作者hyperion (青春痴呆小右派)
看板Jurisprudenc
标题Re: [旧文]Re: Ronald Dworkin 的诡辩
时间Sun May 25 14:29:36 2003
※ 引述《istj (Kat's BF)》之铭言:
: 您是在讲 torts 的 joint and several liability 吗?
: 如果是的话那这跟美国的定义不一样
: Def: All defendants are joined together (joint liability)
: and each defendant is liable for the entire recovery (several liability)
: 这并没有说受害者可以拿到数倍的赔偿,
: 只有说他可以向任何一个defendant要求全部的损失
: 这是为了避免defendant 诿过给其他的defendant, 进而逃避liability
...
When Several parties cause harm to someone, a question arises
concerning who the victim can sue and how damages should be
allocated among them. To illustrate, suppose that you suffer
a loss of $100 in an accident caused by two people called A
and B. They are *jointly* liable if you can sue *both* of
them at once, naming A and B as co-defendants and receiving
a judgment of $100 against them. They are *severally* liable
if you can sue *either* A or B separately, naming them each
of them as a defendant in a distinct trial. If A and B are
severally liable and you can recover $100 from each of them,
your total recovery will equal 200% of the actual harm(
double compensation).
(Cooter and Ulen, Law and Economics, 3rd edition, p.339-340)
当然 Cooter 与 Ulen 不是学法律的,不过我应该没有读错吧?
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.csie.ntu.edu.tw)
◆ From: 140.112.6.7
※ 编辑: hyperion 来自: 140.112.6.7 (05/25 14:30)
1F:推 kuomeijane:感觉英文没读错 但作者错了 07/19 00:12