christian louboutin france hem jfnj rsae

to determine the person without civil capacity or with limited civil capacity of people identified common infringement standards must never civil capacity or with limited civil capacity of people determined to undertake an analysis of tort liability alone. liability, civil liability may be appropriate to reduce him. capacity of people of tort liability is vicarious liability, that is, no civil capacity, limiting the capacity for civil conduct without responsibility, and their guardians liable for replacement. 2, the guardian is the guardian responsible for the fault of the foundation, in order to distinguish with the no-fault liability. The behavior of people, because of limited capacity for civil conduct, can not or will not fully determine the consequences of the act, and therefore can not or can not determine whether states of subjective fault. No capacity for civil conduct, limiting the capacity for civil conduct is not the fault of the performance of tort liability in the absence of capacity for civil conduct, with limited civil capacity of human beings, but to show him the guardian, the guardian of subjective fault is no capacity for civil conduct, limited capacity for civil conduct the fault element of tort liability. 13, no capacity for civil conduct, limiting the capacity for civil conduct infringement is a special tort, fault identification rules to implement the presumption of fault. As long as the violations occur, the guardian has custody presumption of fault, they should bear tort liability. Guardian to prove their responsibility to make a guardianship may be appropriate to reduce his liability.


(c) the specific violations of common violations of
no capacity for civil conduct or limit the capacity for civil conduct violations are typical of specific violations. Above reasoning is no capacity for civil conduct or with limited civil capacity of the judicial application of human joint tort rules be extended to all of the specific violations of common violations? I believe that, due to the complexity of common violations, in real life will be ever-changing situation, the rules will be extended to all special tort of common violations will be very arbitrary. However, the rules for other specific violations of common tort cases are instructive, at least provides an analytical method. Which in practice, there have been similar cases. Such as: A, B and two were driving vehicles, two vehicle traffic accidents, resulting in the third person injured in the roadside. Based on Therefore, the case study A, two B's tort liability for third party,abercrombie france, without consideration of fault, no need to consider a common fault. According to Supreme People's Court on the third joint and several liability. This case has a special point, although the A, B and two of the third party tort liability do not need to consider the fault, but the A, B, or two of traffic accidents at fault. Therefore, in determining A, B shares within two joint tort liability should be considered when the two sides of the fault size. To further example, another case of fiction I: C and D of the feeding of a two dogs,christian louboutin france, one day, these two dogs while out of the common chase bite passers-E, E slipped and fell down in the escape serious injury. At this point, C, D of E harm no common intent or negligence, the fault is the fault of the management of dogs. C and D because of wrongdoing constitutes a direct combination of common violations, the E should be liable for compensation.



2, specific violations of the principle of fault liability is not attributable to the principle, but the principle of presumption of fault or no fault liability principle.

common tort is a separate tort violations corresponding to the type of complex tort. China's As the ever-changing social life and the complexity of common violations, to correctly apply the common law tort, the need to accurately understand and grasp the judicial application of common rules and tort rules. In this paper, the Supreme Court announced two joint tort cases for the study, in the judicial practice of the two judicial application of special rules.
in MA Xu case, we can not study without civil capacity Li Ying, Liang Gan fault. However, Li Ying Leung Kam discharge from the hand-held fireworks, the right eye injuries caused by MA Xu, Li Ying, Liang Gan's behavior closely, indivisible, constitute a whole act together to cause MA Xu damage. Li Ying, Liang Gan behavior causes the formation of damage is also an integral force. Li Ying, Liang Gan's behavior fully consistent with in accordance with Civil Code Article 130 shall bear joint and several liability,
common violations of the existing theory and judicial interpretation of the premise, as a common violations that occurred prior to the case for the study of common violations and the applicable rules of justice provides a wealth of material. In the present theoretical perspective, Xu Ma v. case at least the following questions: 1, no civil capacity or with limited civil capacity were common violations should be common intent, common negligence, tort which direct binding of a standard identified? 2, no civil capacity or limited capacity for civil conduct joint tort liability share how to determine the internal?
(a) no civil capacity or limited capacity for civil conduct joint infringement Standards
common violations of the common intent, common fault (or collectively referred to as a common fault) standards, using the fault of the general tort standard, which is a common fault for the tort victim's fault directly. In fact, only in the common fault, directly point to the same object,sac hermes birkin, be possible to constitute a common fault and the fault will act as a common link of human behavior as a whole, and together against the rights of victims. In the absence of civil capacity, limiting the capacity for civil conduct violations, the fault of the main body of guardians, guardians of the fault is no capacity for civil conduct, limiting the capacity for civil conduct of monitoring the fault, the fault point to the object is to be guardian. When there is no capacity for civil conduct, limiting the capacity for civil conduct joint infringement, the number of non-civil capacity, limiting the capacity for civil conduct are monitoring only the fault of the guardian, not directly, a common fault of the victim, it is difficult that the number of a guardian of the victim shared a common intent or negligence. Therefore, no capacity for civil conduct identified, limiting the capacity for civil conduct joint tort of intentional standard is neither common, nor is it a common fault.

2003 年 Supreme Court issued a acts directly with. The judicial interpretation of common tort is a summary of theoretical research, and uniform practice of judicial practice, to avoid the law due to inadequate judicial practices identified common violations leading to confusion.
joint and several liability in tort to determine common, you need to co-actors in the internal determine their respective share of responsibility. In the absence of capacity for civil conduct or with limited civil capacity of people of common violations, we need to determine responsibility, that share the responsibility of the guardian. For common types of fault within the responsibility of the share of common violations identified, is based on the co-perpetrator degree of subjective fault and behavioral reasons for the results of the damage force, these two factors and determined that the respective responsibilities of each share of common perpetrators. 1 for no civil capacity or with limited civil capacity of the common infringement, contributory infringement of its type is common behavior with direct infringement, does not consider common violations identified the perpetrator's fault directly, but could not score a guardian District fault monitoring role of the size of the damage results, therefore, can only be based on the results of their behavior because of damage to the internal force to determine the share of burden-sharing. Responsibility can not be determined size of the share should be presumed to bear equal responsibility for a number of guardians.


special tort is based on the parties with their own behavior, objects, events or other special reasons to cause damage, according to civil law or civil liability provisions of the particular special law shall bear civil liability . A special tort is special, mainly in the following two prominent characteristics: 1, special tort liability is vicarious liability, that is responsible for the actions of others under the control or possession of lead objects liable to cause damage. 2
further analysis, we find no capacity for civil conduct, limiting the capacity for civil conduct violations in the guardian's fault-based liability and general tort significant difference between fault-based: the guardian of the fault point to the object is no civil capacity, limiting the capacity for civil conduct, by no capacity for civil conduct, limiting the ability of people to pass to the civil tort victims, guardians of victims of violations not directly against the intentional or negligent, no capacity for civil conduct, limiting the civil ability is not the fault of the people themselves have the list visit; general tort of infringement of the fault point to object to the victim, the performance of the tortfeasor's breach of duty of care to the victims, for intentional or negligent.
(b) no civil capacity or limited capacity for civil conduct joint tort liability to determine the internal share
Two common violations of justice to apply special rules


Author: Chen United States Source: Published 05 -07-11 view: times [Abstract] In this paper, published in Official Gazette of the two Supreme Court cases for the study of common violations, no civil capacity of the person or restrict civil capacity of people and a separate tort of contributory infringement into the common violations of these two special types of common violations of applicable rules of justice. Proposed no civil capacity or with limited civil capacity of people with a common type of direct infringement is a common behavioral violations should cause only the common responsibility to determine the size of the force's internal share; separate tort of conversion to common tort cases of joint infringement , should be determined according to different stages of joint and several liability of the scope of infringement; and issues related to the extended discussion.

according to analysis of the case: Xu Ma v. Li Ying, Liang Gan tort damages disputes ( Supreme Court Case Gazette, 1996 No. 1). Summary of facts: The defendant Ying (9 years) fireworks in residential downstairs, defendant Liang Gan (13 years) came to help. Hand-held fireworks by the defendant, the defendant Ying Leung Kam discharge, fire warning MA Xu leave immediately after, but Xu Ma did not immediately leave, but the side head to watch, fireworks spray hit the MA Xu right eye. Identified, Xu Ma's right eye was seriously injured. Thus the plaintiff's legal representative horse deep, Kang Sujie to the court for damages. Referee thrust: the defendant Ying Leung Kam handheld fireworks discharge by the defendant, the right eye injuries caused by Xu Ma, Civil Code provisions, Li Ying, Liang Gan infringement shall bear civil liability for bodily harm. Two co-defendants are tort, shall be jointly and severally liable. As the two defendants is no capacity for civil conduct or with limited civil capacity, his legal representative should be borne by civil liability. Because the plaintiff even after being warned to watch, which itself is at fault, its legal representative to bear part of civil liability.






court and applicable law: According to Article 98 Civil Code, Article 119, Article 12, Article 130, Article 131, the provisions of Article 133, the court of first instance compensation for two co-defendants 23,217 yuan, the rest of the loss borne by the plaintiff's legal representative. The legal representatives of the two defendants jointly and severally liable for the debt. Li Ying the defendant refused to accept the appeal, court of second instance Court of First Instance found that the facts are clear, correctly applies the law, but the sight of one eye compensation costs are too high, then read: Li Ying the defendant's legal representative damages 10,600 yuan, Liang Gan statutory agents damages 8068 yuan, and the remaining loss from the plaintiff's guardian themselves. Between the defendants jointly and severally liable.
[Keywords] contributory infringement of Justice to apply special rules
actors in their own behavior due to the fault to cause damage, civil law applicable to the general duty provisions,christian louboutin pas cher, known as the general tort behavior. General tort of modern civil law, the implementation of the principle of fault liability and responsibility for their own principles. 2

First, no civil capacity or with limited civil capacity of the common infringement


In summary, no civil capacity or limited capacity for civil conduct the type of joint infringement can only act directly with the type of common violations, intentional or not is a common type of contributory negligence common violations.
More articles related to topics：


dmb-t in the mountainous region covered by the application of radio

Electric bicycle - technical market trends

wto agreement on China's judicial review system requirements