ДЕЛИКТНАЯ ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТЬ В СООТВЕТСТВИИ С ДОЛЕЙ НА РЫНКЕ

Автор

, кандидат юридических наук, ассистент, Харьков, Пушкинская, 77

В рубрике

Экономический анализ права;

Подписано в печать

30.06.2020

Номер выпуска

2020 - № 3 (42)

Страница

49-63

Тип статьи

Научная статья

Код УДК

347.51

ISSN print

2411-5584

Аннотация

Статья посвящена исследованию концепции деликтной ответственности согласно доли на рынке, которая была сформулирована Верховным судом Калифорнии в деле Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories. Исследованы условия применимости этой концепции и дистрибутивные последствия ее применения. Дистрибутивные эффекты этой концепции сравниваются с дистрибутивными эффектами стандартных правил деликтной ответственности, применяемых в условиях совершенной осведомленности.

Ключевые слова

причинная связь, неопределимая причинность, альтернативная ответственность, ответственность в соответствии с долей на рынке, диэтилстилбестрол.

Рецензент

Внешний рецензент

Статья в PDF

49-63

Список литературы

1. Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal. 3d 588 (1980). Retrieved from http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/26C3d588.htm.
2. Donska, L. D. (2006). Prychynnyi zviazok u tsyvilnomu pravi Ukrainy [Causal connection in civil law of Ukraine]. (Candidate’s thesis). Odesa [in Ukrainian].
3. Bolotova, H. D. (2015). Do pytannia prychynnoho zviazku u hospodarskykh sporakh pro vidshkoduvannia zbytkiv [On the issue of causal connection in commercial disputes about damages]. Ekonomika ta parvo – Economics and Law, 2 (41), 53–56 [in Ukrainian].
4. Vavzhenchuk, S., & Dovhopol, V. (2011). Mezhi rozuminnia yurydychnoi pryrody prychynnoho zviazku v tsyvilnomu pravi [The boundaries of understanding the legal nature of causation in civil law]. Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo – Entrepreneurship, economy and law, 2, 13–15 [in Ukrainian].
5. Hapalo, S. Yu. (2008). Prychynnyi zviazok mizh protypravnoiu povedinkoiu porushnyka hospodarskoho zoboviazannia ta zbytkamy yak pidstava hospodarsko-pravovoi vidpovidalnosti [Causal link between the wrongful conduct of the wrongdoer and damages as a basis of economic legal liability]. Universytetski naukovi zapysky – University Scientific Notes, 1, 132–137 [in Ukrainian].
6. Kulitska, S. V. (2016). Osoblyvosti prychynnoho zviazku u zoboviazanniakh po vidshkoduvanniu (kompensatsii) shkody, zapodiianoi vnaslidok protypravnoi diialnosti / bezdiialnosti orhaniv sudovoi vlady [Peculiarities of causal connection in obligations for compensation (compensation) for damage caused as a result of illegal activity / inaction of judicial authorities]. Visnyk Odeskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia: Pravoznavstvo – Bulletin of the Odessa National University. Series: Jurisprudence, vol. 21, issue 1 (28) [in Ukrainian].
7. Pendiaha, A. L. (2011). Znachennia prychynnoho zviazku yak pidstavy tsyvilno-pravovoi vidpovidalnosti [The meaning of causation as the basis of civil liability]. Ekonomika, finansy, pravo – Economics, finance, law, 4, 34–36 [in Ukrainian].
8. Prymak, V. (2014). Prychynno-naslidkovyi zviazok yak umova vidshkoduvannia moralnoi shkody kriz pryzmu vymoh spravedlyvosti, rozumnosti y dobrosovisnosti [Causal connection as a precondition for the compensation of moral harm through the prism of the requirements equity, good faith and reasonablity]. Yurydychna Ukraina – Legal Ukraine, 1, 25–30 [in Ukrainian].
9. Sheiner, N. (1978). DES and a Proposed Theory of Enterprise Liability. Fordham Law Review, 46(5), 963–1007.
10. Koperski, B. J. (1981). Market Share Liability for DES (Diethylstilbestrol) Injury: A New High Water Mark in Tort Law: Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories. Nebraska Law Review, 60 (2), 432–449.
11. Market Share Liability: An Answer to the DES Causation Problem. (1981). Harvard Law Review, 94(3), 668–680.
12. Morgan, E. (1983). Market Share Liability for Injurious Products: A Comment on Sindell. University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review, 41, 52–62.
13. Market Share Liability Adopted to Overcome Defendant Identification Requirement in DES Litigation, Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories. (1981). Washington University Law Quarterly, 59 (2), 571–584.
14. Redemann, B. B. (1980). Manufacturers’ Liability Based on a Market Share Theory: Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories. Tulsa Law Journal, 16 (2), 286–316.
15. Sheffet, M. J. (1983). Market Share Liability: A New Doctrine of Causation in Product Liability. Journal of Marketing, 47 (1), 35–43.
16. Taylor, N. D. (1981). California Expands Tort Liability under the Novel Market Share Theory: Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories. Pepperdine Law Review, 8, 1011–1043.
17. Madden, M. S., & Holian, J. (2007). Defendant Indeterminacy: New Wine into Old Skins. Louisiana Law Review, 67 (3), 785–822.
18. Marshack, R. A. (1982). Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories: Is Market Share Liability the Best Remedy to the DES Controversy. California Western Law Review, 18, 143–177.
19. Sheiner, N. (1978). DES and a Proposed Theory of Enterprise Liability. Fordham Law Review, 46 (5), 963–1007.
20. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948). Retrieved from http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C2/33C2d80.htm.
21. Karnaukh, B. (2020). Neziasovna prychynnist: dylema dvokh myslyvtsiv. (Uncertain causation: two hunters dilemma). Problemy zakonnosti - Problems of Legality, 149, 49–61 [in Ukrainian].
22. Hall v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., (E.D.N.Y. 1972). 345 F. Supp. 353. Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/345/353/1891705/.
23. Kors, R. A. (1981). Refining Market Share Liability: Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories. Stanford Law Review, 33, 937-950.
24. Miller, K. C., & Hancock, J. D. (1985). Perspectives on Market Share Liability: Time for a Reassessment. West Virginia Law Review, 88, 81–112.

Код DOI

10.31359/2411-5584-2020-42-3-49

30.06.2020