Abstract:The traditional liability imputation system of tort law is based on fault liability and danger liability, in which danger liability is considered as an exception to fault liability. The traditional fault liability principle consists of two facets, that is "Where there is fault, there is liability" and "No fault, no liability". However, as the rising of intercourse safety responsibility (Verkehrspflichten), the evolution of fault liability and the expansion of liability without fault, the tort law seems to fall into a state of chaos. Behind the chaotic state, the evolution of liability imputation system of tort law demonstrates that the principle of "No fault, no liability" has been gradually replaced by the rising of risk liability. This fundamental change means that the modern tort law no longer adopts the principle of "casum sentit dominus", but distributes the liability of damage without fault between the parties by deciding who should carry on the risk. The elements of deciding the risk domains includes acquisition of interest, initializing and maintaining risk, reliance, possibility of damage distribution, possibility of self—protection, and so on. In addition, the theory of risk domain has the ability to establish an open and dynamic liability distribution system. In individual cases, it can reach the balance among different elements of considerations. The new dual liability imputation system of modern tort law should consist of fault liability and risk liability, and the risk liability can replace all the liability without fault including the danger liability (Gef(a|¨)hrdungshaftung), liability without fault in intercourse safety responsibility (Verkehrspflichten) and equitable liability. The legislation of risk liability can adopt the mode of combining general provisions with specific types of risk liability.

Vicarious liability under a negligence rule

On the Formal Structure of Unit Crime

Reconsideration of Distribution of Liabilities of Crime Committed by an Entity

Disclosure in insurance law: a comparative analysis

Liability rules can rationalize greater victim vulnerability

The Principle of Culpability and Foreseeablity in Negligent Crime

Liability Design with Information Acquisition

On the Use of Loose Monitoring and Lavish Pay in Agency

Study on Double Moral Hazard Prevention Based on Overconfidence

On the Nature of State Compensation

Research on the Boundaries of Finding Directors Fault in the Tort of Misrepresentation

Managerial liability and corporate innovation: Evidence from a legal shock

On the negligence of unit crime

The Studies of Negligent Crime

Reconstructing Dual Liability Imputation System of Tort Law:Risk Domain Theory

Precarious Liability: the High Court in Lepore, Samin and Rich on School Responsibility for Assaults by Teachers

Repeated Contracting with Multiple Non-Myopic Agents: Policy Regret and Limited Liability

Principal-agent Relationship and Agency Problem

Who is Responsible? Explaining Safety Violations in Multi-Agent Cyber-Physical Systems

Tort Liability And Unawareness

Allocating Liability among Several Physicians: A Theoretical Model