Tort reform

　　侵權法改革

　　IN HIS floundering campaign for president, RickPerry has at least brought one topic intoprominence: tort reform. In June the governor ofTexas signed a loser pays tort law, intended todiscourage slight or frivolous lawsuits by making losers pay the winners legal costs.Conservatives are eager to support it. The right has maintained for decades that Americaslegal culture smothers small businesses, doctors and innovators.

　　里克?佩里的競選之路舉步維艱，但他提出的 侵權法改革卻引起熱議。今年六月，這位德州州長簽署了 敗訴賠付的侵權法案，規定侵權案的敗訴方要補償勝訴方的法律成本，希望以此減少一些瑣細無聊的侵權訴訟。該法案得到保守分子的大力支持。幾十年來，右派人士堅持認為，美國的法律文化窒息了小企業、醫生和創新者。

　　Too bad, then, that the Texas law is timid. Loser pays is the norm in many countries,including England, Canada and Germany. But there, loser pays is the rule in most torts. TheTexas bill awards legal costs only for suits that have no basis in law or in fact and aredismissed before any evidence is gathered. Most competent lawyers can write a complaintthat clears this bar. Even the Texas trial-lawyers association eventually endorsed Mr Perryslaw.

　　糟糕透頂的是，德州的這項法律太過小心。在英格蘭、加拿大、德國等許多國家，敗訴賠付已是處理侵權糾紛的常規標準，不過在這些國家這一規定適用于多數侵權案的裁定，而德州敗訴賠償法律只適用于那些缺少法律或事實基礎且在證據收集前就被撤案的訴訟。大多數合格的律師能夠寫出避開這個障礙的訴狀。即便德克薩斯州辯護律師聯合會最終也同意了佩里的這個法案。

　　Only one other state, Alaska, has loser-pays, and only for a portion of fees. More intriguingly,Florida imposed loser-pays in 1980 for medical-malpractice cases. The number of claimsdropped, but the average award rose, suggesting that more high-merit cases got their day incourt while low-merit filings were deterred or settled for less. But many losing plaintiffs weretoo poor to pay the winners costs, while in one case a losing defendant had to pay millions forthe plaintiffs legal fees. Even doctors supported the laws repeal in 1985.

　　還有另外唯一一個實行敗訴償付的州，那就是阿拉斯加，但這里敗訴方支付的僅是勝訴方法律成本的一部分。更有趣的是，1980年佛羅里達州在處理醫療事故案例時就使用過敗方賠償制度。這種制度的實施使訴訟的數量下降了，但平均裁決賠償額提高了，這表明，訴諸法律的更多的是那些一方獲勝把握比較大的案子，而那些勝算不大的侵權糾紛，訴訟數量或判決數量都減少了。但是，有很多敗訴的原告生活窮困，無力支付對方的法律成本，而在另一起訴訟中，敗訴的被告要支付原告數百萬元的法律費用。在1985年，連醫生都支持廢除這項法律。

　　Marie Gryphon of the Manhattan Institute, a centre-right think-tank, who is author of a loser-pays proposal, says that Texas got much less than half a loaf, and that Florida was spookedtoo quickly. She argues that loser-pays countries need legal insurance, which can be bought in England for just ?100-200 after an alleged loss, but before a suitis filed. Lawyers can advance the premiums and add them to their bills. In other countries,such as Germany, many households carry standing legal insurance with a small monthlypremium. Ms Gryphon argues that in such a mature loser-pays market more small-value buthigh-merit cases would be brought, while both small nuisance suits and big lottery suitswould be less attractive to lawyers.

　　中右派智庫曼哈頓研究會的馬莉?格里芬，曾提交一項敗方賠付的提案，她說，德州推行的政策遠遠不達到應有的水平，而佛羅里達州在面對問題時退縮得太快。馬莉認為，那些實行敗訴賠付制度的國家需要有法律保險，比如，在英格蘭，如果指控提出，當事人可在立案之前，花100-200英鎊來購買法律保險。律師也可以預付保險費并將這筆費用加在他們的賬單中。在德國等其他國家，許多家庭將法律保險并入到每月繳納的保險費中。格里芬女士認為，在敗訴賠付制度比較成熟的國家，那些小額的騷擾官司和大額的彩票官司對律師吸引力都會減小。

　　Loser-pays has yet to be properly tried in America. Another idea, however, is in place in manystates: capping damages. In the popular imagination runaway juries routinely impose hugenon-economic damages . Inpractice, headline-grabbing awards are often reduced by judges: the notorious $2.7m inpunitive damages for a woman who spilled scalding McDonalds coffee on her lap in 1994 endedup at $480,000.

　　敗訴賠付制度在美國還未能充分試行，另一種思想已在多州興起：為侵權賠償規定最高限額。在普通民眾的想像中，肆意而為的陪審團常常施以巨額的非經濟損失。事實上，一些案值驚人的裁決常被法官人為減少，一個著名案例是，1994年，一位婦女在麥當勞腿被熱咖啡燙傷，270萬美元的損害賠償最后以48萬元結案。

　　Tort reform

　　侵權法改革

　　IN HIS floundering campaign for president, RickPerry has at least brought one topic intoprominence: tort reform. In June the governor ofTexas signed a loser pays tort law, intended todiscourage slight or frivolous lawsuits by making losers pay the winners legal costs.Conservatives are eager to support it. The right has maintained for decades that Americaslegal culture smothers small businesses, doctors and innovators.

　　里克?佩里的競選之路舉步維艱，但他提出的 侵權法改革卻引起熱議。今年六月，這位德州州長簽署了 敗訴賠付的侵權法案，規定侵權案的敗訴方要補償勝訴方的法律成本，希望以此減少一些瑣細無聊的侵權訴訟。該法案得到保守分子的大力支持。幾十年來，右派人士堅持認為，美國的法律文化窒息了小企業、醫生和創新者。

　　Too bad, then, that the Texas law is timid. Loser pays is the norm in many countries,including England, Canada and Germany. But there, loser pays is the rule in most torts. TheTexas bill awards legal costs only for suits that have no basis in law or in fact and aredismissed before any evidence is gathered. Most competent lawyers can write a complaintthat clears this bar. Even the Texas trial-lawyers association eventually endorsed Mr Perryslaw.

　　糟糕透頂的是，德州的這項法律太過小心。在英格蘭、加拿大、德國等許多國家，敗訴賠付已是處理侵權糾紛的常規標準，不過在這些國家這一規定適用于多數侵權案的裁定，而德州敗訴賠償法律只適用于那些缺少法律或事實基礎且在證據收集前就被撤案的訴訟。大多數合格的律師能夠寫出避開這個障礙的訴狀。即便德克薩斯州辯護律師聯合會最終也同意了佩里的這個法案。

　　Only one other state, Alaska, has loser-pays, and only for a portion of fees. More intriguingly,Florida imposed loser-pays in 1980 for medical-malpractice cases. The number of claimsdropped, but the average award rose, suggesting that more high-merit cases got their day incourt while low-merit filings were deterred or settled for less. But many losing plaintiffs weretoo poor to pay the winners costs, while in one case a losing defendant had to pay millions forthe plaintiffs legal fees. Even doctors supported the laws repeal in 1985.

　　還有另外唯一一個實行敗訴償付的州，那就是阿拉斯加，但這里敗訴方支付的僅是勝訴方法律成本的一部分。更有趣的是，1980年佛羅里達州在處理醫療事故案例時就使用過敗方賠償制度。這種制度的實施使訴訟的數量下降了，但平均裁決賠償額提高了，這表明，訴諸法律的更多的是那些一方獲勝把握比較大的案子，而那些勝算不大的侵權糾紛，訴訟數量或判決數量都減少了。但是，有很多敗訴的原告生活窮困，無力支付對方的法律成本，而在另一起訴訟中，敗訴的被告要支付原告數百萬元的法律費用。在1985年，連醫生都支持廢除這項法律。

　　Marie Gryphon of the Manhattan Institute, a centre-right think-tank, who is author of a loser-pays proposal, says that Texas got much less than half a loaf, and that Florida was spookedtoo quickly. She argues that loser-pays countries need legal insurance, which can be bought in England for just ?100-200 after an alleged loss, but before a suitis filed. Lawyers can advance the premiums and add them to their bills. In other countries,such as Germany, many households carry standing legal insurance with a small monthlypremium. Ms Gryphon argues that in such a mature loser-pays market more small-value buthigh-merit cases would be brought, while both small nuisance suits and big lottery suitswould be less attractive to lawyers.

　　中右派智庫曼哈頓研究會的馬莉?格里芬，曾提交一項敗方賠付的提案，她說，德州推行的政策遠遠不達到應有的水平，而佛羅里達州在面對問題時退縮得太快。馬莉認為，那些實行敗訴賠付制度的國家需要有法律保險，比如，在英格蘭，如果指控提出，當事人可在立案之前，花100-200英鎊來購買法律保險。律師也可以預付保險費并將這筆費用加在他們的賬單中。在德國等其他國家，許多家庭將法律保險并入到每月繳納的保險費中。格里芬女士認為，在敗訴賠付制度比較成熟的國家，那些小額的騷擾官司和大額的彩票官司對律師吸引力都會減小。

　　Loser-pays has yet to be properly tried in America. Another idea, however, is in place in manystates: capping damages. In the popular imagination runaway juries routinely impose hugenon-economic damages . Inpractice, headline-grabbing awards are often reduced by judges: the notorious $2.7m inpunitive damages for a woman who spilled scalding McDonalds coffee on her lap in 1994 endedup at $480,000.

　　敗訴賠付制度在美國還未能充分試行，另一種思想已在多州興起：為侵權賠償規定最高限額。在普通民眾的想像中，肆意而為的陪審團常常施以巨額的非經濟損失。事實上，一些案值驚人的裁決常被法官人為減少，一個著名案例是，1994年，一位婦女在麥當勞腿被熱咖啡燙傷，270萬美元的損害賠償最后以48萬元結案。