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.

Liability rules can rationalize greater victim vulnerability

Firm Liability When Third Parties and Consumers Incur Cumulative Harm

Liability Design with Information Acquisition

Vicarious liability under a negligence rule

Allocating Liability among Several Physicians: A Theoretical Model

Tort Liability And Unawareness

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

Liability design for autonomous vehicles and human-driven vehicles: A hierarchical game-theoretic approach

Accident Compensation Liability Without Fault- the New Zealand Experience

The Public Life of Private Law: Tort Law as a Risk Regulation Mechanism

Liability Rules for AI-Related Harm: Law and Economics Lessons for a European Approach

Tort Law Compensation for the Loss of Chance of Transactions Profit

If negligence is intentionality’s cousin, recklessness is it’s sibling: Differentiating negligence and recklessness from accidents and intentional harm

The Relationship and Development Tendency between Liability Insurance and Tort law

Liability Determination of School Sports Injury Accidents: An Analysis Framework Based on Evolutionary Game

Unintended Consequences of Products Liability: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Market*

Product Liability in a Global Context: the Hollow Victory of the European Model

On the Civil Interests Protected by Tort Liability Law

The Awkward Middle for Automated Vehicles: Liability Attribution Rules When Humans and Computers Share Driving Responsibilities

Abetting a Crime: A New Approach

Market Solutions to Externality Problems: Theory and Practice