Anglo-American Tort Law 　　 　　編者按：隨著2008年北京奧運會的臨近，民眾越來越關心“中國”品牌的樹立，學習英語的熱情也被點燃。越來越多的外宣干部和業(yè)內同行向我們表達了期待看到雙語欄目的愿望。因此，我們自2006年第1期起開辦了“雙語視窗”欄目以滿足廣大讀者的需求。
　　看看周圍的媒體，在《北京青年報》、《參考消息》、《國門時報》上有許多精粹的小短文，像一只只啄木鳥，善意地提醒了中國人習以為常的行為背后“尚未和國際接軌”的細節(jié)，讀后讓人回味不已。在獲得借鑒意義的同時，也帶來更深入的思考。我們效仿中英文對照的版面形式，旨在通過外國友人的視角來看中國，從中折射出東西方觀念、習俗的異同。通過一篇篇這樣的文章，讓讀者在領略異域文化的同時，也能達到學習英語的目的。
　　
　　當我來到中國，首先注意到的一件事就是路面上的很多井口都敞著，我很快就學會了走路時低頭看路免得掉下去。
　　這一現(xiàn)象之所以讓我吃驚，是因為美國的井口決不會敞著，除非是有人在里面干活。此外，只要井口被打開，工人們就會在井口周圍立起欄桿，以防行人掉下。
　　為什么美國人對打開的井口這么上心？答案與英美體系的民事侵權法有關。民事侵權大致可定義為傷害性行為，對這種行為法律允許受害者索取賠償，而民事侵權法是針對這類傷害如何進行賠償?shù)囊幌盗蟹�律。讓我們以路面井口為例：設想一個工人打開了井蓋去修理地下電話線，他在下面工作一段時間后就去吃午飯，在他吃午飯期間一位婦女走過，沒有注意到井口開著，掉了下去，腿摔成了骨折。
　　那么，隨之而來的恐怕就是這位婦女起訴電話公司，聲稱那個工人太疏忽，沒把井口蓋上就離開了。她會要求法院判電話公司付她的醫(yī)療費，她還會以所遭受的“傷痛與困苦”為由而要求經濟賠償，而這一賠償?shù)臄?shù)額有時是很巨大的，在某些極端案例中會大大超過一百萬美元。雖說我們所舉的這個例子不大可能導致如此巨額賠償，但這位婦女可能要求法院對被告實行懲罰性損害賠償，這是給予受傷一方超過應得賠償?shù)馁r償，以用來懲罰被告的疏忽。民事侵權法（特別是與傷痛和困苦相關的大額經濟賠償與懲罰性損害賠償）對安全防護提供了經濟驅動力，這就是為什么美國、加拿大、英國在安全意識方面比中國強的主要原因之一。人行道上的冰會被相關部門仔細地清除干凈；公寓樓都設有火災逃生戶外樓梯；緊急出口總是開著；在汽車道上設有水泥電話線桿子。具有較強的安全意識固然是英美民事侵權法帶來的好處，但這一法律體系也有它的負面作用，缺點之一就是對高額的法律訴訟費用的恐懼心理往往會妨礙或阻止某些有益的活動。舉個例子吧，那是我來中國前的夏天，當時我正在米德爾伯力學院學習中文，該學院地處佛蒙特州。米德爾伯力位于鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)，遠離城市的燈光，因此那兒的夜空顏色很深，美極了。作為一個業(yè)余天文愛好者，我想搞一些天文觀測，最理想的觀測地點就是校園里最高的那座樓的樓頂平臺。但是，除了有一個晚上在那兒舉行過一次招待會，其余時間通向平臺的門總是鎖著的。
　　有一天我正巧和校長聊了起來，我解釋了天文觀測的情況，并問他能否把通向平臺的門打開。他搖搖頭一臉愁容：“以前別人也向我提過這個要求，可我們不得不鎖上這道門，這讓我難受極了。必須上鎖的原因在于，我們的律師說，除非我們能長年監(jiān)視那里，否則就得鎖上，如果有學生上了樓頂，從那兒跳下去自殺，學生家長極有可能起訴學校�！蔽也荒茇煿謱W校的這一做法，在美國的法律體系中，由這類事情引發(fā)的官司并不少見，雖說這在中國人看來可能有點不可思議。代表學生家長一方的律師會聲稱校方應該知道樓頂平臺是有危險的，或聲稱校方沒有在阻止學生自殺方面盡到責任。這樣的官司可能會贏，也可能會輸，但即使是校方贏了，學校也不得不花掉很多錢在法庭上為自己辯護。
　　對我來說，由于校方害怕打官司，我想充分享受米德爾伯力的夜空則不能如愿以償，這看來令人遺憾。不過，在晚上走過校園時，我至少可以仰著頭看天上的星星，而不必低著頭看有沒有開著的井口。
　　原文：
　　When I first arrived in China, one of the first things I noticed was the abundance of open manholes in the streets. I soon learned to look down as I walked in order to avoid falling into one. This surprised me because in the United States, manholes are virtually never left open unless someone is working inside. Moreover, whenever a manhole is opened, the workers set up a safety fence around the hole to prevent anyone from falling in.
　　Why do Americans take such care with open manholes? The answer relates to the Anglo-American system of tort law. A “tort” may be loosely defined as a “harmful act” for which the law allows the victim to seek compensation, and tort law is the system of law that governs compensation for such harm.
　　Let’s take the manhole as an example. Imagine that a workman opens a manhole in order to repair a broken telephone line underground. After he works inside for a while, he leaves for lunch. While he is at lunch a woman walks by, fails to notice the open manhole and falls in, breaking her leg.
　　What is likely to happen is that the woman will file a lawsuit against the telephone company claiming that the workman was negligent (careless) in leaving the manhole uncovered. The woman would ask the court to order the telephone company to pay her medical bills. She would also ask for money to compensate her for the “pain and suffering” sheexperienced. This pain and suffering award can be quite large, in extreme cases well in excess of a million dollars, although the example given here would be unlikely to lead to such a large award. It is possible that she would also ask for punitive damages, which is an award of money given to the injured party in order to punish the defendant for its carelessness.
　　The tort law system (especially the large awards associated with pain and suffering and punitive damages) creates an economic incentive for safety. This is one of the main reasons why America, Canada and Britain are much more safety-conscious places than China. Ice is carefully removed from sidewalks. Apartment buildings have fire escapes.Emergency exits are left unblocked. There are no concrete telephone poles set in the roadways. Inducing greater awareness of safety is surely an advantage of the Anglo-American tort system.
　　But the system has its disadvantages as well. One drawback is that the fear of a costly lawsuit often hinders or prevents beneficial activities. Let me give you an example dating from the summer before I came to China, when I was studying Chinese at Middlebury College in Vermont. Middlebury is located in a rural area, far from city lights, and so the night sky there is beautifully dark. As an amateur astronomer I wanted to do some binocular astronomy. The perfect place was the rooftop terrace of the campus’tallest building. But except for one evening when a reception was being held there, the door to the terrace was always kept locked.
　　One day I happened to be talking to the college president, and I explained the situation. I asked if the door could be left unlocked. He shook his head sadly. “I’ve gotten this request before,” he said,“and I feel terrible that we have to keep the door locked. The reason is that our lawyers say we have to keep the door locked unless there’s
　　a supervised activity going on there. If someone were on the rooftop, jumped off the roof and died, the person’s family might well sue the college.”
　　I can’t blame the college for its policy crazy as it may sound to the Chinese, a lawsuit stemming from such an incident would not be unusual in the American legal system. The lawyers representing the student’s family might claim that the college should have known that the rooftop terrace was a safety hazard, or they might claim that the college failed to do enough to prevent the student from attempting suicide. The lawsuit might or might not succeed, but even if the college won, it would have to spend a considerable sum of money defending itself in court.
　　It seemed sad to me that the fear of a lawsuit prevented me from enjoying the night sky over Middlebury as much as I would have liked. But at least when I walked across the campus in the evenings I could look up at the stars instead of looking down to watch for open manholes!
　　（本欄目文章選自《北京青年報》“雙語視窗”，得到欄目編輯張愛學的授權。英文部分的稿費由本編輯部支付，請作者本人看到此啟事后與編輯部聯(lián)系。）
　　責編：周瑾

相關熱詞搜索：井蓋 官司 飛來 井蓋敞開官司飛來 井蓋敞開官司飛來 高考 井蓋敞開官司飛來 素材