当代侵权法比较研究（三）

注释:
  [1] Zimmermann (n 12), 969 ff.
 
  [2] Dobbs (n49),287.
 
  [3] Fran ois Terré, Phlippe Simler, and Yves Lequette, Droit civil—Les obligations (8th edn, 2002), no.731.
 
  [4] 参照 Zimmermann (n 12), 1008 f (with n 69).
 
  [5] Bernhard Windscheid and Theodor Kipp, Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts (vol I, 9th edn, 1906), § 101, 3 (with n 8).
 
  [6] Motive zu dem Entwurfe eines Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs (vol I, 1896), 279; Protokolle (n 19), 604.
 
  [7] Viney and Jourdain (n 53), no. 444–1; Mazeaud and Tunc (n 14), no. 417.
 
  [8] Le Tourneau (n 91), nos. 6706,6763; Mazeaud and Tunc (n 14), no. 390.
 
  * 虽然reasonable man 与 reasonable person 在汉语译文上都表达为“理性人”，但二者在英文语境下略有区别。——译者注
 
  [9] Dugdale in Clerk and Lindsell (n 8), para 7–159; Rogers (n 34), para 5.52.
 
  [10] Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex 781, 784(Alderson B).
 
  [11] Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691, 709 ff (Megaw LJ).
 
  [12]  Glasgow Corp v Muir 1943 SC (HL) 3,10(Lord Macmillan).
 
  [13]  Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law (1881/1911), 108.
 
  [14]  当代的情形，参见Richard A. Epstein, Torts (1999), 111 ff.
 
  [15]  Learned Hand J, in United States v Caroll Towing Co 159 F2.d 169, 173 (1947): “也许用代数项可以将这一观点说清楚：如果可能性是P，损害是L，成本是B，责任就取决于B是否小于L乘以P，亦即B是否小于PL。”
 
  [16] Richard A. Posner, ‘A Theory of Negligence’, (1972) . Journal of Legal Studies 28 ff; cf also idem, Economic Analysis of Law (6th edn, 2003), 167 ff.
 
  [17] 参见Helmut Koziol, .sterreichisches Haftpflichtrecht (vol I, 3rd edn, 1997), nn 5/35 ff; idem, ‘Objektivierung des Fahrl.ssigkeitsma.stabes im Schadensersatzrecht?’, (1996) 196 Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 593 ff.
 
  [18] European Group on Tort Law (n5), 75 ff.
 
  [19] Le Tourneau (n 91), no. 6707; Dugdale (n106), para 7–162; Hein K.tz and Gerhard Wagner, Deliktsrecht (9th edn,2001), n 108; Josef Esser and Eike Schmidt, Schuldrecht (vol I /2, 8th edn, 2000), 82 ff (§ 26 II).
 
  [20]  Dobbs (n 49), 280 ff.
 
  [21]  对历史的描述，参见Ibbetson (n 21), 196 ff.
 
  [22] Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691; Markesinis and Deakin (n 36), 169 ff; Dugdale (n 106), para 7–163.
 
  [23] Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 WLR 823, 832 (Neill J).
 
  [24] Mansfield v Weetabix [1998] 1 WLR 1263.
 
  [25] Mansfield v Weetabix [1998] 1 WLR 1263, 1268 (Leggatt LJ); for a similar American decision see Hammontree v Jenner (1971) 97 California Reporter 739.
 
  [26] Dobbs (n 49), 280.
 
  [27] ibid 281 ff.
 
  [28] ibid 293 ff.
 
  [29] ibid 284 ff.
 
  [30] BGH 1987 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1487, 1480; Erwin Deutsch, Allgemeines Haftungsrecht (2nd edn, 1996), nn 397 ff.
 
  [31] BGHZ 23, 90, 92 ff.
 
  [32] Le Tourneau (n 91), no. 6706.
 
  [33] Cass ass plén 9.5.1984, D 1984, I, 525.
 
  [34] Cass ass plén, 9.5.1984, D 1984, I,525; see also the critique of Viney and Jourdain (n 53), nos.433–1, 593–1.
 
  [35] Above Section, IV.3, especially text to nn 124–6.
 
  [36] Posner, Economic Analysis of Law (n 113), 171; Wagner (n 52), 265 ff.
 
  [37] Le Tourneau (n 91), no. 6706.
 
  [38] Philipp Heck, Grundri. des Schuldrechts (1929), 78 (§ 26); in the same vein Tony Honoré, Responsibility and Fault (1999), 34.
 
  [39]参照Posner, Economic Analysis of Law (n 113), 171.
 
  [40] Zimmermann (n 12), 1105.
 
  [41] 仅具有广泛相似性，而不是完全相同，因为对于家畜致害的制度设计存在差异（与野生动物致害的相关制度设计形成对照，对于野生动物，罗马通过了an edictum de feris）; 参照England: Rogers (n 34), paras 16.3 ff; France: Art 1385 Code civil; Germany: § 833 BGB; USA: Dobbs (n 49), 942 ff.
 
  [42]  Zimmermann (n 12), 1118 ff; noxal liability was not the only head of liability for others, cf Lawson and Markesinis (n 44), 161 ff.
 
  [43] Rogers (n 34), para 20.1; Dobbs (n 49), 905 ff.
 
  [44]  Viney and Jourdain (n 53), nos. 789–10, 808.
 
  [45]  Wagner (n 52), 274 ff.
 
  [46] Dobbs (n 49 ), 906.
 
  [47] ‘Nicht der Schaden verpflichtet zum Schadensersatz, sondern die Schuld’: Rudolf von Jhering, ‘Das Schuldmoment im r.mischen Privatrecht’ (1867), in idem (ed), Vermischte Schriften juristischen Inhalts (1879), 155,199.
 
  [48] Theodor Baums, ‘Die Einführung der Gef.hrdungshaftung durch F. C. von Savigny’, (1987) 104 Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stifung für Rechtsgeschichte (Germanistische Abteilung) 277.
 
  [49] Münchener Kommentar/Wagner Vor § 823 n 16; idem (n 52), 275 ff.
 
  * 意思是，严格责任的功能仍然未变，即维护工业革命背景下容易遭受侵害的普通工人的人身权益。——译者注
 
  [50]  Winfield, (1926) 166 LQR 184 ff, 196.
 
  [51]  Fletcher v Rylands (1866) LR 1 Ex 265, 279 (Blackburn J); upheld by the House of Lords in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, 338 ff.
 
  *此处的物指动物，本段下同。——译者注。
 
  [52] Read v Lyons & Co Ltd [1947] AC 156, 165 ff.
 
  [53] Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc [1994] 2 AC 264, 305 (Lord Goff of Chieveley): ‘我倾向于这种观点，即，作为一般规则，对于涉及高风险侵权行为强加严格责任当由议会来专门规定较为合适，而不应该由法院来解决。’
 
  [54] Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, 692, 696.
 
  [55] Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1, 20 (Lord Hoffmann).
 
  [56] Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994) 179 CLR 520; (1994) 120 ALR 42.
 
  [57] Markesinis and Deakin, Tort Law (4th edn, 1999), 297.
 
  [58] 对这一主题以及非委托义务（non-delegable duty）概念的阐述，可参照Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co v English 1937 SC (HL) 46, 60; David Howarth, Textbook on Tort (1995), 649 ff.
 
  [59] Markesinis and Deakin (n 36),560 ff; Peter Cane, Atiyah’s Accidents, Compensation and the Law (6th edn, 1999), 282 n 4; see below, Section VI.3.
 
  [60] Dobbs (n 49), 952 ff; cf Restatement of Torts (1938), § 520; Restatement of Torts, 2nd (1977), § 519 ff.
 
  [61]  The ALI, Restatement of the Law Third, Torts, Products Liability (1998), 19: ‘traditional reasonableness standard in negligence’.
 
  [62] Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, [1985] OJ L 210/29; cf also Rogers (n 34), para 10.19; Münchener Kommentar/Wagner Einl ProdHaftG nn 15 ff.
 
  [63] cf Viney and Jourdain (n 53), no. 627: ‘Originalité du droit fran.ais’.
 
  [64] Flour et al (n 9), no. 231; Viney and Jourdain (n 53), no. 628.
 
  [65] Philippe Malaurie and Laurent Ayn¨¨s, Cours de droit civil, Les obligations (10th edn, 1999/2000), before no. 187.
 
  [66] Cass civ 18.6.1896 (Teffaine), D 1897, I, 433 note Saleilles.
 
  [67] Cass ch réunies, 13.2.1930, p 1930.I.121 note Esmein.
 
  [68] Le Tourneau (n 91), nos. 8051 ff.
 
  [69]  Yvonne Lambert-Faivre, Droit du dommage corporel (4th edn, 2000), nos. 16-2,17.
 
  [70] Flour et al (n 9), no. 361: ‘rupture avec la responsabilité classique¡¯.
 
  [71] Cass ch r¨¦unies, 13.2.1930, S 1930, I, 121 note Esmein: ‘qu’il n’est pas nécessaire, qu’elle ait un vice inhérent ¨à sa nature et susceptible de causer le dommage’; cf Viney and Jourdain (n 53), no. 634.
 
  [72] cf Cass civ 2e, 15.2.1984, Bull civ II, no. 29, p 19; Cass civ 1re, 28.4.1981, Bull civ I, no. 137, p 114;Genevi¨¨ve Schamps, La mise en danger: un concept fondateur d’un principe général de responsabilité (1998), 645.
 
  [73] Cass civ 15.11.1984, three decisions, in D 1985, I, 20, 25 ff.
 
  [74] Read v J Lyons & Co [1947] AC 156, 182 (Lord Simonds).
 
  [75] For a more thorough treatment of the problem cf Wagner (n 52), 286 ff.
 
  [76] Dobbs (n 49), 953 ff.
 
  [77] Steven Shavell, Economic Analysis of Accident Law (1987), 29 ff; idem, Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law (2004), 206; Wagner (n 52), 273.
 
  [78] G J Leasing Co v Union Elec Co 54 F 3d 379, 386 (7th Cir 1995) (Posner J).