some hybrid of joint and several and several liability.

　　Track A - Joint and Several Liability路徑A：連帶責(zé)任

　　A18 Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors for Indivisible Harm

　　If the independent tortious conduct of two or more persons is a legal cause of an indivisible injury, each person is jointly and severally liable for the recoverable damages caused by the tortious conduct.

　　A路徑第18條數(shù)個(gè)侵權(quán)行為人對(duì)不可分傷害的責(zé)任

　　如果兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上的共同侵權(quán)行為構(gòu)成一不可分損害的法律原因，那么每個(gè)人均對(duì)該侵權(quán)行為造成的可獲得損害賠償承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。

　　A19 Assignment of Responsibility: Jointly and Severally Liable Defendants

　　If one defendant and at least one other party or settling tortfeasor may be found by the factfinder to have engaged in tortious conduct that was a legal cause of an indivisible injury, each such party and settling tortfeasor is submitted to the factfinder for assignment of a percentage of comparative responsibility.

　　A路徑第19條責(zé)任分配：負(fù)連帶責(zé)任的被告

　　如果一個(gè)被告和至少另一方當(dāng)事人或者和解侵權(quán)行為人可能被事實(shí)調(diào)查人確認(rèn)曾經(jīng)參與了作為一不可分損害法律原因的侵權(quán)行為，上述每一方與和解侵權(quán)行為人都需遵從于由事實(shí)調(diào)查人分配的比較責(zé)任份額。

　　A20 [Not Applicable to This Track.] A路徑第20條無此條可適用于該路徑

　　A21 [Not Applicable to This Track.] A路徑第21條無此條可適用于該路徑

　　Track B - Several Liability路徑B：單獨(dú)責(zé)任

　　B18 Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors for Indivisible Harm

　　If two or more persons, independent tortious conduct is the legal cause of an indivisible injury, each defendant, subject to the exception stated in §12, is severally liable for the comparative share of the plaintiff,s damages assigned to that defendant by the factfinder.

　　B路徑第18條數(shù)個(gè)侵權(quán)行為人對(duì)不可分傷害的責(zé)任

　　如果兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上人的獨(dú)立侵權(quán)行為均構(gòu)成一不可分損害的法律原因，每個(gè)人均對(duì)事實(shí)調(diào)查人分配給該人的原告損害賠償?shù)谋容^責(zé)任份額承擔(dān)單獨(dú)責(zé)任，適用本重述第12條例外規(guī)定的除外。

　　B19 Assignment of Responsibility: Severally Liable Defendants

　　If one or more defendants may be held severally liable for an indivisible injury, and at least one defendant and one other party, settling tortfeasor, or identified person may be found by the factfinder to have engaged in tortious conduct that was a legal cause of the plaintiff,s injury, each such party, settling tortfeasor, and other identified person is submitted to the factfinder for an assignment of a percentage of comparative responsibility.

　　B路徑第19條責(zé)任分配：負(fù)單獨(dú)責(zé)任的被告

　　如果一名或者多名被告可能對(duì)一不可分損害承擔(dān)單獨(dú)責(zé)任，并且至少一位被告和一位另一方當(dāng)事人、和解侵權(quán)行為人，或者特定人[17]可能被事實(shí)調(diào)查人確定曾參與了作為受害人損害法律原因侵權(quán)行為，上述當(dāng)事人、和解侵權(quán)行為人和特定人都遵從事實(shí)調(diào)查人對(duì)比較責(zé)任份額的分配。

　　B20 [Not Applicable to This Track.] B路徑第20條無此條可適用于該路徑

　　B21 [Not Applicable to This Track.] B路徑第21條無此條可適用于該路徑

　　Track C - Joint and Several Liability with Reallocation路徑C：結(jié)合再分配的連帶責(zé)任

　　C18 Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors for Indivisible Harm

　　C路徑第18條數(shù)個(gè)侵權(quán)行為人對(duì)不可分傷害的責(zé)任

　　如果兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上的共同侵權(quán)行為構(gòu)成一不可分損害的法律原因，那么根據(jù)本重述C路徑第21條規(guī)定的再分配條款，每個(gè)人均對(duì)該侵權(quán)行為造成的可獲得損害賠償承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。

　　C19 Assignment of Responsibility: Jointly and Severally Liable Defendants

　　If one defendant and at least one other party, settling tortfeasor, or employer described in§C20(a) whose comparative responsibility is legally relevant to apportioning liability for the plaintiff,s indivisible injury exist, each party, each settling tortfeasor, and, as permitted by§C20(a), each employer who may be found by the factfinder to have engaged in tortious conduct that was a legal cause of the plaintiff,s injury is submitted to the fact-finder for assignment of a percentage of comparative responsibility.

　　C路徑第19條責(zé)任分配：負(fù)連帶責(zé)任的被告

　　如果存在一個(gè)被告和至少一個(gè)另一方、和解侵權(quán)行為人或如本重述C路徑第20條(a)所描述的，其比較責(zé)任在法律上與原告不可分損害的責(zé)任分配有關(guān)的雇主，可能被事調(diào)查人發(fā)現(xiàn)參與了作為原告損害的一個(gè)法律原因的請(qǐng)求行為的每一方、每個(gè)和解侵權(quán)行為人和每個(gè)由本重述C路徑第20條(a)許可的雇主，均需遵從事實(shí)調(diào)查人對(duì)比較責(zé)任份額的分配。

　　C20 Effect of Responsibility Assigned to Immune Employer

　　If a party alleges that the plaintiff,s employer bears some responsibility for the plaintiff,s injury:

　　(a) If the applicable law of the jurisdiction permits a reduction of recoverable damages based on the comparative responsibility of an employer otherwise immune from suit by the plaintiff-employee or permits a contribution claim by a defendant against the employer, the employer may be assigned a percentage of comparative responsibility and: (i) the recoverable damages are reduced as permitted by the applicable law; or (ii) contribution is awarded as permitted by the applicable law and the employer,s comparative responsibility.

　　(b) If the applicable law of the jurisdiction does not permit either a reduction of recoverable damages based on the comparative responsibility of an employer or a contribution claim against the employer, the employer may not be assigned a percentage of comparative responsibility.

　　C路徑第20條分配給免責(zé)雇主的責(zé)任的效力

　　如果一方宣稱原告的雇主對(duì)原告的損害負(fù)有一定的責(zé)任(，那么)：

　　(a)如果該司法轄區(qū)適用的法律允許基于雇主的比較責(zé)任對(duì)可獲得損害賠償?shù)臏p少，否則免于被作為原告的雇員起訴，或者允許被告對(duì)雇主的分?jǐn)傊鲝?，雇主可能被分配一定份額的比較責(zé)任，并且：(i)對(duì)可獲得損害賠償?shù)臏p少為適用的法律所允許;或(ii)分?jǐn)偟牟枚檫m用法律和雇主的比較責(zé)任所允許。

　　(b)如果該司法轄區(qū)適用的法律不允許基于雇主的比較責(zé)任減少可獲得損害賠償，或(不允許)對(duì)雇主提出分?jǐn)傊鲝?，則不能向雇主分配比較責(zé)任份額。

　　C21 Reallocation of Damages Based on Unenforceability of Judgment

　　(a)Except as provided in Subsection (b), if a defendant establishes that a judgment for contribution cannot be collected fully from another defendant, the court reallocates the uncollectible portion of the damages to all other parties, including the plaintiff, in proportion to the percentages of comparative responsibility assigned to the other parties.

　　(b) Reallocation under Subsection (a) is not available to any defendant subject to joint and several liability pursuant to §12 (intentional tortfeasors) or §15 (persons acting in concert). Any defendant legally liable for the share of comparative fault assigned to another person pursuant to §13 (vicarious liability) or §14 (tortfeasors who fail to protect the plaintiff from the specific risk of an intentional tort) may not obtain reallocation of the liability imposed by those Sections.

　　C路徑第21條基于裁決不可執(zhí)行的賠償再分配

　　(a)除非如本條(b)款所規(guī)定，如果一個(gè)被告確認(rèn)有關(guān)其分?jǐn)傉?qǐng)求權(quán)的判決不可能從另一個(gè)被告那里完全受償，法院將按照包括原告在內(nèi)的其他各方被分配的比較責(zé)任份額，向他們重新分配賠償金中不能受償?shù)牟糠帧?/span>

　　(b)按照本條(a)款進(jìn)行的重新分配，不適用于任何依據(jù)本重述第十二條(故意侵權(quán)行為人)或者第十五條(共同行為人)承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任的被告。任何依據(jù)本重述第十三條(替代責(zé)任)或者第十四條(因未就某一故意侵權(quán)行為的具體風(fēng)險(xiǎn)對(duì)原告提供保護(hù)而承擔(dān)責(zé)任的侵權(quán)行為人)而對(duì)分配給他人的比較過錯(cuò)份額承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任的被告，不應(yīng)接受的基于上述條款[18]的責(zé)任的重新分配。

　　Track D - Hybrid Liability Based on Threshold Percentage of Comparative Responsibility

　　路徑D：基于比較責(zé)任份額界限的混合責(zé)任

　　D路徑第18條數(shù)個(gè)侵權(quán)行為人對(duì)不可分傷害的責(zé)任

　　如果兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上的共同侵權(quán)行為構(gòu)成一不可分損害的法律原因，每個(gè)被分配等于或者超過法律規(guī)定界限比例比較責(zé)任的被告負(fù)連帶責(zé)任，每個(gè)被分配少于法律規(guī)定界限比例比較責(zé)任的被告負(fù)單獨(dú)責(zé)任，適用本重述第十二條(故意侵權(quán)行為人)規(guī)定的除外。

　　D18 Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors for Indivisible Harm

　　If the independent tortious conduct of two or more persons is a legal cause of an indivisible injury, each defendant who is assigned a percentage of comparative responsibility equal to or in excess of the legal threshold is jointly and severally liable, and each defendant who is assigned a percentage of comparative responsibility below the legal threshold is, subject to the exception in §12(intentional tortfeasors), severally liable.

　　D19 Assignment of Responsibility: Both Jointly and Severally Liable and Severally Liable Defendants

　　(a)If one or more defendants may be held severally liable for an indivisible injury, and at least one defendant and one other party, settling tortfeasor, or identified person may be found by the factfinder to have engaged in tortious conduct that was a legal cause of the plaintiff,s injury, each such party, settling tortfeasor, and other identified person is submitted to the factfinder for an assignment of a percentage of comparative responsibility.

　　(b)If all defendants can only be held jointly and severally liable for an indivisible injury, each party and each settling tortfeasor who may be found by the factfinder to have engaged in tortious conduct that was a legal cause of the plaintiff,s injury are submitted to the fact-finder for an assignment of a percentage of comparative responsibility.

　　D20 [Not Applicable to This Track.]

　　D路徑第19條責(zé)任分配：負(fù)連帶責(zé)任的被告與負(fù)單獨(dú)責(zé)任的被告

　　(a)如果一名或者多名被告可能對(duì)一不可分損害承擔(dān)單獨(dú)責(zé)任，并且至少一位被告和一位另一方當(dāng)事人、和解侵權(quán)行為人，或者特定人可能被事實(shí)調(diào)查人確定曾參與了作為受害人損害法律原因侵權(quán)行為，上述當(dāng)事人、和解侵權(quán)行為人和特定人都遵從事實(shí)調(diào)查人對(duì)比較責(zé)任份額的分配。

　　(b)如果對(duì)所有被告均只能對(duì)一不可分損害適用連帶責(zé)任，可能被事實(shí)調(diào)查人發(fā)現(xiàn)參與了作為原告損害的法律原因的侵權(quán)行為的每一方和每一和解侵權(quán)行為人都需遵從事實(shí)調(diào)查人對(duì)比較責(zé)任份額的分配。

　　D21 [Not Applicable to This Track.]D路徑第21條無此條可適用于該路徑

　　Track E - Hybrid Liability Based on Type of Damages 4 路徑E：基于賠償種類的混合責(zé)任

　　E18 Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors for Indivisible Harm

　　If the independent tortious conduct of two or more persons is a legal cause of an indivisible injury, each defendant is jointly and severally liable for the economic-damages portion of the recoverable damages and, subject to the exceptions stated in §12 (intentional tortfeasors) and §15(persons acting in concert), is severally liable for that defendant,s comparative share of the noneconomic damages.

　　E路徑第18條數(shù)個(gè)侵權(quán)行為人對(duì)不可分傷害的責(zé)任

　　如果一個(gè)或多個(gè)人的獨(dú)立侵權(quán)行為構(gòu)成一不可分傷害的法律原因，每個(gè)被告均對(duì)可獲得損害賠償中的經(jīng)濟(jì)損害部分承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任，依據(jù)本重述第十二條(故意侵權(quán)行為人)和第十五條(共同行為人)的除外;對(duì)該被告的非經(jīng)濟(jì)損害部分的比較份額承擔(dān)單獨(dú)責(zé)任。

　　E19 Assignment of Responsibility: Joint and Several Liability for Economic Damages and Several Liability for Noneconomic Damages

　　(a)When plaintiff may recover only economic damages for an indivisible injury and at least one defendant and one other party or settling tortfeasor may be found by the factfinder to have engaged in tortious conduct that was a legal cause of the plaintiff,s injury, each such party and settling tortfeasor is submitted to the factfinder for assignment of a percentage of comparative responsibility.

　　(b) When plaintiff may recover noneconomic damages and at least one defendant and one other party, settling tortfeasor, or identified person may be found by the factfinder to have engaged in tortious conduct that was a legal cause of the plaintiff,s injury, each such party, settling tortfeasor, and identified person is submitted to the factfinder for assignment of a percentage of comparative responsibility.

　　E路徑第19條責(zé)任分配：對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)損害的連帶責(zé)任以及對(duì)非經(jīng)濟(jì)賠償?shù)膯为?dú)責(zé)任

　　(a)當(dāng)原告僅可能獲得一不可分損害的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失賠償，并且至少一位被告和一位另一方當(dāng)事人或和解侵權(quán)行為人可能被事實(shí)調(diào)查人發(fā)現(xiàn)曾參與了一項(xiàng)構(gòu)成原告損害法律原因的侵權(quán)行為，上述各方和和解侵權(quán)行為人需遵從事實(shí)調(diào)查人對(duì)比較責(zé)任份額的分配。

　　(b)當(dāng)原告可能獲得非經(jīng)濟(jì)損害賠償，并且至少一位被告和一位另一方當(dāng)事人、和解侵權(quán)行為人，或者特定人，可能被事實(shí)調(diào)查人發(fā)現(xiàn)曾參與了一項(xiàng)構(gòu)成原告損害法律原因的侵權(quán)行為，上述各方、和解侵權(quán)行為人和該特定人需遵從事實(shí)調(diào)查人對(duì)比較責(zé)任份額的分配。

　　E20 [Not Applicable to This Track.] E路徑第20條無此條可適用于該路徑

　　E21 [Not Applicable to This Track.] E路徑第21條無此條可適用于該路徑

　　Topic 3- Contribution and Indemnity第三題：分擔(dān)與補(bǔ)償[19]

　　22 Indemnity第二十二條補(bǔ)償

　　(a)When two or more persons are or may be liable for the same harm and one of them discharges the liability of another in whole or in part by settlement or discharge of judgment, the person discharging the liability is entitled to recover indemnity in the amount paid to the plaintiff, plus reasonable legal expenses, if:

　　(1)the indemnitor has agreed by contract to indemnify the indemnitee, or

　　(2) the indemnitee

　　(i)was not liable except vicariously for the tort of the indemnitor, or

　　(ii)was not liable except as a seller of a product supplied to the indemnitee by the indemnitor and the indemnitee was not independently culpable.

　　(b) A person who is otherwise entitled to recover indemnity pursuant to contract may do so even if the party against whom indemnity is sought would not be liable to the plaintiff.

　　(a)當(dāng)兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上的人對(duì)同一傷害承擔(dān)或可能承擔(dān)責(zé)任時(shí)，其中一人通過和解或履行判決免除他人的全部或部分責(zé)任時(shí)，免除責(zé)任的一方有權(quán)(從該他人處)獲得支付給原告數(shù)額的補(bǔ)償，在以下情況還包括合理的法律費(fèi)用支出：

　　(1)補(bǔ)償人事先通過簽訂合同同意補(bǔ)償受補(bǔ)償人，或

　　(2)受補(bǔ)償人

　　(i)除非因替代責(zé)任[20]，否則不對(duì)補(bǔ)償人的侵權(quán)行為負(fù)責(zé)，或

　　(ii)除非補(bǔ)償人是為受補(bǔ)償人提供產(chǎn)品的賣方，且受補(bǔ)償人并非單獨(dú)具有可責(zé)難性，否則不負(fù)責(zé)任。

　　(b)有權(quán)依照合同獲得補(bǔ)償?shù)娜?，即使在尋求補(bǔ)償?shù)娜说膶?duì)方當(dāng)事人并不對(duì)原告負(fù)責(zé)的情況下，仍然可以行使補(bǔ)償請(qǐng)求權(quán)。

　　23 Contribution第二十三條分擔(dān)

　　(a)When two or more persons are or may be liable for the same harm and one of them discharges the liability of another by settlement or discharge of judgment, the person discharging the liability is entitled to recover contribution from the other, unless the other previously had a valid settlement and release from the plaintiff.

　　(b) A person entitled to recover contribution may recover no more than the amount paid to the plaintiff in excess of the person,s comparative share of responsibility.

　　(c) A person who has a right of indemnity against another person under §22 does not have a right of contribution against that person and is not subject to liability for contribution to that person.

　　(a)當(dāng)兩人或多人對(duì)或可能對(duì)同一傷害承擔(dān)責(zé)任而其中一人已通過和解或履行裁決承擔(dān)他人責(zé)任時(shí)，承擔(dān)他人責(zé)任的該人有權(quán)向該他人追償責(zé)任分擔(dān)，除非該他人此前已與原告達(dá)成有效的和解、得到原告的免除。

　　(b)有權(quán)追償責(zé)任分擔(dān)的人可以獲得不多于該人支付給原告的數(shù)額中超出該人比較責(zé)任份額的部分。

　　(c)依據(jù)第22節(jié)享有免責(zé)權(quán)的一方對(duì)免責(zé)方不享有分?jǐn)倷?quán)，并且不對(duì)該免責(zé)方負(fù)有分?jǐn)傌?zé)任。

　　Topic 4- Settlement第四題：和解

　　24 Definition and Effect of Settlement

　　(a) A settlement is a legally enforceable agreement in which a claimant agrees not to seek recovery outside the agreement for specified injuries or claims from some or all of the persons who might be liable for those injuries or claims.

　　(b) Persons released from liability by the terms of a settlement are relieved of further liability to the claimant for the injuries or claims covered by the agreement, but the agreement does not discharge any other person from liability.

　　第二十四條和解的定義與效力

　　(a)和解是一份具有法律強(qiáng)制性的協(xié)議，在該協(xié)議中請(qǐng)求權(quán)人同意在協(xié)議之外，不再針對(duì)該特別損害尋求額外賠償，或者向部分或所有可能對(duì)相關(guān)損害或主張負(fù)責(zé)的人提出主張。

　　(b)通過和解方式免除責(zé)任的人，在和解協(xié)議所涵蓋的特別損害或者主張的范圍內(nèi)，可能產(chǎn)生的對(duì)請(qǐng)求權(quán)人的未來責(zé)任也得到了免除，但該和解協(xié)議并不免除任何其他人的責(zé)任。

　　25 Satisfaction of Claim Through Discharge of Judgment

　　第二十五條通過履行判決滿足訴訟請(qǐng)求

　　(a)When a judgment includes a determination of the entirety of recoverable damages suffered by the plaintiff for an indivisible injury and provides for their recovery by the plaintiff against one or more of the defendants, payment of the full amount of recoverable damages constitutes a satisfaction of the plaintiff,s rights against all tortfeasors legally responsible for the plaintiff,s indivisible injury.

　　(b)When a judgment includes a determination of the entirety of recoverable damages suffered by the plaintiff for an indivisible injury and provides for their recovery by the plaintiff against multiple defendants, payment by one or more judgment defendants of less than the full amount of the recoverable damages constitutes a reduction of the plaintiff,s right to recover from the judgment defendants in the amount of the value of the payment.

　　(c) When a judgment against one or more tortfeasors, none of whom is jointly and severally liable, is for an amount that is or may be less than all of the recoverable damages by the plaintiff, payment of the amount of the judgment does not constitute a satisfaction of the plaintiff,s rights against all tortfeasors.

　　(a)當(dāng)一項(xiàng)判決包括了對(duì)原告因遭受的一項(xiàng)不可分損害而可獲得損害賠償?shù)膿p害范圍的確定，并提供原告可從被告中的一個(gè)或多個(gè)處獲得賠償時(shí)，對(duì)原告可獲得損害賠償?shù)娜~支付，構(gòu)成了對(duì)原告享有的對(duì)所有對(duì)原告所受該不可分損害負(fù)有法律責(zé)任的侵權(quán)行為人的請(qǐng)求權(quán)的滿足。

　　(b)當(dāng)一項(xiàng)判決包括了對(duì)原告因遭受的一項(xiàng)不可分損害而可獲得損害賠償?shù)膿p害范圍的確定，并提供原告可從多個(gè)共同被告處獲得賠償時(shí)，該案被告中的一個(gè)或者多個(gè)支付的少于原告可獲得損害賠償總額的賠償?shù)阮~減少原告可從該案被告獲得的賠償額。

　　(c)當(dāng)一項(xiàng)確認(rèn)了少于或者可能少于原告可獲得損害賠償數(shù)額的判決，是針對(duì)一個(gè)或者多個(gè)侵權(quán)行為人，而他們中沒有任何人承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任時(shí)，對(duì)判決確定的該賠償額的支付并不構(gòu)成對(duì)原告針對(duì)所有侵權(quán)行為人權(quán)利的滿足。

　　Topic 5- Apportionment of Liability when Damages can be Divided by Causation

　　第五題：損害可依因果關(guān)系分割時(shí)的責(zé)任分擔(dān)

　　26 Apportionment of Liability When Damages Can Be Divided by Causation

　　(a) When damages for an injury can be divided by causation, the factfinder first divides them into their indivisible component parts and separately apportions liability for each indivisible component part under Topics 1 through 4.

　　(b) Damages can be divided by causation when the evidence provides a reasonable basis for the factfinder to determine:

　　(1) that any legally culpable conduct of a party or other relevant person to whom the fact-finder assigns a percentage of responsibility was a legal cause of less than the entire damages for which the plaintiff seeks recovery and

　　(2) the amount of damages separately caused by that conduct.

　　Otherwise, the damages are indivisible and thus the injury is indivisible. Liability for an indivisible injury is apportioned under Topics 1 through 4.

　　第二十六條損害可依因果關(guān)系分割時(shí)的責(zé)任分擔(dān)

　　(a)當(dāng)對(duì)某一損害的賠償可依因果關(guān)系被分割時(shí)，事實(shí)調(diào)查人首先將其分割為其不可再分的組成部分，然后依據(jù)上述第一至四題的規(guī)定，就每一不可再分的組成部分單獨(dú)分配責(zé)任。

　　(b)當(dāng)有關(guān)證據(jù)提供了可使事實(shí)調(diào)查人確定以下事項(xiàng)的合理依據(jù)時(shí)，賠償可依因果關(guān)系被分割;

　　(1)被事實(shí)調(diào)查人向其分配責(zé)任份額的一方當(dāng)事人或其他相關(guān)人，其任何具有法律上可責(zé)難性的行為，構(gòu)成少于原告所尋求獲得的全部賠償額[21]的一項(xiàng)法律原因，并且;

　　(2)此賠償數(shù)額為該行為單獨(dú)造成。

　　否則，賠償便不可分割，因此有關(guān)損害也不可分割。對(duì)一不可分損害的責(zé)任應(yīng)依據(jù)第一至四題進(jìn)行分配。

　　Part Three: Products Liability 產(chǎn)品責(zé)任

　　Restatement of the Law, Third, Torts: Products Liability

　　《侵權(quán)法重述第三版：產(chǎn)品責(zé)任》

　　Chapter 1- Liability of Commercial Product Sellers Based on Product Defects at Time of Sale

　　第一章基于銷售時(shí)產(chǎn)品缺陷的商業(yè)產(chǎn)品銷售者責(zé)任

　　Topic 1- Liability Rules Applicable to Products Generally主題1普遍適用于產(chǎn)品的責(zé)任規(guī)則

　　1 Liability of Commercial Seller or Distributor for Harm Caused by Defective Products

　　商業(yè)銷售者或者分發(fā)者因缺陷產(chǎn)品導(dǎo)致?lián)p害的責(zé)任

　　One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sells or distributes a defective product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the defect.

　　從事產(chǎn)品銷售或者以其他方式分發(fā)[1]的經(jīng)營者，銷售或者分發(fā)缺陷產(chǎn)品，應(yīng)對(duì)該缺陷所造成的人身或者財(cái)產(chǎn)損害承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

　　2 Categories of Product Defect.產(chǎn)品缺陷的種類

　　A product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings. A product:

　　(a) contains a manufacturing defect when the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product;

　　(b) is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe;

　　(c) is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.

　　產(chǎn)品在銷售或者分發(fā)時(shí)，包含制造缺陷，設(shè)計(jì)存在缺陷，或者因?yàn)檎f明或警示不充分而存在缺陷，則該產(chǎn)品存在缺陷。產(chǎn)品：

　　(a)如果背離其設(shè)計(jì)意圖，即便在該產(chǎn)品準(zhǔn)備和營銷過程中已盡到所有可能的注意，那么(產(chǎn)品)包含制造缺陷;

　　(b)如果可預(yù)見的因該產(chǎn)品引起的損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)能夠通過銷售者或以其他方式分發(fā)者，或者他們?cè)诜咒N商業(yè)鏈中的前手，通過采納合理替代性設(shè)計(jì)而減少或者避免，而沒有采納合理替代性設(shè)計(jì)致使產(chǎn)品不具有合理性安全，那么(產(chǎn)品)設(shè)計(jì)存在缺陷;

　　(c)如果可預(yù)見的因該產(chǎn)品引起的損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)能夠通過銷售者或以其他方式分發(fā)者，或者他們?cè)诜咒N商業(yè)鏈中的前手，通過提供合理的說明或警示而減少或者避免，而沒有提供合理的說明或警示致使產(chǎn)品不具有合理性安全，那么(產(chǎn)品)因說明或警示不足而存在缺陷。

　　3 Circumstantial Evidence Supporting Inference of Product Defect

　　支持推斷產(chǎn)品缺陷的間接證據(jù)

　　It may be inferred that the harm sustained by the plaintiff was caused by a product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution, without proof of a specific defect, when the incident that harmed the plaintiff:

　　(a) was of a kind that ordinarily occurs as a result of product defect; and

　　(b) was not, in the particular case, solely the result of causes other than product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution.

　　當(dāng)損害原告的事件滿足下列特征，即使沒有關(guān)于具體缺陷的證據(jù)，也可以推定原告所遭受的損害是由在產(chǎn)品在銷售或者分發(fā)時(shí)存在的產(chǎn)品缺陷導(dǎo)致的：

　　(a)該事件屬于通常是由產(chǎn)品缺陷引起的類型;并且

　　(b)在該具體案件中，不是僅僅由于產(chǎn)品在銷售或者分發(fā)時(shí)存在的缺陷以外的原因引起的。

　　4 Noncompliance and Compliance with Product Safety Statutes or Regulations

　　對(duì)產(chǎn)品安全法律或法規(guī)的違反與遵守

　　In connection with liability for defective design or inadequate instructions or warnings:

　　(a) a product,s noncompliance with an applicable product safety statute or administrative regulation renders the product defective with respect to the risks sought to be reduced by the statute or regulation; and

　　(b) a product,s compliance with an applicable product safety statute or administrative regulation is properly considered in determining whether the product is defective with respect to the risks sought to be reduced by the statute or regulation, but such compliance does not preclude as a matter of law a finding of product defect.

　　有關(guān)設(shè)計(jì)缺陷責(zé)任或者說明或警示不充分責(zé)任：

　　(a)產(chǎn)品對(duì)可適用的產(chǎn)品安全法律或法規(guī)的違反，致使產(chǎn)品存在與該法律或法規(guī)旨在減小的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)有關(guān)的缺陷;并且

　　(b)產(chǎn)品對(duì)可適用的產(chǎn)品安全法律或法規(guī)的遵守，在決定該產(chǎn)品是否存在與該法律或法規(guī)旨在減小的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)有關(guān)的缺陷時(shí)應(yīng)該予以適當(dāng)考慮，但這種遵守并不排除作為法律問題對(duì)產(chǎn)品缺陷的認(rèn)定。

　　Topic 2- Liability Rules Applicable to Special Products or Product Markets

　　主題2適用于特殊產(chǎn)品或產(chǎn)品市場的責(zé)任規(guī)則

　　5 Liability of Commercial Seller or Distributor of Product Components for Harm Caused by Products Into Which Components Are Integrated

　　One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing product components who sells or distributes a component is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by a product into which the component is integrated if:

　　(a) the component is defective in itself, as defined in this Chapter, and the defect causes the harm; or

　　(b)(1) the seller or distributor of the component substantially participates in the integration of the component into the design of the product; and

　　(2) the integration of the component causes the product to be defective, as defined in this Chapter; and

　　(3) the defect in the product causes the harm.

　　§5.產(chǎn)品零件商業(yè)銷售者或分銷者對(duì)裝配了該零件的產(chǎn)品導(dǎo)致?lián)p害的責(zé)任

　　從事產(chǎn)品零件銷售或者以其他方式分發(fā)的經(jīng)營者，銷售或分銷產(chǎn)品零件，應(yīng)對(duì)對(duì)裝配了該零件的產(chǎn)品導(dǎo)致的人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害承擔(dān)責(zé)任，如果：

　　(a)該零件自身存在本章所定義的缺陷，并且該缺陷導(dǎo)致了該損害;或

　　(b)(1)該零件的銷售者或分銷者實(shí)質(zhì)上參與了將該零件裝配入該產(chǎn)品設(shè)計(jì);并且

　　(2)該零件的裝配導(dǎo)致該產(chǎn)品存在本章所定義的缺陷;并且

　　(3)產(chǎn)品的該項(xiàng)缺陷造成了該損害。

　　6 Liability of Commercial Seller or Distributor for Harm Caused by Defective Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices

　　(a) A manufacturer of a prescription drug or medical device who sells or otherwise distributes a defective drug or medical device is subject to liability for harm to persons caused by the defect. A prescription drug or medical device is one that may be legally sold or otherwise distributed only pursuant to a health-care provider,s prescription.

　　(b) For purposes of liability under Subsection (a), a prescription drug or medical device is defective if at the time of sale or other distribution the drug or medical device:

　　(1) contains a manufacturing defect as defined in 2(a); or

　　(2) is not reasonably safe due to defective design as defined in Subsection (c); or

　　(3) is not reasonably safe due to inadequate instructions or warnings as defined in Subsection (d).

　　(c) A prescription drug or medical device is not reasonably safe due to defective design if the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the drug or medical device are sufficiently great in relation to its foreseeable therapeutic benefits that reasonable health-care providers, knowing of such foreseeable risks and therapeutic benefits, would not prescribe the drug or medical device for any class of patients.

　　(d) A prescription drug or medical device is not reasonably safe due to inadequate instructions or warnings if reasonable instructions or warnings regarding foreseeable risks of harm are not provided to:

　　(1) prescribing and other health-care providers who are in a position to reduce the risks of harm in accordance with the instructions or warnings; or

　　(2) the patient when the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that health-care providers will not be in a position to reduce the risks of harm in accordance with the instructions or warnings.

　　(e) A retail seller or other distributor of a prescription drug or medical device is subject to liability for harm caused by the drug or device if:

　　(1) at the time of sale or other distribution the drug or medical device contains a manufacturing defect as defined in 2(a); or

　　(2) at or before the time of sale or other distribution of the drug or medical device the retail seller or other distributor fails to exercise reasonable care and such failure causes harm to persons.

　　§6.商業(yè)銷售者或分銷者對(duì)缺陷處方藥和醫(yī)療設(shè)備導(dǎo)致?lián)p害的責(zé)任

　　(a)處方藥或醫(yī)療設(shè)備的制造商銷售或者以其他方式分發(fā)有缺陷的處方藥或醫(yī)療設(shè)備，應(yīng)對(duì)該缺陷對(duì)人身造成的傷害承擔(dān)責(zé)任。處方藥或醫(yī)療設(shè)備是指必須依據(jù)衛(wèi)生保健提供者的處方才能合法地銷售或者以其他方式分發(fā)的藥品或設(shè)備。[2]

　　(b)為第a款規(guī)定的責(zé)任目的，如果在銷售或以其他方式分銷時(shí)處方藥或醫(yī)療設(shè)備符合下列情形之一的，存在缺陷：

　　(1)包含第2條第a款所定義的制造缺陷;或

　　(2)由于本條第c款所定義的設(shè)計(jì)缺陷而不具有合理的安全性;或

　　(3)由于本條第d款所定義的說明或警示不充分而不具有合理的安全性。

　　(c)如果某種藥品或醫(yī)療設(shè)備引起的可預(yù)見的損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與其可預(yù)見的治療效果相比十分巨大[3]，以致理性的衛(wèi)生保健提供者在知道可預(yù)見的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和治療效果的情況下，都不會(huì)給任何一類患者開具該藥品或醫(yī)療設(shè)備的處方，那么該處方藥或醫(yī)療設(shè)備由于設(shè)計(jì)缺陷而不具有合理的安全性

　　(d)如果關(guān)于可預(yù)見的損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的合理說明或者警示未能提供給以下對(duì)象，那么處方藥或醫(yī)療設(shè)備由于說明或警示不充分而不具有合理的安全性：

　　(1)處于依據(jù)說明或警示降低損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)環(huán)節(jié)[4]的開具處方或者其他衛(wèi)生保健提供者;或

　　(2)在處方藥或醫(yī)療設(shè)備制造者知道或有理由知道的衛(wèi)生保健提供者不會(huì)處于依據(jù)說明或警示降低損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)環(huán)節(jié)情況下的病人。

　　(e)處方藥或醫(yī)療設(shè)備的零售商或其他分發(fā)者應(yīng)對(duì)該藥品或設(shè)備所致的損害承擔(dān)責(zé)任，如果：

　　1)該藥品或醫(yī)療設(shè)備在銷售或以其他方式分銷時(shí)包含第2款第a款所定義的制造缺陷;或

　　(2)該藥品或醫(yī)療設(shè)備在銷售或以其他方式分銷時(shí)或在此之前，零售商或其他分發(fā)者未盡合理注意，并因此導(dǎo)致了人身傷害。

　　7 Liability of Commercial Seller or Distributor for Harm Caused by Defective Food Products

　　One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing food products who sells or distributes a food product that is defective under §2, §3, or §4 is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the defect. Under §2(a), a harm-causing ingredient of the food product constitutes a defect if a reasonable consumer would not expect the food product to contain that ingredient.

　　§7.商業(yè)銷售者或分銷者對(duì)缺陷食品導(dǎo)致?lián)p害的責(zé)任

　　從事食品銷售或者分銷經(jīng)營活動(dòng)者，銷售或者以其他方式分發(fā)存在第2、3、4規(guī)定的缺陷的食品，應(yīng)對(duì)該缺陷所造成的人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害承擔(dān)責(zé)任。根據(jù)第2條第a款的規(guī)定，如果一個(gè)合理的消費(fèi)者不能預(yù)見該食品中含有此種成分，則食品中的該致害成分構(gòu)成缺陷。

　　8 Liability of Commercial Seller or Distributor of Defective Used Products

　　One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing used products who sells or distributes a defective used product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the defect if the defect:

　　(a) arises from the seller,s failure to exercise reasonable care; or

　　(b) is a manufacturing defect under §2(a) or a defect that may be inferred under §3 and the seller,s marketing of the product would cause a reasonable person in the position of the buyer to expect the used product to present no greater risk of defect than if the product were new; or

　　(c) is a defect under §2 or §3 in a used product remanufactured by the seller or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution of the used product; or

　　(d) arises from a used product,s noncompliance under §4 with a product safety statute or regulation applicable to the used product.

　　A used product is a product that, prior to the time of sale or other distribution referred to in this Section, is commercially sold or otherwise distributed to a buyer not in the commercial chain of distribution and used for some period of time.

　　§8.商業(yè)銷售者或分銷者對(duì)存在缺陷的舊貨導(dǎo)致?lián)p害的責(zé)任

　　從事舊貨銷售或者以其他方式分發(fā)的經(jīng)營者，銷售或分發(fā)有缺陷的舊貨，應(yīng)對(duì)該缺陷所造成的人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害承擔(dān)責(zé)任，如果該缺陷：

　　(a)源于銷售者未盡合理注意;或

　　(b)是第2條第a款所規(guī)定的制造缺陷，或第3條規(guī)定的可以推斷出的缺陷，并且銷售者的產(chǎn)品營銷會(huì)使處于與購買者相同環(huán)節(jié)的理性人期望該舊貨不會(huì)比該產(chǎn)品全新時(shí)具有更大的風(fēng)險(xiǎn);或者

　　(c)是第2條和第3條規(guī)定的經(jīng)過銷售者或商業(yè)分發(fā)鏈條中的前手重制[5]的舊貨;或者

　　(d)源于根據(jù)第4條的規(guī)定，舊貨違反了適用于舊貨的產(chǎn)品安全法律或法規(guī)。

　　舊貨是指在本條中提到的銷售或者以其他方式分發(fā)之前，被商業(yè)性地出售或者以其他方式分發(fā)給商業(yè)分發(fā)鏈條以外的購買者并被使用了一段時(shí)間的產(chǎn)品。

　　Chapter 2- Liability of Commercial Product Sellers Not Based on Product Defects at Time of Sale

　　第二章非基于銷售時(shí)產(chǎn)品缺陷的商業(yè)產(chǎn)品銷售者責(zé)任

　　9 Liability of Commercial Product Seller or Distributor for Harm Caused by Misrepresentation

　　One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who, in connection with the sale of a product, makes a fraudulent, negligent, or innocent misrepresentation of material fact concerning the product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the misrepresentation.

　　§9.商業(yè)產(chǎn)品銷售者或分銷者因錯(cuò)誤陳述導(dǎo)致?lián)p害的責(zé)任

　　從事產(chǎn)品銷售或者以其他方式分發(fā)的經(jīng)營者，對(duì)與產(chǎn)品有關(guān)的重要事實(shí)作出與產(chǎn)品銷售有關(guān)的欺詐性的、有過失的或者無知的錯(cuò)誤陳述，應(yīng)對(duì)錯(cuò)誤陳述導(dǎo)致的人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

　　10 Liability of Commercial Product Seller or Distributor for Harm Caused by Post-Sale Failure to Warn

　　(a) One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the seller,s failure to provide a warning after the time of sale or distribution of a product if a reasonable person in the seller,s position would provide such a warning.

　　(b) A reasonable person in the seller,s position would provide a warning after the time of sale if:

　　(1) the seller knows or reasonably should know that the product poses a substantial risk of harm to persons or property; and

　　(2) those to whom a warning might be provided can be identified and can reasonably be assumed to be unaware of the risk of harm; and

　　(3) a warning can be effectively communicated to and acted on by those to whom a warning might be provided; and

　　(4) the risk of harm is sufficiently great to justify the burden of providing a warning.

　　§10.商業(yè)產(chǎn)品銷售者或分銷者因售后未能警示導(dǎo)致?lián)p害的責(zé)任

　　(a)因銷售者未能在產(chǎn)品銷售或者以其他方式分發(fā)后提出警示而導(dǎo)致人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害，如果一個(gè)處于銷售者環(huán)節(jié)的理性人應(yīng)該會(huì)提出這樣的警示，從事產(chǎn)品銷售或者以其他方式分發(fā)的經(jīng)營者應(yīng)該承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

　　(b)一個(gè)處于銷售者環(huán)節(jié)的理性人，應(yīng)該會(huì)在銷售之后提出警示，如果：

　　(1)銷售者知道或者理應(yīng)知道產(chǎn)品引起了實(shí)質(zhì)性的人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn);而且

　　(2)那些應(yīng)該被提供警示的人能夠被確定，并且可以合理的被假設(shè)并不知道該損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn);而且

　　(3)警示能夠被有效地傳達(dá)給那些應(yīng)該被提供警示并根據(jù)警示采取行動(dòng)的人;并且

　　(4)損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)十分巨大，使得承擔(dān)提供警示的負(fù)擔(dān)有充足的理由。

　　11 Liability of Commercial Product Seller or Distributor for Harm Caused by Post-Sale Failure to Recall Product

　　One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the seller,s failure to recall a product after the time of sale or distribution if:

　　(a)(1) a governmental directive issued pursuant to a statute or administrative regulation specifically requires the seller or distributor to recall the product; or

　　(2) the seller or distributor, in the absence of a recall requirement under Subsection (a)(1), undertakes to recall the product; and

　　(b) the seller or distributor fails to act as a reasonable person in recalling the product.

　　§11.商業(yè)產(chǎn)品銷售者或分銷者因售后未能召回產(chǎn)品導(dǎo)致?lián)p害的責(zé)任

　　滿足下列條件時(shí)，從事產(chǎn)品銷售或者以其他方式分發(fā)的經(jīng)營者，應(yīng)對(duì)銷售者未能在銷售或分銷后召回該產(chǎn)品從而導(dǎo)致的人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害承擔(dān)責(zé)任：

　　(a)(1)依據(jù)法律或法規(guī)頒發(fā)的政府命令，明確要求銷售者或分銷者召回該產(chǎn)品?；?/span>

　　2)在沒有根據(jù)第a款第1項(xiàng)召回要求的情況下，銷售者或分銷者承諾召回該產(chǎn)品;而且

　　(b)銷售者或分銷者未能在召回產(chǎn)品過程中作為理性人行事。

　　12 Liability of Successor for Harm Caused by Defective Products Sold Commercially by Predecessor

　　A successor corporation or other business entity that acquires assets of a predecessor corporation or other business entity is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by a defective product sold or otherwise distributed commercially by the predecessor if the acquisition:

　　(a) is accompanied by an agreement for the successor to assume such liability; or

　　(b) results from a fraudulent conveyance to escape liability for the debts or liabilities of the predecessor; or

　　(d) results in the successor becoming a continuation of the predecessor.

　　§12.后手對(duì)前手商業(yè)性銷售的缺陷產(chǎn)品導(dǎo)致?lián)p害的責(zé)任

　　取得前手公司或其他經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)體資產(chǎn)的后手公司或其他經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)體應(yīng)對(duì)經(jīng)該前手商業(yè)性銷售或以其他方式分發(fā)的缺陷產(chǎn)品所造成的人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害承擔(dān)責(zé)任，如果此種取得：

　　(a)附有后手承擔(dān)相關(guān)責(zé)任的協(xié)議;或者

　　(b)是為逃避債務(wù)責(zé)任或前手責(zé)任而欺詐性財(cái)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移的結(jié)果;

　　(c)構(gòu)成與前手的聯(lián)營或合并;或者

　　(d)導(dǎo)致后手成為前手的延續(xù)。

　　Chapter 3- Liability of Successors and Apparent Manufacturers

　　第三章后手和非真正制造者責(zé)任

　　13 Liability of Successor for Harm Caused by Successor’s Own Post-Sale Failure to Warn

　　(a) A successor corporation or other business entity that acquires assets of a predecessor corporation or other business entity, whether or not liable under the rule stated in §12, is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the successor,s failure to warn of a risk created by a product sold or distributed by the predecessor if:

　　(1) the successor undertakes or agrees to provide services for maintenance or repair of the product or enters into a similar relationship with purchasers of the predecessor,s products giving rise to actual or potential economic advantage to the successor, and

　　(2) a reasonable person in the position of the successor would provide a warning.

　　(b) A reasonable person in the position of the successor would provide a warning if:

　　(1) the successor knows or reasonably should know that the product poses a substantial risk of harm to persons or property; and

　　(2) those to whom a warning might be provided can be identified and can reasonably be assumed to be unaware of the risk of harm; and

　　(3) a warning can be effectively communicated to and acted on by those to whom a warning might be provided; and

　　(4) the risk of harm is sufficiently great to justify the burden of providing a warning.

　　§13.后手對(duì)后手自己售后未能警示導(dǎo)致?lián)p害的責(zé)任

　　(a)取得前手公司或其他經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)體資產(chǎn)的后手公司或其他經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)體，無論根據(jù)第12條的規(guī)定是否應(yīng)當(dāng)負(fù)責(zé)，因?qū)ζ湮茨芫颓笆忠唁N售或分發(fā)的產(chǎn)品所產(chǎn)生的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)警示用戶而造成的人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害承擔(dān)責(zé)任，如果：

　　(1)該后手承諾或同意為該產(chǎn)品提供維護(hù)或修理服務(wù)，或者與前手產(chǎn)品的購買者形成類似的關(guān)系而獲得實(shí)際或潛在經(jīng)濟(jì)利益，并且

　　(2)一個(gè)處于該后手環(huán)節(jié)的理性人將提出警示。

　　(b)一個(gè)處于該后手環(huán)節(jié)的理性人將提出警示，如果：

　　(1)該后手知道或者理應(yīng)知道產(chǎn)品引起了實(shí)質(zhì)性的人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn);并且

　　(2)那些應(yīng)該被提供警示的人能夠被確定，并且可以合理的被假設(shè)并不知道該損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn);而且

　　(3)警示能夠被有效地傳達(dá)給那些應(yīng)該被提供警示并根據(jù)警示采取行動(dòng)的人;并且

　　(4)損害風(fēng)險(xiǎn)十分巨大，使得承擔(dān)提供警示的負(fù)擔(dān)有充足的理由。

　　14 Selling or Distributing as One’s Own a Product Manufactured by Another

　　One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sells or distributes as its own a product manufactured by another is subject to the same liability as though the seller or distributor were the product,s manufacturer.

　　§14.將他人制造的產(chǎn)品作為自己產(chǎn)品的銷售或分銷

　　從事產(chǎn)品銷售或者以其他方式分發(fā)的經(jīng)營者，將他人制造的產(chǎn)品作為自己產(chǎn)品的銷售或分銷，應(yīng)該承擔(dān)與如果該銷售者或者分銷者就是該產(chǎn)品制造者相同的責(zé)任。

　　Chapter 4- Provisions of General Applicability 第四章具有普遍適用性的條款

　　Topic 1- Causation 主題1因果關(guān)系

　　15 General Rule Governing Causal Connection Between Product Defect and Harm

　　Whether a product defect caused harm to persons or property is determined by the prevailing rules and principles governing causation in tort.

　　§15.支配產(chǎn)品缺陷與損害之間因果聯(lián)系的通則

　　產(chǎn)品缺陷是否導(dǎo)致人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害根據(jù)侵權(quán)法上支配因果關(guān)系的通行規(guī)則和原則來確定。

　　16 Increased Harm Due to Product Defect

　　(a) When a product is defective at the time of commercial sale or other distribution and the defect is a substantial factor in increasing the plaintiff,s harm beyond that which would have resulted from other causes, the product seller is subject to liability for the increased harm.

　　(b) If proof supports a determination of the harm that would have resulted from other causes in the absence of the product defect, the product seller,s liability is limited to the increased harm attributable solely to the product defect.

　　(c) If proof does not support a determination under Subsection (b) of the harm that would have resulted in the absence of the product defect, the product seller is liable for all of the plaintiff,s harm attributable to the defect and other causes.

　　(d) A seller of a defective product that is held liable for part of the harm suffered by the plaintiff under Subsection (b), or all of the harm suffered by the plaintiff under Subsection (c), is jointly and severally liable or severally liable with other parties who bear legal responsibility for causing the harm, determined by applicable rules of joint and several liability.

　　§16.產(chǎn)品缺陷導(dǎo)致的損害擴(kuò)大

　　(a)當(dāng)產(chǎn)品在商業(yè)銷售或以其他方式分發(fā)時(shí)存在缺陷，而且該缺陷使得原告的損害擴(kuò)大到因其他原因造成的損害之外，該產(chǎn)品銷售者應(yīng)對(duì)擴(kuò)大的損害承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

　　(b)如果有證據(jù)支持確定沒有產(chǎn)品缺陷情形下其他原因會(huì)造成的損害，那么該產(chǎn)品銷售者的責(zé)任就僅限于可歸責(zé)于產(chǎn)品缺陷的損害擴(kuò)大部分。

　　(c)如果沒有證據(jù)支持確定第b款規(guī)定的沒有產(chǎn)品缺陷情形下其他原因會(huì)造成的損害，那么該產(chǎn)品銷售者應(yīng)對(duì)可歸責(zé)于該缺陷及其他原因的全部原告損害負(fù)責(zé)。

　　(d)被判決[7]根據(jù)第b款對(duì)原告遭受的部分損害或根據(jù)第c款對(duì)原告的全部損害負(fù)責(zé)的缺陷產(chǎn)品銷售者，與其他對(duì)造成損害應(yīng)負(fù)法律責(zé)任的當(dāng)事人，由可適用的連帶責(zé)任規(guī)則確定承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任或按份責(zé)任.

　　Topic 2- Affirmative Defenses 主題2積極抗辯

　　17 Apportionment of Responsibility Between or Among Plaintiff, Sellers and Distributors of Defective Products, and Others

　　(a) A plaintiff,s recovery of damages for harm caused by a product defect may be reduced if the conduct of the plaintiff combines with the product defect to cause the harm and the plaintiff,s conduct fails to conform to generally applicable rules establishing appropriate standards of care.

　　(b) The manner and extent of the reduction under Subsection (a) and the apportionment of plaintiff,s recovery among multiple defendants are governed by generally applicable rules apportioning responsibility.

　　§17.原告、缺陷產(chǎn)品的銷售者或分銷者以及其他人之間的責(zé)任分擔(dān)

　　(a)如果原告的行為與產(chǎn)品缺陷相結(jié)合導(dǎo)致了損害，且原告的行為不符合確定適當(dāng)注意標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的普遍適用規(guī)則，則原告因缺陷產(chǎn)品導(dǎo)致?lián)p害而可獲得的賠償金可以被減少。

　　(b)根據(jù)第a款減少的方式與范圍，以及在多名被告之間對(duì)原告可獲得的救濟(jì)進(jìn)行分擔(dān)，應(yīng)當(dāng)由責(zé)任分擔(dān)的普遍適用規(guī)則支配。

　　18 Disclaimers, Limitations, Waivers, and Other Contractual Exculpations as Defenses to Products Liability Claims for Harm to Persons

　　Disclaimers and limitations of remedies by product sellers or other distributors, waivers by product purchasers, and other similar contractual exculpations, oral or written, do not bar or reduce otherwise[8] valid products liability claims against sellers or other distributors of new products for harm to persons.

　　§18.免責(zé)聲明，責(zé)任限制，棄權(quán)及其他約定免責(zé)作為對(duì)人身損害產(chǎn)品責(zé)任請(qǐng)求的抗辯

　　產(chǎn)品的銷售者或其他分銷者所作的免責(zé)聲明和賠償限制，產(chǎn)品的購買者的棄權(quán)，以及其他類似的約定免責(zé)，無論口頭或書面，都不阻礙或減少因人身損害而對(duì)全新產(chǎn)品的銷售者或其他分銷者另行提起的有效產(chǎn)品責(zé)任請(qǐng)求。

　　Topic 3- Definitions主題3定義

　　19 Definition of "Product"“產(chǎn)品”的定義

　　For purposes of this Restatement:

　　(a) A product is tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption. Other items, such as real property and electricity, are products when the context of their distribution and use is sufficiently analogous to the distribution and use of tangible personal property that it is appropriate to apply the rules stated in this Restatement.

　　(b) Services, even when provided commercially, are not products.

　　為本重述的目的：

　　(a)產(chǎn)品是經(jīng)過商業(yè)性銷售以供使用或消費(fèi)的有形動(dòng)產(chǎn)。其他種類如不動(dòng)產(chǎn)和電，當(dāng)它們的銷售及使用情形與有形動(dòng)產(chǎn)的銷售及使用足夠類似而適用本重述所述規(guī)則顯得適當(dāng)時(shí)，也是產(chǎn)品。

　　(b)服務(wù)，即使是商業(yè)性提供的，也不是產(chǎn)品。

　　(c)人類血液及人類組織器官，即使是商業(yè)性提供的，也不受本重述規(guī)則的支配。

　　20 Definition of "One Who Sells or Otherwise Distributes"

　　“銷售或以其他方式分發(fā)者”的定義

　　For purposes of this Restatement: 為本重述的目的：

　　(a) One sells a product when, in a commercial context, one transfers ownership thereto either for use or consumption or for resale leading to ultimate use or consumption. Commercial product sellers include, but are not limited to, manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers.

　　(b) One otherwise distributes a product when, in a commercial transaction other than a sale, one provides the product to another either for use or consumption or as a preliminary step leading to ultimate use or consumption. Commercial nonsale product distributors include, but are not limited to, lessors, bailors, and those who provide products to others as a means of promoting either the use or consumption of such products or some other commercial activity.

　　(c) One also sells or otherwise distributes a product when, in a commercial transaction, one provides a combination of products and services and either the transaction taken as a whole, or the product component thereof, satisfies the criteria in Subsection (a) or (b).

　　(a)在商業(yè)情形下向他人轉(zhuǎn)讓所有權(quán)，或是為了使用或消費(fèi)，或是為了指向最終使用或消費(fèi)的轉(zhuǎn)售，該行為人是在銷售產(chǎn)品。商業(yè)產(chǎn)品銷售者包括但不限于制造商、批發(fā)商及零售商。

　　(b)在非銷售性商業(yè)交易中，不是為了使用或者消費(fèi)，也不是作為導(dǎo)向最終使用或消費(fèi)的預(yù)備步驟，向他人提供產(chǎn)品，該行為人是在以其他方式分發(fā)產(chǎn)品。商業(yè)性非銷售產(chǎn)品分發(fā)者包括但不限于出租人、寄托人及將其作為促進(jìn)此類產(chǎn)品的使用、消費(fèi)或者其他商業(yè)活動(dòng)的一種方式而提供產(chǎn)品者。

　　(c)如果在商業(yè)交易中提供產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)的結(jié)合體，或是該交易作為一個(gè)整體，或是其中的產(chǎn)品，符合第a款或第b款規(guī)定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，該行為人也是在銷售或以其他方式分發(fā)產(chǎn)品。

　　21 Definition of "Harm to Persons or Property": Recovery for Economic Loss

　　For purposes of this Restatement, harm to persons or property includes economic loss if caused by harm to:

　　(a) the plaintiff,s person; or

　　(b) the person of another when harm to the other interferes with an interest of the plaintiff protected by tort law; or

　　§21.“人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害”的定義：可獲得的對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的救濟(jì)

　　為本重述的目的，人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害包括以如下列舉為對(duì)象的損害所導(dǎo)致的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失：

　　(a)原告的人身;或

　　(b)其他的人身，當(dāng)對(duì)他人的損害妨礙了原告受侵權(quán)法保護(hù)的利益時(shí);或

　　(c)除了缺陷產(chǎn)品本身之外的原告財(cái)產(chǎn)。

上一篇：建筑合同和擔(dān)保的類型（中英文翻譯模板）

下一篇：上海市產(chǎn)權(quán)交易合同翻譯模板