Abstract

Although the assumption of responsibility concept pervades the English law of negligence, its meaning remains hazy and its significance contested. While the courts employ the language of assumption of responsibility on a regular basis, no clear judicial definition of it has emerged. And commentators are divided as to whether assumption of responsibility is a distinct ground on which liability is imposed, or merely a foil for policy arguments – or for another, more general, test for the recognition of duties of care. Matters are complicated by the fact that assumption of responsibility does not fit neatly within the orthodox categories of ‘tort’ and ‘contract’, but hovers uncertainly between the two. The aim of this article is to try to bring some clarity to the controversies surrounding assumption of responsibility. Four questions frame the analysis. What does assumption of responsibility mean? When does it matter? Why do we need it? And where does it belong? Although the answers to some of these questions are necessarily tentative, at least one conclusion should become clear, namely that assumption of responsibility is a meaningful and distinctive basis on which to impose negligence liability.

中文翻译：

---

责任承担：四个问题

摘要

尽管责任概念的假设遍布英国的过失法则，但其含义仍然模糊不清，其意义也受到质疑。尽管法院定期采用承担责任的语言，但尚无明确的司法定义。对于是否承担责任是施加责任的明确依据，还是仅仅是政策论点的挫败，或者是对护理义务的认可的另一种更普遍的测试，评论员存在分歧。责任承担并不完全符合“侵权”和“合同”的正统范畴，而是不确定地徘徊在两者之间，这一事实使事情变得复杂。本文的目的是试图使有关承担责任的争议更加清晰。什么没有责任的前提是什么意思？什么时候重要？我们为什么需要它？而且在那里它属于？尽管对其中一些问题的答案必定是试验性的，但至少应得出一个结论，即承担责任是施加过失责任的有意义且独特的基础。