自从上院上次对卡帕罗的详细调查以来，注意义务的概念有了显著的发展。在考虑侵权法本身的效率时，提出了纠正正义和基于成本的效率方法的争论。纠正性司法途径是侵权法的一个重要理论，它力图使被告承担起责任，使原告在没有犯错的情况下尽可能恢复到应有的地位。[23]然而，Calabresi提出侵权法的目的(除了正义的要求之外)是使侵权行为的社会成本最小化。因此，虽然纠正正义是侵权法的一个重要目标，但它不是唯一的目标，因此，为了满足基于成本的方法，发展必须发生。严格责任确实做到了这一点。在严格责任下，法院没有义务规定应有注意的程度，因为无论加害人的预防程度如何，她都必须承担事故的费用。因为将个人成本降至最低符合加害人的自身利益:总的社会成本等于个人成本。因此，在单边事故的严格责任下，加害人将选择社会最优的照顾水平。在严格责任下，审判的概率应该更小。这是因为预测谁有可能打赢官司更容易，因为没有必要证明加害人有过失。因此，自愿付款应该更有可能是[28]，从而减少了出庭的费用。从这个推理出发，成本效益分析被认为是解决市场交易中所有不可行的社会组织问题的最佳方案。这表明，经济学的基本原理是实现社会公正的有力工具。尽管如此，从社会意义上讲，人们还是会以某种方式尽量减少损失。因此，这表明卡帕罗不适合确定责任，因为它符合英国侵权法最小化社会成本的目标。侵权行为法的有效运作将平衡正义矫正法与成本效率法。
The concept of duty of care has developed significantly since the House of Lords last looked into detail of Caparo. In considering the efficiency of tort law itself, it raises the debate of corrective justice and a cost-based efficiency approach. A corrective justice approach is a prominent theory of tort law, which seeks to place ‘the defendant under the obligation to restore the plaintiff, so far as possible, to the position the plaintiff would have been in had the wrong not been committed.’[23] Nevertheless, Calabresi proposes the aim of tort law (aside from the requirement of justice) is to minimise the social costs of the tort.[24] Therefore, whilst corrective justice is an important objective of tort law, it is not the sole objective, therefore developments must occur in order to satisfy a cost-based approach. Strict liability indeed achieves this. Under strict liability, the courts are not obliged to set the level of due care, as the injurer must bear the costs of the accident, regardless of the extent of her precaution[25]. Since it is in the injurer’s self-interest to minimise her private costs: the total social costs are equal to her private costs.[26] Therefore, under strict liability in unilateral accidents, the injurer will select the socially optimal level of care.[27] The probability of trial should be less under strict liability. This is because it is easier to predict who is likely to win the case as it not necessary to establish that the injurer was negligent. Accordingly, voluntary payments should be much more probable[28], thus reducing the costs of going to trial. From this reasoning, the cost-benefit analysis is regarded as the best solution to all problems of social organisation in market transactions that are infeasible. This shows that the basic principles of economics are a powerful instrument for the achievement of social justice.[29] Nevertheless, in a social sense, people will act in a manner to minimise their losses. Therefore, this shows Caparo as being unsuitable in determining duties as it does meet the English tort law’s objective of minimising social cost. Effective functioning of tort law will balance the corrective justice approach and cost-based efficiency.
本文摘自网络以段落形式发布，并不是出自澳洲作业帮，请不要直接复制段落内容至您的作品，否则作业100% Turnitin剽窃，我们可以为你代写澳洲law assignment作业！请联系客服订购。