causation in fact 中文意思是什麼
causation in fact
解釋
事實因果關系-
The author argues that two step shouid be taken to judge the causation properly. the first step is to anaiyze whether causation in fact is decided according to the but for ruie ; the second step to anaiyze whether causation in iaw is decided according the foreseeabiiity ruie. from those steps the causation can be decided and the scope of the carrier ' s iiability is fixed
本文針對審判中判斷因果關系的方法和標準不統一的問題，提出應當明晰化實踐中採用的因果關系認定方法，認定因果關系時應當分兩個層次進行，首先是根據要不則無規則判斷事實上的因果關系是否成立，其次是根據合理預見規則判斷法律上的因果關系是否成立，最後根據因果關系得出承運人的賠償范圍。 -
The theory of indispensable condition can be the basis for the establishment of the causality in terms of causation in fact. meanwhile, the correspondence of causal relationship theory can be regarded as a principle for determining the causality both in terms of the scope of liability and the causation in law
為完善我國現代法治制度，我們應借鑒國外「二分法」理論，以「必要條件說」確立責任成立的因果關系或事實上的因果關系，以相當因果關系說等確立責任范圍的因果關系或法律上的因果關系。 -
Namely, the scholars in continental law system countries hold the two levels of causality : that is, causality at the level of establishment of tort liability and the level of scope of tort liability. regarding the liabilities determine, determine at the tow levels is adopted as well. because of the unique jury system, the liabilities determine in the anglo - american law system countries consists of two, namely, the determine of causality in terms of causation in fact and that of causation in iaw the dichotomy of causality in the law of tort not only specifies the tort liability but also limits the scope of the liability
因果關系是侵權行為責任成立的必備要件，國外因果關系理論的「二分法」 ，即大陸法系國家學者將因果關系分為責任成立上的因果關系和責任范圍上的因果關系兩個層次結構，在責任認定上也採用了責任成立的因果關系的認定和責任范圍的因果關系的認定；英美法系根據其特有的陪審員制度，在因果關系的認定上分事實上因果關系的認定和法律上因果關系的認定。 -
Finally, fix the fact error limit, think that such ought to consist of three kinds of forms : target error, strike error and the causation error. be living on this base, get off a definition to the fact error, namely, fact error in the criminal law is that action man is living to implement in the process willfully committed a crime, constitute to committing a crime that the fact that does not need the statue rating happens correctly not understanding in the important document, the criminal fact that the criminal fact that action man who arouses anticipates against practice happens not unanimously
最後，確定了事實認識錯誤的范圍，認為其應包括三種類型：對象錯誤、打擊錯誤和因果關系錯誤。在此基礎上，給事實認識錯誤下了一個定義，即刑法中的事實認識錯誤是指行為人在實施故意犯罪過程中，對犯罪構成要件中不需要法律評價的事實發生不正確認識，引起的行為人預想的犯罪事實與實際發生的犯罪事實之間的不一致。第三部分:事實認識錯誤的處理原則。 -
However, according to the bifurcated approach to problems of causation, the scope of damages that defined by the " cause in fact " is provided with the probability of enlargement infinitely and uncertainty, so it is necessary to restrict the scope of damages by some legal means within the meaning of techniques of law. meantime, it is unfair that the risk of transaction is only undertaked by the defaulting party, so it is necessary to make use of some legal means to delimit the reasonable damages for the defaulting party
首先，筆者提出：根據全部賠償原則，違約方應賠償因其違約行為給合同債權人造成的所有損害，而借用國外學者關于因果關系二分法的觀點，該「事實上的因果關系」所劃定的損害賠償范圍具有無限擴大的可能性和不確定性，因此從法技術講，就有必須要利用一些法律手段對該賠償范圍予以限界；同時，交易活動本身固有的風險單由合同違約方承擔也是不公平的，因此也有必要利用一些法律手段為違約方劃定一個合理的賠償責任范圍。 -
First of all, to the mainland law is fastened that the criminal law a learned man handles the unpack criticizing that fact error some kinds of doctrines have been carried on the profile to that section, to think in the handle identical constitutes in the fact error inner place the important document, legally to accord with the teachings to accord with teachings more rightful than concrete ; be living to handle in the fact error that the difference constitutes between the important document, legally accord with the teachings to accord with teachings more advisable than abstracting. afterwards, doctrine over the combination, elaborate the target error separately. strike error and the causation error handle
首先，該部分對大陸法系刑法學者處理事實認識錯誤的幾種學說進行了簡要的評析，認為在處理同一構成要件內的事實認識錯誤上，法定符合說比具體符合說更為合理;在處理不同構成要件間的事實認識錯誤上，法定符合說比抽象符合說更為可取。然後，結合以上學說，分別闡述了對象錯誤、打擊錯誤和因果關系錯誤的處理原則，並著重翻退了我國刑法學界爭議較大的同一構成要件內的打擊錯誤的處理原則，主張在發生同一構成要件內的打擊錯誤的情況下，行為人應對實際發生的侵害結果承擔故意既遂的罪責。 -
If the risk of the medical behavior is allowable, even it is a fact that partly leads to the result, we think it is considerable and not the cause in criminal law. only when the risk of the patient is increased, the criminal causation may exist between the illegal behavior and the result
因果關系的認定是本罪的重點和難點，我們認為，在允許的危險限度內的醫療行為，即使存在它與危害結果之間事實上的原因關系，但因是具有社會相當性的行為，而不被認為是刑法上的原因。
分享友人