[翻译交流]每日一译－侵权法(TORTS)

　　标题是不是打错啦，basis
　　

　　同感

　　tort law 的中文是"侵权法"吗? 好奇怪哦.

　　tort: 好像是民法吧？

　　侵权好像是tortious

　　"为了督促自己，提高翻译水平，争取每天在这里发一段我自己做的翻译，欢迎指教，大家共同进步。"
　　
　　
　　好， 共同进步。我正好也要最近考试，一同学习吧。：）

　　我的感想：
　　
　　1， (including reckless or “willful and wanton“ misconduct), 好像没有翻译好。 “willful and wanton“ 好像指的是有意但是并非恶意的（如玩闹性质）。
　　
　　2，The negligence concept carries with it the requirement that defendant’s conduct be blameworthy in the sense of creating an unreasonable risk of harm.好像过于直译了
　　
　　3， 法律过错不同于道德谴责；这句话翻的好。

　　tort 是侵权法。

　　谢谢大家的意见。昨天比较仓促，有单词打错了，也没来得及做点加工。关于大家的意见，总结一下：basis打错了，可惜没办法改了；tort是侵权法，民法是civil law；tortious 是tort的形容词形式。
　　南岛愚夫，你的意见很中肯，你看negligent (including reckless or “willful and wanton” misconduct),翻成“过失（包括重大疏忽或“有意及放任”的过失”怎么样？
　　The negligence concept carries with it the requirement that defendant’s conduct be blameworthy in the sense of creating an unreasonable risk of harm.The intentional torts require fault in the form of intent. 改成：
　　在过失侵权的情况下，被告的行为引起了不合理的损失风险，因而当受责备。在故意侵权案件中，过错则表现为故意。
　　
　　
　　

　　tort是民法啊，什么都管

　　这里有学法律的吗? tort law真的译成侵权法吗? 按我在english common law里学的tort law, 应该绝对不是侵权法. 除非tort law in english common law is not identical to the one in china law system.

　　tort是侵权法，民法是civil law

　　俺没有正式地学过common law，不过我问了几个从美国和英国学法律回来的朋友，他们都说tort law （或者tort)是侵权法的意思。我翻的这段来自法律出版社的美国法精要影印本（West Nutshell Series)，封面题目是torts，中文也用的是侵权法。如果不是，那应该是什么呢？请指教。俺翻译是为了提高，所以不怕有错误，错了也不会不好意思，欢迎大家交流。

　　这是今天做的。有点枯燥，也不知道我能坚持几天。不过好像还是有点帮助的。
　　The activities which give rise to strict liability-e.g., blasting, storing dangerous substances, keeping dangerous animals-are not so unreasonable as to be prohibited altogether; indeed, they may be socially useful or necessary. But they are sufficiently dangerous or create sufficiently unusual risks that the law requires them to be carried on at the actor’s peril. Thus, it has been suggested that the fault is conditional, arising only if and when harm results, or that there is an element of fault in carrying on the activity at all but that the activity is privileged so long as it does not cause harm. Such analyses are, of course, somewhat tautological, they equate fault and legal liability. It may be just as valid to ignore “fault” and to say that certain activities for reasons of social policy, may be conducted only if the person conducting them is willing to insure others against the harm which results from the risks they create.
　　
　　引起严格责任的行为，例如爆炸、储藏危险物品、饲养危险动物，并没有不合理到应当统统禁止的地步；事实上，这些行为可能对社会有用或有必要。但是他们也相当危险或造成了相当不寻常的风险，以至于法律要求行为人自但风险。因此，有人主张过错是有条件的，即只有在引起损害时才有过错，或从事某一行为本身就有过错，但只要该行为没有造成损害，就不加禁止。当然，这种分析有点同意反复，他们把过错和法律责任等同了。如果不提“过错”，而说行为人可以为一定行为，但根据社会政策他需保证他人不会因其所引起的风险遭受损害，这种说法仍然是正确的。
　　
　　There are a number of instances in the law of liability without fault, besides those (discussed in this chapter) which traditionally are collected under the heading “strict” or “absolute” liability. Certain statutes (e.g. workers’ compensation) create it. It is found in an employer’s liability for the torts of her employees, in common law liability for defamation, and in liability for selling defective products. The common thread which runs through all forms of strict liability is that, irrespective of the care with which it is conducted, a particular activity ought to carry with it the costs of the risks it creates. If it helps one to stretch the concept “fault” to include the creation of these risks, perhaps no harm is done, but it would seem preferable to view strict liability as special instances of mandatory insurance against particular designated risks imposed as a matter of policy irrespective of fault.
　　
　　除了那些传统上被归类为“严格”或“绝对”责任的情况（即本章中所讨论的）外，在无过错责任法中还存在其他一些情况。一些法令（例如员工补偿）对此有规定。在雇主对雇员的侵权责任中、在诽谤行为的普通法责任中、在销售缺陷产品应承担的责任中，都会发现此类规定。贯穿于各种形式的严格责任的主线是，从事某一行为就应承但其引起的风险所造成的后果，无论行为人是否尽到了注意。如果有人因此将“过错”的概念扩展，将引起这些风险也包括到“过错”中，可能也没有什么害处；但是，更可取的做法是，将严格责任视为出于政策考虑对特定风险规定的特殊强制性保险，而不要求有过错。
　　

　　我对中国法律一点都不懂, 只是从字面上来看, tort跟侵权好象没什么关系. The word "tort" in tort law actually means wrongful act excluding those criminal act, which is part of civil law. 不过既然他们管tort law叫侵权法, 那就这样吧.

　　Animals, Statutory Strict Liability
　　动物及法定严格责任
　　
　　Animals. Strict liability for damage caused by animals has survived (with modifications) the general shift to the fault requirement, probably because of the special risks they create. Since animals have no conscience with which to restrain themselves, and posses great capacity to do mischief if not restrained, those who keep them have a duty to restrain them or pay.
　　
　　动物。虽然总体上已经向过错要求转变，动物引起损害的严格责任仍然存在，原因可能在于动物所带来的特殊风险。动物没有自控的意识，在未受到约束的情况下却拥有强大的破坏力，因此畜养动物的人有责任控制他们或者赔偿。
　　
　　Trespassing Animals. In most jurisdictions, the general rule is that keepers of all animals, including domesticated ones, are strictly liable for damage resulting from the trespass of their animals on the property of another.
　　
　　侵扰动物。在大多数法域，作为一项基本原则，所有动物（包括驯养的动物）的畜养者都对因其动物侵犯他人地产而导致的损害承担严格责任。
　　
　　There are three principal exceptions:
　　(1) Owners of dogs and cats are not liable, absent negligence, for their trespasses, except where strict liability is imposed by statute or ordinance.
　　(2) There is no liability without negligence for damage caused by the trespass on property adjoining a road by livestock straying from the road.
　　(3) In some parts of the western United States, certain farm animals (especially cattle) by custom or statute are permitted to graze at large on the range, and their owners are not strictly liable for their trespasses. In some states there are “fencing out” statutes which require landowners who wish to exclude such animals to construct a certain type of fence; having done so, the animals’ owner is strictly liable for subsequent trespasses. In other states, “fending in” statutes relive the animal’s owner of strict liability if he has constructed a certain fence to keep his animals on his own property.
　　
　　有三种主要的例外情况：
　　（1） 除非法规或法令有相反规定，狗和猫的主人在无过失的情况下不对它们造成的侵扰承担责任。
　　（2） 在无过失的情况下，对于从道路上走散的动物给临近道路的地产造成的损害不承担责任。
　　（3） 在美国西部的一些地方，依照习俗或法规，允许在牧场放养某些农场动物（尤其是牛），它们的主人不对它们造成的侵扰承担严格责任。一些州存在“用围栏阻止”的法规，即希望挡住这些动物的土地所有人应当竖起某种围栏；如果这样做了，动物的主人就应当对之后发生的侵扰承担严格责任。在其他一些州，如果动物的主人竖起某种围栏，以使他的动物呆在他自己的地产内，则“用围栏圈进”的法规可使动物的主人免于承担严格责任。
　　The basis of liability for animal trespass is possession and control. Hence, if the owner surrenders possession to another, the bailee becomes liable. Except perhaps as to wild or animals to be dangerous, the bailment relives the owner’s liability.
　　动物侵扰责任的基础是占有和控制。因此，如果主人将动物交付他人，则责任也转移至接受占有的受托人。除对野生或危险动物之外，寄托行为免除了主人的责任。
　　

　　TO 作者：梅舍
　　
　　译地很好呀. 可以当教材用了. 但是要让法律学生看, 则应该找到中国法律中的对应概念 (除非有时候并不完全对应). 我的意见如下,
　　1.(including reckless or “willful and wanton“ misconduct)
　　(包括疏忽大意和盲目自信及放任)
　　2.., blasting 应该是爆破(作业), 而不是爆炸, 后者是犯罪不是TORT了.
　　3.同意反复>同义反复
　　4.defamation 诽谤行为的普通法责任中? 英语里有三个词当诽谤讲LIBEL, SLANDER, DEFAMATION, 最后这个通常是指媒体的诽谤.因此可以加括号注明, 这正是段说的 责任与职业风险有关.
　　
　　等下看今天的.
　　

　　5. Trespassing Animals 是指犯TRESPASSING的动物, 译成 "动物侵扰"更合原意. 或"侵权的动物", 而不是对动物侵扰.
　　
　　其他的翻译我觉得都很好. 继续啊.
　　
　　另外, 如果你以后看到一个词DELICT,它往往也是侵权的意思, 但是在英国它是指苏格兰的侵权法,在美国可能是指路易斯安娜州的法律, 因为它们两地的法律是属大陆法系的.

　　tort是民事侵权法

　　翻译得不错哦。
　　torts 是侵权法。侵权法是普通法的概念。大陆法系无。
　　侵权行为e文中为tort，来源于拉丁文的tortum，原意指扭曲，弯曲，后演化为错误，

　　多谢大家的关注和提出的宝贵意见，对我真的很有启发和帮助。希望能和对这一题目感兴趣的朋友交流和切磋。
　　
　　Liability Apart From Trespass. For purpose of liability for harm other than trespass, the law distinguishes between animals domestic and wild. In the case of animals that are customarily domesticated and kept in that region (e.g., in the U.S., dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, horses, etc.) the keeper is strictly liable for the harm they cause only if he had actual knowledge (or had knowledge of facts which ought to have given him notice) that the animal had the particular trait or propensity which caused the harm. The trait must be a potentially harmful one, such as viciousness or destructive tendencies (as opposed to, e.g., excessive playfulness), and the harm must correspond to the knowledge； notice that a dog will attack other dogs is not, of itself, notice that he will attack humans. Thus, it is often said that “every dog is entitle to one bite,” but this is not necessarily true since the keeper may be on notice by reason of other known facts. In some jurisdictions, statutes impose absolute liability for certain types of damage (e.g. dog bites) without requiring scienter.
　　
　　除侵扰之外的责任。对于除侵扰之外的损害赔偿责任，法律是将驯养和野生动物区别对待的。对于通常已经被驯化并养在一个地方的动物（在美国，这样的动物包括狗、猫、牛、羊和马等），仅在蓄养者确实知道（或通过了解到一些事实而应当知道）该动物具有能够造成损害的特点或倾向时，该蓄养者才对动物造成的损害承担严格责任。这里所说的特点必须是具有潜在危害性的，比如凶残和具有破坏性（不同于过分好动等），并且造成的损害要与所知道的情况一致；注意：一只狗会攻击其他狗本身并不能说明它也会攻击人。因此，常言所说的“狗可以咬人一次”并不总是正确的，因为蓄养者可以通过其他已知的事实知道他的狗会咬人。在一些法域，法律对某些类型的损害规定了绝对责任（例如狗咬人），而并不要求明知。
　　
　　Keepers of species which are normally considered “wild” in that region (e.g., in the U.S., bears, lions, elephants, monkeys, etc.) are strictly liable for the harm they cause if they escape, whether or not the animals in question is known to be dangerous. And because such animals are known to revert to their natural tendencies, they are considered to be wild no matter how well trained or domesticated. However, where the injury occurs on the owner’s premises while the animal is confined or restrained, the cases tend to deny strict liability, commonly on a theory of assumed risk.
　　
　　在某一地区通常被看做“野生”动物的蓄养者（在美国，这样的动物包括熊、狮子、大象和猴子等）在这些动物逃脱时，要对它们造成的损害承担严格责任，无论是否知道这些动物具有危险性。而且因为这些动物本性难改，所以无论对它们训练或驯化得多好，它们都被看成是野生动物。然而，如果伤害发生在主人的地产内，并且当时动物是被关着或拴着的，按照自但风险的原则，主人可能无需承担严格责任。
　　

　　我的意见, 供参考:
　　
　　1.对于通常已经被驯化并养在一个地方的动物>>>按习惯属被驯化并在该地区驯养的动物.
　　2.并且造成的损害要与所知道的情况一致>>>并且造成的损害应属人的认知能力所及.
　　3.“野生”动物的蓄养者>>....管理者
　　4.最后的这句: "按照自但风险的原则，主人可能无需承担严格责任。" 在一片文章里出现了两次 "自但风险原则"但是前后矛盾.属翻译中大忌. 不如尊重原文译成: "按风险假定理论" 并将原文注如括号.因为该理论在国内找不到对应的词, 只能直译.
　　
　　谢谢你的文章, 译得真的不错.