法律专业侵权行为中英文对照外文翻译文献

美国侵权法（中英文）Restatement of the Law，Third，Torts by The American Law Institute美国法学会《侵权法第三次重述》Part One: Intoduction of Torts 侵权法概述Part Two： Apportionment of Liability（Rule Sections）第一部分：责任分担Part Three: Products Liability 产品责任Part One: Intoduction of Torts 侵权法概述在美国，侵权法主要属于各州的法律范畴，而且主要由判例法组成。

侵权行为可分为故意侵权行为（intentional tort)、过失侵权行为（negligence or negligent tort)和严格责任侵权行为 (strict liability tort). 对侵权行为的一般救济方法是对侵权行为所造成的损害予以一定的金钱补偿，在涉及交通事故等领域的侵权赔偿已广范采用了保险赔偿的方式。

Part One: Introduction 基本概念1. The law of tort is still the source of most civil suits in the United States, with damage claims for automobile accidents taking first place. Many circumstances contribute to this: (a) the plaintiff in an American civil suit is ordinarily entitled to try his claim before a jury which will often--and understandably--rely more on human than on legal considerations, for instance when a child has been injured in an automobile accident or through a defective product of a large enterprise;(b) Compensation and damages include not only the actual loss but also the intangible damage. A plaintiff can therefore often play on the human reaction of the jury: for instance, what is appropriate compensation for a permanent disability such as the loss of a limb? (c) American law permits the participation of the attorney in the plaintiff’s recovery (contingent fee) which not uncommonly amounts to 25 to 33 percent of the verdict. As a result of all of these factors, a tort action may be a lengthy proceeding, result in large expenses, for instance through honoraria for experts (which may deter the "small "plaintiff from suing at all), and may end in the award of a very large verdict. It is no linger uncommon that a jury will aware a verdict in excess of ＄100,000. These conditions have been the touchstone for several reform endeavors which will be discussed inmore detail below.在美国，侵权行为法产生的诉讼仍是大多民事诉讼案件的主要来源，其中基于交通事故产生的损害赔偿案件居于首位。

★以下是⽆忧考英⽂写作翻译频道为⼤家整理的《法律英语-侵权》，供⼤家参考。

更多内容请看本站频道。

1.In tort law the duty is imposed by the law.在侵权法中，责任是由法律规定的。

2.Some jurisdictions have established this tort to provide a remedy for malicious deeds.有些司法管辖区规定了此种侵权⾏为，⽬的是对恶意⾏为受害⼈提供救济。

3.Such tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable.此种侵权⾏为为要承担共同和连带责任。

4.The law of tort provides rules of conduct that regulate how members fo society interact and remedies if the rules are breached and damage is suffered.侵权⾏为法提供⾏为规则，规范社会成员的相互交往，以及在该规则被违反和损害发⽣是，如何进⾏救济。

5.The law of tort aims to compensate those who have suffered as a result of a tort.侵权⾏为法的⽬的在于补偿被侵害⼈。

6.Tort law is a branch of civil law that is connected with civil wrongs, but not contract actions.侵权法属于民法的⼀部分，其与民事过错相关，与合同⾏为⽆关。

7.Tort liability for negligence presupposes causality between the negligent act and the injury to person or property.过失侵权责任以过失⾏为与对⼈⾝或财产的侵权之间的因果关系为前提。

毕业设计（论文）外文文献翻译文献、资料中文题目：强奸罪文献、资料英文题目：文献、资料来源：文献、资料发表（出版）日期：院（部）：专业：法学专业班级：姓名：学号：指导教师：翻译日期： 2017.02.14毕业设计（论文）题目：论强奸罪的犯罪对象专业（方向）：法学专业外文出处：CRIMINAL LAW NEWS.ISSUE 52 FEBRUARY2013.ISSN 1758-843X.外文资料翻译译文强奸罪1.普通法系中的强奸“强奸”一词的字典定义包括对一个人或社区的任何严重破坏性侵犯。

在英国和美国共同法律，“强奸”在传统上描述了一个强迫女人与他性交的男人。

直到第二十世纪后期，通过对他的妻子的丈夫强迫性行为不被认为是强奸，因为一个女人（为了某些目的）不被视为一个独立的法人有权拒绝。

在某些情况下，一个女人被认为是在一个终身性的关系中预先给予了含蓄的知情同意。

然而，在大多数西方国家，现代刑法已经立法禁止这种例外，现在包括婚内强奸和性暴力的阴道性交以外的行为，如强迫性行为，这是在传统上禁止鸡奸法，在他们的定义中的“强奸”。

因此，“强奸”这个术语有时被认为是“加载”，许多司法管辖区承认，在它的替代，更广泛的类别的性侵犯或性暴力。

在某些司法管辖区，侵犯已被构造为包括在没有得到许可的情况下，将身体分泌物弄在其他人身上。

在某些司法管辖区，这被认为是自动加重的殴击罪（Zarrokh，2007）。

2.暴力强奸罪当暴力行为超出了强奸的本身就成为攻击的一部分，包括身体暴力或威胁的伤害，死亡威胁或威胁对家庭成员，该罪行被称为暴力强奸。

暴力强奸的罪行可能由陌生人或者甚至是受害者认识的人犯下，研究表明，这种类型的强奸是最常见的报道(Bachman and Saltzman, 1995)。

3.美国的强奸强奸的法律定义在州与州之间是不同的，但是尽管如此，强奸通常被定义为强迫或者非自愿的性交。

强奸可以通过恐吓、伤害的威胁和/或实际的暴力来完成。

European Group on Tort Law European Group on Tort Law Principles of European Tort Law欧洲侵法基本原权权TITLE I. Basic Norm 第一篇．基本概念Chapter 1. Basic Norm 第一章．基本概念Art. 1:101. Basic norm 第一条：101．基本概念(1) A person to whom damage to another is legall y attributed is liable to compensate that damage.(1) 任何在法律上对第三方造成损害的行为人应承担赔偿责任．(2) Damage may be attributed in particular to theperson(2) 损害赔偿应尤其由下列各方承担：a) whose conduct constituting fault has caused it;ora) 其行为构成过错并造成损失的一方；或b) whose abnormally dangerous activity has caused it; orb) 从事异常危险的活动且造成损失的一方；或c) whose auxiliary has caused it within the scopeof his functions.c) 其附属机构在其职责范围内造成损失的一方。

TITLE II. General Conditions of Liability 第二篇．责任原则Chapter 2. Damage 第二章．损害Art. 2:101. Recoverable damage 第二条：101．可受偿损失Damage requires material or immaterial harm to a legally protected interest. 该损失必须对合法保护的利益造成物质上或非物质上的损害。

侵权责任法Tort Liability Law第一章一般规定General Provisions第一条为保护民事主体的合法权益，明确侵权责任，预防并制裁侵权行为，促进社会和谐稳定，制定本法。

In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects, clarify the tort lability, prevent and punishtortious conduct, and promote the social harmony and stability, this Law is formulated.第二条侵害民事权益，应当依照本法承担侵权责任。

本法所称民事权益，包括生命权、健康权、姓名权、名誉权、荣誉权、肖像权、隐私权、婚姻自主权、监护权、所有权、用益物权、担保物权、著作权、专利权、商标专用权、发现权、股权、继承权等人身、财产权益。

Those who infringe upon civil rights and interests shall be subject to the tort liability according to this Law.“Civil rights and interests” in this Law include the right to life, right to health, right to name, right to reputation, right to honor, right to portrait, right of privacy, marital autonomy, guardianship, ownership, usufruct, security interest, copyright, patent right, exclusive right to use a trademark, right to discover, equities, right of succession, and other personal and property rights and interests.第三条被侵权人有权请求侵权人承担侵权责任。

美国侵权法(中英文)Restatement of the Law , Third , Torts by The American Law Institute美国法学会《侵权法第三次重述》Part One: In toduction of Torts 侵权法概述Part Two : Apportionment of Liability ( Rule Sections )第一部分：责任分担Part Three: Products Liability 产品责任Part One: In toduction of Torts 侵权法概述在美国，侵权法主要属于各州的法律范畴，而且主要由判例法组成。

侵权行为可分为故意侵权行为(intentional tort) 、过失侵权行为(negligenee or negligent tort) 和严格责任侵权行为(strict liability tort). 对侵权行为的一般救济方法是对侵权行为所造成的损害予以一定的金钱补偿，在涉及交通事故等领域的侵权赔偿已广范采用了保险赔偿的方式。

Part One: In troductio n 基本概念1. The law of tort is still the source of most civil suits in the Un ited States,with damageclaims for automobile accidents taking first place. Manycircumstances con tribute to this: (a) the plai ntiff in an America n civil suit is ordin arilyentitled to try his claim before a jury which will often--and understandably--rely more on huma n tha n on legal con siderati ons, for in sta nee whe n a child has bee n injured in an automobile accide nt or through a defective product of a largeen terprise; (b) Compe nsati on and damages in clude not only the actual loss but also the intangible damage. A plaintiff can therefore often play on the humanreactionof the jury: for instanee, what is appropriate compensation for a permanent disability such as the loss of a limb? (c) American law permits the participation of the attor ney in the pla in tiff ' s recovery (con ti ngent fee) which not un com monly amounts to 25 to 33 perce nt of the verdict. As a result of all of these factors, a tort actio n m ay be a len gthy proceedi ng, result in large expe nses, for in sta nee through hono raria for experts (which may deter the "small "plai ntiff from suing at all), and may end in the award of a very large verdict. It is no lin ger un com mon that a jury will aware a verdict in excess of $ 100,000. These con diti ons have bee n the touchst one for several reform en deavors which will be discussed in more detail below.在美国，侵权行为法产生的诉讼仍是大多民事诉讼案件的主要来源，其中基于交通事故产生的损害赔偿案件居于首位。

附件一：英文文献INTRODUCTIONOffences of strict liability are those crimes which do not require mens rea with regard to at least one or more elements of the actus reus. The defendant need not have intended or known about that circumstance or consequence. Liability is said to be strict with regard to that element. For a good example see:R v Prince[1875]：The defendant ran off with an under-age girl. He was charged with an offence of taking a girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her parents contrary to s55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The defendant knew that the girl was in the custody her father but he believed on reasonable grounds that the girl was aged 18. It was held that knowledge that the girl was under the age of 16 was not required in order to establish the offence. It was sufficient to show that the defendant intended to take the girl out of the possession of her father.It is only in extreme and rare cases where no mens rea is required for liability, thereby making the particular offence "absolute".GENERAL PRINCIPLESThe vast majority of strict liability crimes are statutory offences. However, statutes do not state explicitly that a particular offence is one of strict liability. Where a statute uses terms such as "knowingly" or "recklessly" then the offence being created is one that requires mens rea. Alternatively, it may make it clear that an offence of strict liability is being created. In many cases it will be a matter for the courts to interpret the statute and decide whether mens rea is required or not. What factors are taken into account by the courts when assessing whether or not an offence falls into the category of strict liability offences?THE MODERN CRITERIAIn Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong [1984], the Privy Council considered the scope and role of strict liability offences in the modern criminal law and their effect upon the "presumption of mens rea". Lord Scarman laid down the criteria upon which a court should decide whether or not it is appropriate to impose strict liability: "In their Lordships' opinion, the law … may be stated in the following propositions … : (1) there is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence; (2) the presumption is particularly strong where the offence is "truly criminal" in character; (3) the presumption applies to statutory offences, and can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statute; (4) the only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern, and public safety is such an issue; (5) even where a statute is concerned with such an issue, the presumption of mens rea stands unless it can be shown that the creation of strict liability will be effective to promote the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act."(1) PRESUMPTION OF MENS REACourts usually begin with the presumption in favor of mens rea, seeing the well-known statement by Wright J in Sherras v De Rutzen：There is a presumption that mens rea, or evil intention, or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be considered(2) GRAVITY OF PUNISHMENTAs a general rule, the more serious the criminal offence created by statute, the less likely the courts is to view it as an offence of strict liability. See:Sweet v Parsley [1970]：The defendant was a landlady of a house let to tenants. She retained one room in the house for herself and visited occasionally to collect the rent and letters. While she was absent the police searched the house and found cannabis. The defendant was convicted under s5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, of "being concerned in the management of premises used for the smoking of cannabis". She appealed alleging that she had no knowledge of the circumstances and indeed could not expect reasonably to have had such knowledge.The House of Lords,quashing her conviction, held that it had to be proved that the defendant had intended the house to be used for drug-taking, since the statute in question created a serious, or "truly criminal" offence, conviction for which would have grave consequences for the defendant. Lord Reid stated that "a stigma still attaches to any person convicted of a truly criminal offence, and the more serious or more disgraceful the offence the greater the stigma". And equally important, "the press in this country are vigilant to expose injustice, and every manifestly unjust conviction made known to the public tends to injure the body politic [people of a nation] by undermining public confidence in the justice of the law and of its administration."Lord Reid went on to point out that in any event it was impractical to impose absolute liability for an offence of this nature, as those who were responsible for letting properties could not possibly be expected to know everything that their tenants were doing.(3) WORDING OF THE STATUTEIn determining whether the presumption in favor of mens rea is to be displaced, the courts are required to have reference to the whole statute in which the offence appears. See:Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) ：The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person, contrary to s13 of the Licensing Act 1872. On appeal, the defendant contended that he had been unaware of the customer's drunkenness and thus should be acquitted. The Divisional Court interpreted s13 as creating an offence of strict liability since it was itself silent as to mens rea, whereas other offences under the same Act expressly required proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant. It was held that it was not necessary to consider whether the defendant knew, or had means of knowing, or could with ordinary care have detected that the person served was drunk. If he served a drink to a person who was in fact drunk, he was guilty. Stephen J stated: Here, as I have already pointed out, the object of this part of the Act is to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquor to drunken persons, and it is perfectly natural to carry that out by throwing on the publican the responsibility of determining whether the person supplied comes within that category.(4) ISSUES OF SOCIAL CONCERNSee :R v Blake (1996) :Investigation officers heard an unlicensed radio station broadcast and traced it to a flat where the defendant was discovered alone standing in front of the record decks, still playing music and wearing a set of headphones. Though the defendant admitted that he knewhe was using the equipment, he claimed that he believed he was making demonstration tapes and did not know he was transmitting. The defendant was convicted of using wireless telegraphy equipment without a license, contrary to s1 (1) Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and appealed on the basis that the offence required mens rea.The Court of Appeal held that the offence was an absolute (actually a strict) liability offence. The Court applied Lord Scarman's principles in Gammon and found that, though the presumption in favor of mens rea was strong because the offence carried a sentence of imprisonment and was, therefore, "truly criminal", yet the offence dealt with issues of serious social concern in the interests of public safety (namely, frequent unlicensed broadcasts on frequencies used by emergency services) and the imposition of strict liability encouraged greater vigilance in setting up careful checks to avoid committing the offence.(5) IS THERE ANY PURPOSE IN IMPOSING STRICT LIABILITY?The courts will be reluctant to construe a statute as imposing strict liability upon a defendant, where there is evidence to suggest that despite his having taken all reasonable steps, he cannot avoid the commission of an offence. See:Sherras v De Rutzen [1895]: The defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty, contrary to s16(2) of the Licensing Act 1872. He had reasonably believed the constable to be off duty as he had removed his arm-band, which was the acknowledged method of signifying off duty. The Divisional Court held that the conviction should be quashed, despite the absence from s16 (2) of any words requiring proof of mens rea as an element of the offence. Wright J expressed the view that the presumption in favor of mens rea would only be displaced by the wording of the statute itself, or its subject matter. In this case the latter factor was significant, in that no amount of reasonable care by the defendant would have prevented the offence from being committed. Wright J stated: "It is plain that if guilty knowledge is not necessary, no care on the part of the publican could save him from a conviction under section 16, subsection (2), since it would be as easy for the constable to deny that he was on duty when asked, or to produce a forged permission from his superior officer, as to remove his armlet before entering the public house. I am, therefore, of opinion that this conviction ought to be quashed."MODERN EXAMPLESThe following case is a modern example of the imposition of strict liability: Alphacell v Woodward [1972] The defendants were charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river contrary to s2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. The river had in fact been polluted because a pipe connected to the defendant's factory had been blocked, and the defendants had not been negligent. The House of Lords nevertheless held that the defendants were liable. Lord Salmon stated: If this appeal succeeded and it were held to be the law that no conviction be obtained under the 1951 Act unless the prosecution could discharge the often impossible onus of proving that the pollution was caused intentionally or negligently, a great deal of pollution would go unpunished and undeterred to the relief of many riparian factory owners. As a result, many rivers which are now filthy would become filthier still and many rivers which are now clean would lose their cleanliness. The legislature no doubt recognized that as a matter of public policy this would be most unfortunate. Hence s2(1)(a) which encourages riparian factory owners not only to take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but to do everything possible to ensure that they do not cause it.ARGUMENTS FOR STRICT LIABILITY1. The primary function of the courts is the prevention of forbidden acts. What acts should be regarded as forbidden? Surely only such acts as we can assert ought not to have been done. Some of the judges who upheld the conviction of Prince did so on the ground that men should be deterred from taking girls out of the possession of their parents, whatever the girl's age. This reasoning can hardly be applied to many modern offences of strict liability. We do not wish to deter people from driving cars, being concerned in the management of premises, financing hire purchase transactions or canning peas. These acts, if done with all proper care, are not such acts as the law should seek to prevent.2. Another argument that is frequently advanced in favor of strict liability is that, without it, many guilty people would escape - that there is neither time nor personnel available to litigate the culpability of each particular infraction. T his argument assumes that it is possible to deal with these cases without deciding whether D had mens rea or not, whether he was negligent or not. Certainly D may be convicted without deciding these questions, but how can he be sentenced? Suppose that a butcher sells some meat which is unfit for human consumption. Clearly the court will deal differently with (i) the butcher who knew that the meat was tainted; (ii) the butcher who did not know, but ought to have known; and (iii) the butcher who did not know and had no means of finding out. Sentence can hardly be imposed without deciding into which category the convicted person falls.3. The argument which is probably most frequently advanced by the courts for imposing strict liability is that it is necessary to do so in the interests of the public. Now it may be conceded that in many of the instances where strict liability has been imposed, the public does need protection against negligence and, assuming that the threat of punishment can make the potential harm doer more careful, there may be a valid ground for imposing liability for negligence as well as where there is mens rea. This is a plausible argument in favor of strict liability if there were no middle way between mens rea and strict liability - that is liability for negligence - and the judges have generally proceeded on the basis that there is no such middle way. Liability for negligence has rarely been spelled out of a statute except where, as in driving without due care, it is explicitly required. Lord Devlin has said: "It is not easy to find a way of construing a statute apparently expressed in terms of absolute liability so as to produce the requirement of negligence."ARGUMENTS AGAINST STRICT LIABILITY1. The case against strict liability, then, is, first, that it is unnecessary. It results in the conviction of persons who have behaved impeccably and who should not be required to alter their conduct in any way.2. Secondly, that it is unjust. Even if an absolute discharge can be given D may feel rightly aggrieved at having been formally convicted of an offence for which he bore no responsibility. Moreover, a conviction may have far-reaching consequences outside the courts, so that it is no answer to say that only a nominal penalty is imposed.3. The imposition of liability for negligence would in fact meet the arguments of most of those who favor strict liability. Such statutes are not meant to punish the vicious will but to put pressure upon the thoughtless and inefficient to do their whole duty in the interest of public health or safety or morals." The "thoughtless and inefficient" are, of course, the negligent. The objection tooffences of strict liability is not that these persons are penalized, but that others who are completely innocent are also liable to conviction. Though Lord Devlin was skeptical about the possibility of introducing the criterion of negligence (above), in Reynolds v Austin (1951) he stated that strict liability should only apply when there is something that the defendant can do to promote the observance of the law - which comes close to requiring negligence. If there were something which D could do to prevent the commission of the crime and which he failed to do, he might generally be said to have failed to comply with a duty - perhaps a high duty - of care; and so have been negligent.4. In Alphacell v Woodward (1972) Lord Salmon thought the relevant statutory section, "encourages riparian factory owners not only to take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but to do everything possible to ensure that they do not cause it." This suggests that, however vast the expenditure involved, and however unreasonable it may be in relation to the risk, D is under a duty to take all possible steps. Yet it may be doubted whether factory owners will in fact do more than is reasonable; and it is questionable whether they ought to be required to do so, at the risk - even though it be unlikely - of imprisonment. The contrary argument is that the existence of strict liability does induce organizations to aim at higher and higher standards.POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTSThere are several possible compromises between mens rea and strict liability in regulatory offences. A "halfway house" has developed in Australia. The effect of Australian cases is: D might be convicted without proof of any mens rea by the Crown; but acquitted if he proved on a balance of probabilities that he lacked mens rea and was not negligent; ie, that he had an honest and reasonable belief in a state of facts which, would have made his act innocent. The onus of proving reasonable mistake is on D.STATUTORY DEFENCESIt is common for the drastic effect of a statute imposing strict liability to be mitigated by the provision of a statutory defense. It is instructive to consider one example. Various offences relating to the treatment and sale of food are enacted by the first twenty sections of the Food Safety Act 1990. Many, if not all, of these are strict liability offences. Section 21(1), however, provides that it shall be a defense for the person charged with any of the offences to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence by himself or by a person under his control. Statutory defenses usually impose on the defendant a burden of proving that he had no mens rea and that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence. The effect of such provisions is that the prosecution need do no more than prove that the accused did the prohibited act and it is then for him to establish, if he can, that he did it innocently. Such provisions are a distinct advance on unmitigated strict liability.附件二：英文文献翻译介绍严格责任犯罪是关于客观方面的一个或多个因素不要求犯罪意图的那些犯罪。

中华人民共和国侵权责任法Tort Law of the People’s Republic of China English version中文版发文日期：2009年12月26日有效范围：全国发文机关:全国人民代表大会常务委员会文号:中华人民共和国主席令第21号时效性：现行有效生效日期：2010年07月01日所属分类：侵权( 民法—>侵权）Promulgation date： 12-26—2009Effective region: NATIONALPromulgator: Standing Committee of the National People’s CongressDocument no: Order of the President of the People’s Republic of China No. 21Effectiveness： EffectiveEffective date： 07—01-2010Category： Tort （Civil Law—〉Tort ）全文：Full text:中华人民共和国侵权责任法Tort Law of the People's Republic of China中华人民共和国主席令第21号Order of the President of the People's Republic of China No。

212009年12月26日December 26，2009《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》已由中华人民共和国第十一届全国人The Tort Law of the People's Republic of China, adopted at the 12th session of the Standing Committee of the 11th National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of民代表大会常务委员会第十二次会议于2009年12月26日通过，现予公布，自2010年7月1日起施行. China on December 26，2009，is hereby promulgated and shall come into effect on July 1, 2010.中华人民共和国主席胡锦涛President of the People's Republic of China Hu Jintao中华人民共和国侵权责任法Tort Law of the People's Republic of China(2009年12月26日第十一届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第十二次会议通过）Adopted at the 12th session of the Standing Committee of the 11th National People's Congress of the People’s Republic of China on December 26，2009目录第一章一般规定第二章责任构成和责任方式第三章不承担责任和减轻责任的情形第四章关于责任主体的特殊规定第五章产品责任第六章机动车交通事故责任第七章医疗损害责任第八章环境污染责任ContentsChapter I General ProvisionsChapter II Constitutive Requirements of Liability and Methods for Assuming LiabilityChapter III Circumstances under which Liability Is Waived or MitigatedChapter IV Special Provisions on Liable PartiesChapter V Product LiabilityChapter VI Automobile Traffic Accident LiabilityChapter VII Medical Malpractice LiabilityChapter VIII Environmental Pollution LiabilityChapter IX High—Risk Operation LiabilityChapter X Liability for Damage Caused by Domesticated AnimalsChapter XI Liability for Damage Caused by Objects Chapter XII Supplementary Provisions第九章高度危险责任第十章饲养动物损害责任第十一章物件损害责任第十二章附则第一章一般规定Chapter I General Provisions第一条为保护民事主体的合法权益，明确侵权责任，预防并制裁侵权行为,促进社会和谐稳定,制定本法。

美国侵权法（中英文）Restatement of the Law，Third，Torts by The American Law Institute美国法学会《侵权法第三次重述》Part One: Intoduction of Torts 侵权法概述Part Two：Apportionment of Liability（Rule Sections）第一部分：责任分担Part Three: Products Liability 产品责任Part One: Intoduction of Torts 侵权法概述在美国，侵权法主要属于各州的法律范畴，而且主要由判例法组成。

侵权行为可分为故意侵权行为（intentional tort)、过失侵权行为（negligence or negligent tort)和严格责任侵权行为(strict liability tort). 对侵权行为的一般救济方法是对侵权行为所造成的损害予以一定的金钱补偿，在涉及交通事故等领域的侵权赔偿已广范采用了保险赔偿的方式。

Part One: Introduction 基本概念1. The law of tort is still the source of most civil suits in the United States,with damage claims for automobile accidents taking first place. Many circumstances contribute to this: (a) the plaintiff in an American civil suit is ordinarily entitled to try his claim before a jury which will often--and understandably--rely more on human than on legal considerations, for instance when a child has been injured in an automobile accident or through a defective product of a large enterprise; (b) Compensation and damages include not only the actual loss but also the intangible damage.A plaintiff can therefore often play on the human reaction of the jury: for instance, what is appropriate compensation for a permanent disability such as the loss of a limb? (c) American law permits the participation of the attorney in the plaintiff’s recovery (contingent fee) which not uncommonly amounts to 25 to 33 percent of the verdict. As a result of all of these factors, a tort action may be a lengthy proceeding, result in large expenses, for instance through honoraria for experts (which may deter the "small "plaintiff from suing at all), and may end in the award of a very large verdict. It is no linger uncommon that a jury will aware a verdict in excess of ＄100,000. These conditions have been the touchstone for several reform endeavors which will be discussed in more detail below. 在美国，侵权行为法产生的诉讼仍是大多民事诉讼案件的主要来源，其中基于交通事故产生的损害赔偿案件居于首位。

Numerous writers have proposed modifying traditional tort rules [FN1] to permit plaintiffs to recover from a defendant who contributed to the risk of causing the plaintiff's harm without proving that the defendant actually caused the harm. [FN2] These proposals would determine recovery *1202 by multiplying the plaintiff's total damages by the percentage chance that the defendant caused the damages, thereby giving her a portion of her damages.许多学者建议改变传统的侵权规则，以使在被告引起了原告的损害的危险而原告不能证明被告确实引起了损害的情况下，原告能够获得赔偿。

[fN2]这些建议通过增加被告可能造成的损失占原告总损失的百分比乘，从而决定赔偿的范围，以赔偿受害者部分损失。

Although these proposals for proportional liability take many forms, they may be divided into three major categories. The "proportional damage recovery" category would permit a plaintiff to recover a portion of her damages only after she has suffered the injury or acquired the disease. [FN3] Thus, if a defendant created a twenty percent probability of having caused the harm, an injured plaintiff would recover twenty percent of her damages. If a defendant created a sixty percent probability of having caused the harm, the plaintiff would recover sixty percent of her damages. By contrast, the "proportional risk recovery" category would permit a plaintiff to recover a portion of her prospective damages before she has been injured or made ill. Thus, if a defendant exposed ten persons to a toxin that created a ten percent risk of causing a certain disease in the future, each exposed person would recover ten percent of her prospective damages in advance.[FN4]虽然这些比例责任的建议采取许多形式，它们仍可以被分为三种主要的类型。