Re: Ronald Dworkin 的詭辯 - 法學

※ 引述《istj (Kat's BF)》之銘言：
: 您是在講 torts 的 joint and several liability 嗎?
: 如果是的話那這跟美國的定義不一樣
: Def: All defendants are joined together (joint liability)
: and each defendant is liable for the entire recovery (several liability)
: 這並沒有說受害者可以拿到數倍的賠償,
: 只有說他可以向任何一個defendant要求全部的損失
: 這是為了避免defendant 諉過給其他的defendant, 進而逃避liability

...
When Several parties cause harm to someone, a question arises
concerning who the victim can sue and how damages should be
allocated among them. To illustrate, suppose that you suffer
a loss of $100 in an accident caused by two people called A
and B. They are *jointly* liable if you can sue *both* of
them at once, naming A and B as co-defendants and receiving
a judgment of $100 against them. They are *severally* liable
if you can sue *either* A or B separately, naming them each
of them as a defendant in a distinct trial. If A and B are
severally liable and you can recover $100 from each of them,
your total recovery will equal 200% of the actual harm(
double compensation).

(Cooter and Ulen, Law and Economics, 3rd edition, p.339-340)

當然 Cooter 與 Ulen 不是學法律的，不過我應該沒有讀錯吧？

--