2024年3月15日发(作者：win7怎么取消开机密码)

Multiple Tort Feasors

Ⅰ. Joint and Several Liability

1. Under the rule of joint and several liabilities, each negligent defendant is fully responsible for

a plaintiff's damages, assuming that the defendants caused an indivisible harm. However, liability is

several only where defendant cause distinct or separable components of a plaintiff's harm.

多重侵权行为

连带责任

在连带责任规则下，假定被告造成不可分割的损害,每个过失被告对原告的损害负全部责任。但是，只有

在被告对原告造成不同或可分离的损害时，才是分别责任。

2. Should comparative fault states continue to apply joint and several liabilities? No consensus

has emerged. In fact, jurisdictions are so splintered that the Restatement refused to endorse a

position. Instead, the Restatement sets out five separate " tracks" to describe the competing

first track reflects approximately eleven jurisdictions that have retained joint and

several liabilities even after adopting the comparative fault. The second track describes the

opposite approach ( adopted by approximately 14 states ) of applying only several liability to

multiple defendants who have caused the indivisible harm. The remaining tracks reflect

jurisdictions that have come down somewhere in the middle. One of the remaining tracks suggests

the imposition of joint and several liabilities, subject to a reallocation of unenforceable shares to

all parties in proportion to their share of comparative r track suggests the

imposition of joint and several liabilities for a plaintiff's economic damages, but only several

liabilities for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering. A fifth track suggests the

imposition of joint and several liability only against defendant who are assigned " a percentage of

1

comparative responsibility equal to or in excess of the legal of threshold."Among states that follow

this approach, the " threshold " runs from 10% to 60%. Below the threshold, defendants are only

severally liable for a plaintiff's harm.

继续适用连带责任是否应该比较过错情形？目前还没有达成共识。事实上，司法管辖区如此分散，以至

于重述拒绝支持一个立场。 相反，重述提出了五个单独的“轨道”来描述竞争方法。第一轨道反映了即使

在采用比较过失后仍保留连带责任的约11个法域。第二轨道描述了一种相反的方法（约有14个国家采用），

即只对造成不可分割的损害的多个被告适用分别责任。剩下的轨道反映出司法管辖范围已经降到中间水平。

剩下轨道之一建议规定连带责任，但须按照各方的相对责任比例，将不可强制执行的股份重新分配给所有各

方。另一条轨道建议对原告的经济损失承担连带责任，但对非经济损失（如疼痛和痛苦）只承担分别责任。

第五轨道建议只对被赋予“相当于或超过法定界限相对责任百分比”的被告承担连带责任。在遵循这种方法

的州中，“门槛”从10％到60％不等。 低于门槛，被告只对原告的伤害承担个别的责任。

3. Where a defendant commits an intentional tort, the Restatement suggests joint and several

liabilities for indivisible harm regardless of which " track" a jurisdiction follows in cases involving

negligent tortfeasors.

如果被告实施故意侵权，则重述建议对不可分割的损害承担连带责任，而不管在涉及过失侵权行为人的

案件中，管辖权遵循的是哪一种“轨迹”。

Ⅱ. Indemnity and Contribution

1. The contribution and indemnity are the primary methods by which jointly-responsible

tortfeasor seek reimbursement from one another. Indemnity is a rule that compels one tortfeasor

to completely reimburse another who has paid a judgment to a plaintiff. Often, the rule applies

where one party has contractually agreed to reimburse another. However, indemnity also applies in

several other circumstances. For example, a defendant whose liability was premised on vicarious

liability can seek indemnity from the "active" tortfeasor who actually harmed the

2

addition, indemnity can apply where tortfeasors have committed wrongs of a different

"megnitude" against the plaintiff.( Noting that a comment to the Restatement of Torts Second §

866B allows for indemnity by a negligent actor against intentional, reckless, or even grossly

negligent actors).Finally, product retailers or wholesalers sometimes can seek indemnity against

manufacturers in a products liability action.（permitting retailer to seek indemnity against

manufacturer where retailer's liability was based on duplication of manufacturer's warning label).

赔偿和分摊

分摊和赔偿是共同负责的侵权者相互追偿的主要方法。赔偿是一种规则，即强迫侵权者向已向原告支付

判决的另一方全额赔偿。通常，该规则适用于一方在合同中同意偿还另一方的情况。但是，赔偿也适用于其

他几种情况。例如，以替代责任为前提的被告可以向实际损害原告的“主动”侵权行为人寻求赔偿。此外，

侵权行为人对原告所犯的过错具有不同的“量”时，可以适用赔偿。(注意，对《侵权行为法第二次重述第

866B条》的评论允许过失行为人对故意、鲁莽、甚至严重过失行为人进行索赔)。最后，产品零售商或批发

商有时可以在产品责任诉讼中对制造商寻求赔偿。(若零售商的责任是基于复制制造商的警告标签，则允许零

售商向制造商寻求赔偿)。

2. As an "all or nothing " rule, indemnity is consistent with traditional tort principles such as

contributory negligence and joint and several liability. This is not true of contribution, which

envisions joint tortfeasors sharing responsibility for a plaintiff's harm. As recently as the 1970s, only

a handful of American jurisdictions permitted contribution absent legislative District of

Columbia, which still retains the rule of contributory negligence, was one of those jurisdictions, and

the Almadi decision from that jurisdiction reflects the contribution rule whereby jointly-liable

tortfeasors can seek "pro rata" contribution from one , however, a majority of states

enacted statutes that permit contribution on a comparative basis; such statutes are consistent with

states' adoption of comparative fault.

赔偿作为一种“全有或全无”的规则，符合共同过失、连带责任等传统侵权原则。在共同侵权行为中，

3

共同侵权人对原告的损害分担责任，这不是真正的分配。就在上世纪70年代，只有少数几个美国司法管辖

区在没有采取立法行动的情况下允许分担责任。至今仍保留共同过失规则的哥伦比亚特区是其中一个辖区，

而该辖区的Almadi裁决反映了分担规则，即共同负有责任的侵权者可以要求彼此“按比例”分担责任。然

而，今天，大多数州颁布了允许在比较基础上作出分摊的法规；这些法规与采取比较过失的州是一致的。

4