the common law-第16章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ples；　when　they　have　forgotten　the　special　knowledge　necessary　for　technical　reasoning。　But　the　present　willingness　to　generalize　is　founded　on　more　than　merely　negative　grounds。　The　philosophical　habit　of　the　day；　the　frequency　of　legislation；　and　the　ease　with　which　the　law　may　be　changed　to　meet　the　opinions　and　wishes　of　the　public；　all　make　it　natural　and　unavoidable　that　judges　as　well　as　others　should　openly　discuss　the　legislative　principles　upon　which　their　decisions　must　always　rest　in　the　end；　and　should　base　their　judgments　upon　broad　considerations　of　policy　to　which　the　traditions　of　the　bench　would　hardly　have　tolerated　a　reference　fifty　years　ago。

＇79＇　The　business　of　the　law　of　torts　is　to　fix　the　dividing　lines　between　those　cases　in　which　a　man　is　liable　for　harm　which　he　has　done；　and　those　in　which　he　is　not。　But　it　cannot　enable　him　to　predict　with　certainty　whether　a　given　act　under　given　circumstances　will　make　him　liable；　because　an　act　will　rarely　have　that　effect　unless　followed　by　damage；　and　for　the　most　part；　if　not　always；　the　consequences　of　an　act　are　not　known；　but　only　guessed　at　as　more　or　less　probable。　All　the　rules　that　the　law　can　lay　down　beforehand　are　rules　for　determining　the　conduct　which　will　be　followed　by　liability　if　it　is　followed　by　harmthat　is；　the　conduct　which　a　man　pursues　at　his　peril。　The　only　guide　for　the　future　to　be　drawn　from　a　decision　against　a　defendant　in　an　action　of　tort　is　that　similar　acts；　under　circumstances　which　cannot　be　distinguished　except　by　the　result　from　those　of　the　defendant；　are　done　at　the　peril　of　the　actor；　that　if　he　escapes　liability；　it　is　simply　because　by　good　fortune　no　harm　comes　of　his　conduct　in　the　particular　event。

If；　therefore；　there　is　any　common　ground　for　all　liability　in　tort；　we　shall　best　find　it　by　eliminating　the　event　as　it　actually　turns　out；　and　by　considering　only　the　principles　on　which　the　peril　of　his　conduct　is　thrown　upon　the　actor。　We　are　to　ask　what　are　the　elements；　on　the　defendant's　side；　which　must　all　be　present　before　liability　is　possible；　and　the　presence　of　which　will　commonly　make　him　liable　if　damage　follows。

The　law　of　torts　abounds　in　moral　phraseology。　It　has　much　to　say　of　wrongs；　of　malice；　fraud；　intent；　and　negligence。　Hence　it　may　naturally　be　supposed　that　the　risk　of　a　man's　conduct　is　thrown　upon　him　as　the　result　of　some　moral　short…coming。　But　while　this　notion　has　been　＇80＇　entertained；　the　extreme　opposite　will　be　found　to　have　been　a　far　more　popular　opinion；I　mean　the　notion　that　a　man　is　answerable　for　all　the　consequences　of　his　acts；　or；　in　other　words；　that　he　acts　at　his　peril　always；　and　wholly　irrespective　of　the　state　of　his　consciousness　upon　the　matter。

To　test　the　former　opinion　it　would　be　natural　to　take　up　successively　the　several　words；　such　as　negligence　and　intent；　which　in　the　language　of　morals　designate　various　well…understood　states　of　mind；　and　to　show　their　significance　in　the　law。　To　test　the　latter；　it　would　perhaps　be　more　convenient　to　consider　it　under　the　head　of　the　several　forms　of　action。　So　many　of　our　authorities　are　decisions　under　one　or　another　of　these　forms；　that　it　will　not　be　safe　to　neglect　them；　at　least　in　the　first　instance；　and　a　compromise　between　the　two　modes　of　approaching　the　subject　may　be　reached　by　beginning　with　the　action　of　trespass　and　the　notion　of　negligence　together；　leaving　wrongs　which　are　defined　as　intentional　for　the　next　Lecture。

Trespass　lies　for　unintentional；　as　well　as　for　intended　wrongs。　Any　wrongful　and　direct　application　of　force　is　redressed　by　that　action。　It　therefore　affords　a　fair　field　for　a　discussion　of　the　general　principles　of　liability　for　unintentional　wrongs　at　common　law。　For　it　can　hardly　be　supposed　that　a　man's　responsibility　for　the　consequences　of　his　acts　varies　as　the　remedy　happens　to　fall　on　one　side　or　the　other　of　the　penumbra　which　separates　trespass　from　the　action　on　the　case。　And　the　greater　part　of　the　law　of　torts　will　be　found　under　one　or　the　other　of　those　two　heads。

It　might　be　hastily　assumed　that　the　action　on　the　case　＇81＇　is　founded　on　the　defendant's　negligence。　But　if　that　be　so；　the　same　doctrine　must　prevail　in　trespass。　It　might　be　assumed　that　trespass　is　founded　on　the　defendant's　having　caused　damage　by　his　act；　without　regard　to　negligence。　But　if　that　be　true；　the　law　must　apply　the　same　criterion　to　other　wrongs　differing　from　trespass　only　in　some　technical　point；　as；　for　instance；　that　the　property　damaged　was　in　the　defendant's　possession。　Neither　of　the　above　assumptions；　however；　can　be　hastily　permitted。　It　might　very　well　be　argued　that　the　action　on　the　case　adopts　the　severe　rule　just　suggested　for　trespass；　except　when　the　action　is　founded　on　a　contract。　Negligence；　it　might　be　said；　had　nothing　to　do　with　the　common…law　liability　for　a　nuisance；　and　it　might　be　added　that；　where　negligence　was　a　ground　of　liability；　a　special　duty　had　to　be　founded　in　the　defendant's　super　se　assumpsit；　or　public　calling。　/1/　On　the　other　hand；　we　shall　see　what　can　be　said　for　the　proposition；　that　even　in　trespass　there　must　at　least　be　negligence。　But　whichever　argument　prevails　for　the　one　form　of　action　must　prevail　for　the　other。　The　discussion　may　therefore　be　shortened　on　its　technical　side；　by　confining　it　to　trespass　so　far　as　may　be　practicable　without　excluding　light　to　be　got　from　other　parts　of　the　law。

As　has　just　been　hinted；　there　are　two　theories　of　the　common…law　liability　for　unintentional　harm。　Both　of　them　seem　to　receive　the　implied　assent　of　popular　textbooks；　and　neither　of　them　is　wanting　in　plausibility　and　the　semblance　of　authority。

The　first　is　that　of　Austin；　which　is　essentially　the　theory　of　a　criminalist。　According　to　him；　the　characteristic　＇82＇　feature　of　law；　properly　so　called；　is　a　sanction　or　detriment　threatened　and　imposed　by　the　sovereign　for　disobedience　to　the　sovereign's　commands。　As　the　greater　part　of　the　law　only　makes　a　man　civilly　answerable　for　breaking　it；　Austin　is　compelled　to　regard　the　liability　to　an　action　as　a　sanction；　or；　in　other　words；　as　a　penalty　for　disobedience。　It　follows　from　this；　according　to　the　prevailing　views　of　penal　law；　that　such　liability　ought　only　to　be　based　upon　personal　fault；　and　Austin　accepts　that　conclusion；　with　its　corollaries；　one　of　which　is　that　negligence　means　a　state　of　the　party's　mind。　/1/　These　doctrines　will　be　referred　to　later；　so　far　as　necessary。

The　other　theory　is　directly　opposed　to　the　foregoing。　It　seems　to　be　adopted　by　some　of　the　greatest　common　law　authorities；　and　requires　serious　discussion　before　it　can　be　set　aside　in　favor　of　any　third　opinion　which　may　be　maintained。　According　to　this　view；　broadly　stated；　under　the　common　law　a　man　acts　at　his　peril。　It　may　be　held　as　a　sort　of　set…off；　that　he　is　never　liable　for　omissions　except　in　consequence　of　some　duty　voluntarily　undertaken。　But　the　whole　and　sufficient　ground　for　such　liabilities　as　he　does　incur　outside　the　last　class　is　supposed　to　be　that　he　has　voluntarily　acted；　and　that　damage　has　ensued。　If　the　act　was　voluntary；　it　is　totally　immaterial　that　the　detriment　which　followed　from　it　was　neither　intended　nor　due　to　the　negligence　of　the　actor。

In　order　to　do　justice　to　this　way　of　looking　at　the　subject；　we　must　remember　that　the　abolition　of　the　common…law　forms　of　pleading　has　not　changed　the　rules　of　substantive　law。　Hence；　although　pleaders　now　generally　＇83＇　allege　intent　or　negligence；　anything　which　would　formerly　have　been　sufficient　to　charge　a　defendant　in　trespass　is　still　sufficient；　notwithstanding　the　fact　that　the　ancient　form　of　action　and　declaration　has　disappeared。

In　the　first　place；　it　is　said；　consider　generally　the　protection　given　by　the　law　to　property；　both　within　and　outside　the　limits　of　the　last…named　action。　If　a　man　crosses　his　neighbor's　boundary　by　however　innocent　a　mistake；　or　if　his　cattle　escape　into　his　neighbor's　field；　he　is　said　to　be　liable　in　trespass　quare　clausum　fregit。　If　an　auctioneer　in　the　most　perfect　good　faith；　and　in　the　regular　course　of　his　business；　sells　goods　sent　to　his　rooms　for　the　purpose　of　being　so