The Propensity To Sue: Why Do People Seek Legal Actions?

Tort costs as a fraction of U.S. GDP have increased over three-fold in the past 50 years, now hovering slightly above two percent. Although there has been much ink spilled blaming the plaintiffs’ bar and so-called hellhole jurisdictions, less has been written about the behavior and attitudes of individual plaintiffs. Using a unique survey from the RAND Corporation, this paper empirically analyzes the perceptual and economic factors that affect the decision of an injured party to seek legal action. We find that, independent of economic incentives, perception of fault is the most important factor in the decision to make a claim. On average, a person who blames another person or firm for his or her injury is four times more likely to claim regardless of the type of injury involved. Unsurprisingly, the severity of injury—either as perceived by the claimant or as measured by actual injury during the accident—is another key factor in explaining the claiming rate. Also, as expected, there is a negative relation between age and claiming behavior. Somewhat unexpectedly, whether the person has had experience with filing before has no independent effect on the decision to claim. JEL Classification K41     

Insurance and catastrophes: The changing role of the liability system

Insurance catastrophes are increasingly the result of actions by human beings rather than nature. Chief among these insurance changes has been the surge in tort liability insurance costs. Unfortunately, the courts have misunderstood the mechanisms for transmitting these costs throughout the economy. A principal deficiency is that the structure of liability has been inconsistent with the courts' assumption that the losses could be borne by consumers or parties other than the insurer.Commentary on presentation by Richard Zeckhauser, Insurance and Catastrophes, Geneva Lecture, Paris, France, May 12, 1995.     

论侵权诉讼时效

基于人格权、物权、知识产权等绝对权被侵害产生的停止侵害请求权、排除妨碍请求权、消除危险请求权,不应当适用诉讼时效。为填补受害人的损失而产生的请求权,原则上财产性的请求权应当有诉讼时效的限制,而非财产性质的请求权不适宜有诉讼时效的限制。实务中要注意把握单行法规定的侵权责任特殊诉讼时效期间。刑事附带民事诉讼提起的侵权之诉的诉讼时效可以直接适用刑法有关追诉时效的规定。     

论环境侵权的社会损害赔偿

现代社会条件下的侵权行为较传统侵权而言,具有较强的隐蔽性和普遍性。其结果不仅损害了个体的权益,还影响社会公共利益的实现。现有侵权法律制度和环境保护制度不能很好地实现对受损社会利益的救济和补偿,也不能很好地控制侵权行为的发生。因此,需要从宏观控制的角度出发,通过公权力的适当介入和社会性损害赔偿制度的适用,降低环境侵权的发生,实现社会环境利益。     

古代复仇对于侵权法功能的启示

在历史上侵权行为法替代复仇,被认为是进步和文明的标志.但是复仇作为一种人的本能,是无法被从根本上克服的,尤其是把侵害行为放在私法的范畴进行解决.因此侵权行为法应该尽可能地从制度上抑制,而不是去彻底消除复仇.而侵权行为法实现这一功能的基点应该是保护受害人,以确保与行为人在侵害行为事实上处于优势地位之间保持均衡.     

网络隐私侵权的法律保护

网络隐私侵权一直影响着网民们正常的网络生活,制约了网络的发展。为了保障网络隐私的安全,让网络健康发展,必须要明确网络侵权应该如何归责。目前,我国需要从立法上来约束侵权者,并鼓励网络行业进行自律。同时,网络用户也要提高自我保护意识。     

大规模侵权之企业社会责任承担

大规模侵权行为不但给受害者的人身财产造成严重损伤,更造成恶劣社会影响。鉴于大规模侵权所致的严重社会危害性。企业在从社会获取财富的同时,也应承担防止大规模侵权行为发生的责任与义务;企业也只有履行好自己所担负的社会责任,才能从根源上防范、避免大规模侵权事件的发生。而企业实现社会责任的关键是“做好自己”,而“做好自己”的首要,又在于《公司法》等相关法律对企业社会责任的明确确认,在于建构企业社会责任承担机制,并依托企业设立中的注意事项、经营过程的责任负担以及破产过程中的清偿得以实现其社会责任,防范大规模侵权事件发生。     

论我国环境侵权诉讼之证明责任分配制度

证明责任分配是环境民事诉讼制度的重要环节。其直接关系到立法目的的实现和当事人合法权益的保护。随着环境侵权诉讼数量的不断增加,我国相关制度中环境侵权证明责任分配问题之不足逐渐显现。我国应当在相关制度体系中,尽快建立完善的环境侵权证明责任倒置原则,并扩大该原则的适用范围,规范环境侵权诉讼中法官的司法裁量权。     

机动车交通事故共同侵权损害赔偿中的保险责任研究

机动车交通事故共同侵权行为表现为意思关联型和行为关联型两种。在两辆以上的投保机动车发生交通事故共同侵权时,若干保险公司的赔偿责任怎么承担?较为合理的思路是:多家保险公司在责任限额内对一个受害人承担赔偿责任时,要遵循比例责任和有限连带的一般规则,以实现以人为本、损害补偿的侵权责任法的价值追求。