罗兰诉克里斯蒂安案:扩张性时代的标志

Rowland v.Christian:Hallmark of an Expansionary Era

通过罗兰诉克里斯蒂安案判决,加利福尼亚最高法院废弃了基于土地进入者的身份来认定土地占有人注意义务的分类处理模式。但是,该案的当事人在陈述中并没有说明,引起损害发生的缺陷是隐蔽的还是显而易见的。该案当事人也无意废除上述分类处理模式。然而,加利福尼亚最高法院基于积极司法决策改变了对案件事实的认定,将被告享有的保险作为认定注意义务标准需要考虑的因素,进而要求土地占有人对所有土地进入者均负有通常注意义务。罗兰诉克里斯蒂安案判决对美国土地占有人责任法律产生了深远的影响,几乎有一半的州在该案判决出台之后重塑了土地占有人责任法律。但该案判决也引发了对侵权责任法基本观念的再思考,即不当行为和不履行义务的区分。接受罗兰诉克里斯蒂安案判决还是维持分类处理模式,也体现了规则与标准之间的张力。

In the landmark Rowland v.Christian opinion,the Supreme Court of California abolished the categories of invitee,licensee,and trespasser,which had limited the duties owed by land occupiers for accidental harm based on the status of the land entrant.However,the parties in the case did not mention,whether the defect was concealed or obvious.Both parties neither urged the court to reconsider the legitimacy of the categories nor discussed the possibility of the abandonment of the categories.Through the proactive judicial decision-making,the Supreme Court of California transformed the case and took insurance as a factor in determining the general duty of due care of land occupiers,so that the land occupiers owed ordinary care to all land entrants.Rowland v.Christian hat a profound influence on the law of land occupier liability in America.Nearly half the states have recast their law of land occupier liability since Rowland v.Christian.Moreover,the decision provokes reassessment of fundamental point of tort liability:distinction between misfeasance and nonfeasance.Whether the Rowland should be accepted or the categories should be maintained,reflects the tension between rules and standards.