论美国侵权法限制运动及其发展趋势  

American Tort Restriction Movement and Its Enlightenment

作　　者：董春华[1] 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学科学研究院

出　　处：《比较法研究》2014年第2期59-76,共18页Journal of Comparative Law

基　　金：国家社科基金青年项目"我国侵权法上公平责任适用研究"(11CFX037)的中期成果;上海市人文社科基地华东政法大学外国法与比较法研究院项目(SJ0709);国家重点学科华东政法大学法律史学科建设项目(030102)资助

摘　　要：始于20世纪七八十年代的侵权法限制运动,以责任保险危机、诉讼爆炸、陪审团失控、无聊诉讼、原告律师贪婪为限制侵权责任的理由,但无论哪一理由都无可靠性可言。侵权法限制运动基础如此薄弱,且以限制原告获得赔偿的可能性和赔偿数额为主要目标,却未遭遇民众的反感甚至反对,原因在于侵权责任限制的支持者巧妙利用了修辞术、立法机关与司法机关的冲突,巧妙架构内部组织结构以及个人主义仍是美国文化的核心。经过几十年的改革,侵权法限制运动确实使原告更难获得赔偿、律师行业受到重创,却并未降低保险费、事故发生率和产品安全。因侵权责任限制支持者的失信和改革伊始蓄意的欺骗,该运动获得的民众支持会越来越弱,它给我们的教训是:法律改革非政治运动,理性当头。Since 1970- 1980th, the restriction movement has taken the insurance crisis, litigation explosion, lost control jury, frivolous litigation, and greedy lawyers as the reasons to restrict the tort liability, but no reason deserves belief. The restriction movement＇ s basis is very weak, and it aims at restriction of plaintiff＇ s recoveries , but it has not encountered the objection of the people. The reason is that the advocates of restrictionism use rhetoric, the conflict between legislative organ and judicial organ to form organization with individualism as the kerrnel of American culture. With the reform for several decades, the restriction movement really makes it more difficult for plaintiff to get recoveries and the lawyers to get cases, while it has not reduced the rates of insurance, accidents and product safety. Because of the restrictinoist＇ s broken promise and dishonesty at the beginning, support for the movement from the people become weaker. The lesson we got from it is that law reform is not political movement and rationality is prior to it.

关 键 词：美国侵权法 限制运动 发展趋势 

分 类 号：D971.2[政治法律—法学] DD913