论文部分内容阅读
本文分为四个部分。第一部分简要介绍了私人妨害的概念、范围以及与公共妨害的区别。第二部分讨论了私人妨害原告的类别,一般包括占有人、将来财产权人、抵押权人、事实占有人和地役权人。英国法律判定私人妨害原告资格的一般原则是原告须在相应土地上拥有权益。虽然这个规则一度被作了宽泛的解释,但是英国法院最近的Hunter v.Canary Wharf Ltd.案明确地确立了私人妨害的原告一定得在相关土地上拥有权益的规则。然而随着《1998年人权法案》的通过,英国法院是否仍然坚持这个原则还有待观察。第三部分讨论的是私人妨害被告的类别。与原告不同,被告不需在相关土地上拥有权益,只要被告实施了妨害的侵权行为,就要承担责任。此外,占有人和出租人即使没有制造妨害,也可能在某些情况下成为私人妨害诉讼的被告。对于土地占有人来说,若妨害是由其雇员引起,或者出于自己的目的接受或继续了妨害,或者占有人知道或应该知道先前财产所有权人制造了危险的状态,占有人就可能承担责任。一般来说,出租人将房产出租给占有人,占有人完全控制房产,出租人就不再承担责任。然而在有些情况下,出租人仍然要对相邻土地造成的妨害承担责任。当出租人明确地或默示地授权承租人制造妨害,或出租人在出租房产之前已经知道或者应该知道妨害的存在,或出租人承诺维修房产或者有权进入房产维修时,出租人要对相邻房产造成的妨害承担责任。第四部分是结语,对英国私人妨害原被告的资格问题进行了总结。
This article is divided into four parts. The first part briefly introduces the concept, scope and differences between public nuisance and private nuisance. The second part discusses private categories that prejudice the plaintiffs, generally including owners, future property holders, mortgagees, de facto owners and easel owners. The general principle that private law obstructs plaintiffs in English law is that the plaintiffs have an interest in the respective land. Although this rule was once broadly explained, the recent case of Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd. in the English courts clearly established the rule that privately hindered plaintiffs must have an interest in the land concerned. However, with the adoption of the Bill of Rights 1998, whether the British courts still insist on this principle remains to be seen. The third part deals with the category of private obstruction of the accused. Unlike the plaintiffs, the defendants do not need to have rights and interests in the relevant land. As long as the defendants have implemented the prejudice infringement act, they will bear the responsibility. In addition, employers and lessors, even if they did not create prejudice, may, under certain circumstances, be the defendants in a private obstruction of action. The occupier may be liable to the landowner if the obstruction is caused by his employee or is accepted or sustained for his own purposes, or if the occupant knows or should have known that the previous property owner created a dangerous condition . In general, the lessor renting out the property to the owner, the owner has full control of the property, the lessor is no longer responsible. However, in some cases, the lessor still has to take responsibility for the damage caused by the neighboring land. When the lessor empowers the lessee to create the obstruction, either explicitly or implicitly, or the lessor knows or ought to know the existence of the obstruction prior to the rental of the property or the lessor commits to repair the property or has the right to enter the property for repair, Neighboring property caused by the prejudice to bear the responsibility. The fourth part concludes with a summary of the qualifications of the British private nuisance defendants.