这是用户在 2025-7-31 21:36 为 https://app.immersivetranslate.com/pdf-pro/45ed5d69-d728-40e9-be9c-45b54c074c19/ 保存的双语快照页面，由 沉浸式翻译 提供双语支持。了解如何保存？
J.F. Fletcher (ed) Ideas in Action: Essays on Politics and Law in Honow of Peter Russell, Toronto: University of Toronto Press
J.F. 弗莱彻（编）《思想与行动：彼得·拉塞尔纪念文集：政治与法律论文集》，多伦多：多伦多大学出版社。
Prokhovnik, R. (2002) Rational Women: A Feminist Critique of Dichotomp, 2nd edn, Manchester: Manchester University Press
普罗霍夫尼科夫，R.（2002）《理性女性：对二元对立的女性主义批判》，第 2 版，曼彻斯特：曼彻斯特大学出版社。
Pryor, E.S. (2003) ‘Rehabilitating Tort Compensation’, Georgetoch Law Jounal, 91 : 659 91 : 659 91:65991: 659
普赖尔，E.S.（2003）《损害赔偿的恢复》，乔治城法律期刊， 91 : 659 91 : 659 91:65991: 659
Rabin, R., (2006) ‘Pain and Suffering and Beyond: Some Thoughts on Recovery for Intangible Loss’, De Paul Law Review, 55: 359
拉宾，R.（2006）《疼痛与苦难及其超越：关于无形损失赔偿的几点思考》，《德保罗法律评论》，55: 359。
Radin, M.J. (1993) ‘Compensation and Commensurability’, Duke Law Jounal, 43 : 56 43 : 56 43:5643: 56
拉丁，M.J.（1993）《补偿与可比性》，《杜克法律期刊》， 43 : 56 43 : 56 43:5643: 56
Reaume, D.G. (2004) ‘Insurance and Intentional Torts: The Case of Scxual Battery’, Torts Lave Journal, 12: 76
雷姆，D.G.（2004）《保险与故意侵权：性侵案件的案例分析》，侵权法评论，12: 76
Richardson, J. (2007) ‘On Not Making Ourselves the Prey of Others: Jean Hampton’s Feminist Contractarianism’, Feminist Legal Studies, 15: 33
理查森，J.（2007）《论不让自己成为他人的猎物：珍·汉普顿的女性主义契约论》，《女性主义法律研究》，15: 33
Roberts J.V. (2009) ‘Listening to the Crime Victim: Evaluating Victim Input at Sentencing and Parole’, Crime and Justice: A Reviow of Research, 38: 347
罗伯茨，J.V.（2009）《倾听犯罪受害者：量刑与假释阶段对受害者意见的评估》，《犯罪与正义：研究综述》，38: 347
Ruda, L.M. (1993) ‘Caps on Noneconomic Damages and the Female Plaintiff: Heeding the Warning Signs’, Case Il’estem Reserve Lave Reviere, 44: 197
鲁达，L.M.（1993）《非经济损害赔偿上限与女性原告：警惕警示信号》，《案例法评论》，44: 197
Seidman I. and Vickers, S. (2005) ‘The Second Wave: An Agenda for the Next Thirty Years of Rape Reform’, Suffolk University Law Reviter, 38: 467
塞德曼，I. 和维克尔斯，S. (2005) 《第二波：未来三十年强奸改革议程》，萨福克大学法律评论，38: 467
Spitz, L. (2005) ‘I Think, Therefore I Am; I Feel, Therefore I Am Taxed: Descartes, Tort Reform, and the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act’, New Mexico Law Review, 35: 429
斯皮茨，L.（2005）《我思故我在；我感受故我被征税：笛卡尔、侵权改革与民权税收减免法案》，《新墨西哥法律评论》，35: 429
Statistics Canada (2006) Measuring Violence Against Women: Statistical Trends 2006, Conmissioned by Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministrics responsible for the Status of Women, Ottawa: M. Minister of Industry
加拿大统计局（2006）《测量针对妇女的暴力行为：2006 年统计趋势》，由联邦/省/地区负责妇女地位的部长委托编制，渥太华：工业部长。
Statistics Canada (2008) Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Profile: Sexual Assault in Canada 2004 and 2007, Ottawa: Minister of Industry
加拿大统计局（2008）加拿大司法统计中心报告：加拿大性侵情况（2004 年与 2007 年），渥太华：工业部长。
Stock, J.L., Bell, M.A., Boyer, D.K. and Connell, F.A. (1997) ‘Adolescent Pregnancy and Sexual Risk-Taking Among Sexually Abused Girls’, Family Planing Perspottives, 29: 200 Streseman, K.D. (1995) ‘Headshrinkers, Mammunchers, Moneygrubbers, Nuts & Stuts
斯托克，J.L.，贝尔，M.A.，博耶，D.K.和康奈尔，F.A.(1997) 《性虐待女孩中的青少年怀孕与性冒险行为》，《家庭计划展望》，29: 200 斯特雷斯曼，K.D. (1995) 《头颅收割者、乳头吮吸者、金钱掠夺者、疯子与傻瓜》
Real Exminations in Seall Hown H Reenaming Compeled Mental Exammations in Sexual Harassment Actions Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991’, Comell Law Reuew, 80: 1268
《1991 年民权法案下性骚扰诉讼中强制精神鉴定在实际案件中的应用》，康奈尔法律评论，80: 1268
Sutherland, K. (1993) ‘Measuring Pain: Quantifying Damages in Civil Suits for Sexual Assault’, in K. Cooper-Stephenson and E. Gibson (eds) Tort Theory, North York, Ont: Captus University Publications
萨瑟兰，K.（1993）《疼痛的测量：性侵民事诉讼中损害赔偿的量化》，载于 K.库珀-斯蒂芬森和 E.吉布森（编）《侵权法理论》，安大略省北约克：卡普图斯大学出版社。
Trickett P.K. and Putnam, F.W. (1993) ‘Impact of Child Sexual Abuse on Females: Loward a Developmental, Psychobiological Integration’. Psychological Science, 4: 81
特里克特，P.K. 和 普特南，F.W. (1993) 《儿童性虐待对女性的影响：向发展与心理生物学整合的转变》。《心理科学》，4: 81
Walser R.D. and Kern, J.M. (1996) ‘Relationships Among Childhood Sexual Abuse, Sex Guilt, and Sexual Behavior in Adult Clinical Samples’, Joumal of Sex Research, 33 : 321 33 : 321 33:32133: 321
瓦尔瑟，R.D. 和 肯，J.M. (1996) 《儿童期性虐待、性罪恶感与成人临床样本中性行为之间的关系》，《性研究杂志》， 33 : 321 33 : 321 33:32133: 321
Watson, P. (2010) ‘Redressing Dignitary Injuries and Non-Economic Loss in Novel Torts: Challenges for the Law of Remedies’, in J. Berryman and R. Bigwood (eds) The Law of Remedies; Nee Dirctions in the Common Laee, Toronto: Irwin Law
沃森，P.（2010）《重新审视新型侵权行为中的尊严损害与非经济损失：救济法面临的挑战》，载于 J.贝里曼和 R.比格伍德（编）《救济法：普通法的新方向》，多伦多：艾尔温法律出版社。
West, R. (1991) ‘The Difference in Women’s Hedonic Lives: A Phenomenological Critique of Feminist Legal Theory’, in M. Fineman and T. Thomadsen (eds) at the Botndaries of Laee: Fominism and Legal Thoor, New York: Routledge
韦斯特，R.（1991）《女性享乐生活的差异：对女性主义法律理论的现象学批判》，载于 M. 芬曼和 T. 托马森（编）《法律的边界：女性主义与法律理论》，纽约：路特利奇出版社。
Wishik, H.R. (1985) ‘To Question Everything: The Inquiries of Feminist Jurisprudence’, Bokely Women’s Lau Journal, 1: 64
维希克，H.R.（1985）《质疑一切：女性主义法理学的探索》，《博克利妇女法律期刊》，1: 64
Wriggins, J.B. (2005) ‘Toward a Feminist Revision of Torts’, American University Jounal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law’, 13: 139
Wriggins, J.B. (2005) 《走向女性主义侵权法重构》，《美国大学性别、社会政策与法律期刊》，13: 139
Wriggins, Jemnifer (2001) ‘Domestic Violence Torts’, Southem Califomia Law Reuitu, 75: 121 Zipursky, B.C. (2003) ‘Civil Recourse, Not Corrective Justice’, Grorgetown Law Joumal, 91: 695
Wriggins, Jemnifer (2001) 《家庭暴力侵权行为》，《南加州法律评论》，75: 121Zipursky, B.C. (2003) 《民事救济，而非矫正正义》，《乔治城法律期刊》，91: 695

Damaging Stereotypes: the Return of 'Hoovering as a Hobby'
有害的刻板印象： "吸尘作为爱好"的卷土重来

Reg Graycar*  雷格·格雷卡*

Introduction  导言

More than a quarter of a century ago, I first discovered that cases about personal injury damages assessment, a seemingly gender neutral arca of law, graphically illustrate how what appear to be neutral or ‘black letter’ rules and legal principles can in fact operate in ways that significantly disadvantage women (Graycar 1985a; 1985b). Throughout the late 1980s and 1990s and into this century, I have explored the gendered nature of damages assessment in some detail (see Graycar 1992; 1993; 1995; 1997; 2002; 2003). Examining how those clamages are calculated, and the many ways in which they tend to be reduced in cases involving women, casts light on some of the ways that unstated assumptions about gender, and about the differing roles of women and men, affect legal decision making more broadly.
二十五年前，我首次发现，关于人身伤害赔偿评估的案件——这一看似与性别无关的法律领域——生动地揭示了看似中立或“成文”的规则和法律原则实际上可能以显著不利于女性的方式运作（Graycar 1985a; 1985b）。在 20 世纪 80 年代末至 90 年代以及本世纪初，我对损害赔偿评估的性别差异进行了详细探讨（见 Graycar 1992；1993；1995；1997；2002；2003）。通过分析这些索赔的计算方式，以及在涉及女性的案件中它们往往被削减的多种方式，可以揭示一些未明言的性别假设，以及关于女性与男性不同角色观念，如何更广泛地影响法律决策过程。
This chapter looks back at that work and asks whether some of that critique has had the effect of ameliorating any of that identified gendered disadvantage. However, before that question can be addressed, it is necessary to explain the gendered nature of damages assessment in somewhat more detail.
本章回顾了相关研究，并探讨其中部分批判是否在一定程度上缓解了已识别出的性别差异带来的不利影响。然而，在回答这一问题之前，有必要对损害评估中的性别差异问题进行更为详细的阐述。
There are three main ways in which women can be disadvantaged in the context of clamages assessments, and I consider each of these in this chapter. First, where women are injured in accidents, their damages for loss of earning capacity (the loss of capacity to do paid work that is brought about by the accident) tend to be artificially depressed by gendered assumptions about women’s lack of attachment to the paid labour market and the assumption that women’s paid work is secondary to their role as mothers and carers. Secondly, a woman’s loss of capacity to work in the home, doing non-market or caring work, has historically been treated by the law as a loss to someone else, through the action for loss of consortium. Some jurisdictions have either abolished the action for loss of consortium, or extended it to women for loss of their husband’s consortium, but for reasons explained below, neither approach effectively addresses the gendered assumptions about the nature of the loss. Even in those cases where such a loss is treated as a woman’s own loss, rather than a loss to someone else, as the discussion below will show, it tends to be treated as a loss of amenity - a non-economic loss. This characterisation is significant because damages for non-economic loss have increasingly been targeted by legislatures for either reduction or abolition altogether.
在赔偿评估的背景下，女性可能面临三种主要的不利处境，本章将分别探讨这三种情况。首先，当女性在事故中受伤时，其因事故导致的劳动能力丧失赔偿（即事故导致的从事有偿工作能力的丧失）往往因性别刻板印象而被人为压低。这些刻板印象认为女性对有偿劳动市场的依附性较弱，且女性的有偿工作次于其作为母亲和照顾者的角色。其次，女性在家庭中从事非市场或照料工作而丧失的工作能力，历来被法律视为对他人造成的损失，通过“丧失配偶伴侣关系赔偿”主张来实现。部分司法管辖区已废除该主张，或将其扩展至女性因丧失丈夫的配偶伴侣关系而获得赔偿，但如后文将解释，这两种做法均未能有效解决对损失性质的性别偏见。即使在那些将此类损失视为女性自身损失而非他人损失的案例中，如下文将讨论的，此类损失通常被视为便利损失——一种非经济损失。这种定性具有重要意义，因为非经济损失的赔偿金近年来 increasingly 成为立法机构削减或彻底废除的目标。
Finally, assumptions about gender also affect the assessment of damages for the costs of caring for accident victims. Many accident victims need considerable amounts of post accident care, care that is often provided by close family members. But that formulation of the issue is, like many such propositions, deceptively genderneutral: most of the earers of accident victims are women. Care for children, the aged, the sick, people with disabilities, and people otherwise unable to look after themselves, is considered quintessentially women’s work - even where, as will be illustrated, it is done by men-and valued (or perhaps, more accurately, devalued) accordingly.
最后，关于性别的假设也会影响对事故受害者护理成本的损害赔偿评估。许多事故受害者需要大量事故后的护理，而这种护理通常由亲属提供。但这种问题表述，如同许多类似论断，具有欺骗性的性别中立性：事故受害者的护理者大多是女性。照顾儿童、老年人、病人、残疾人以及其他无法自理的人，被视为典型的女性工作——即使如后文将要说明的，这些工作也可能由男性来完成——并且相应地被评价（或许更准确地说，被贬低）。
The examples given in this chapter are mostly, though not exclusively, from Australia. Many of them are not particularly recent. But their continued relevance lies in the fact that an area of law generally seen as somewhat prosaic and certainly not usually seen as raising gender issues (in the manner of, say, scxual assault law, or family law) is, when closely examined, replete with unstated gendered assumptions. The purpose, therefore, of unmasking the ‘hidden gender’ of damages assessment is to remind us that any area of law is equally susceptible to a gendered analysis (compare Graycar and Morgan 2002).
本章所举例证主要来自澳大利亚，但并非全部如此。其中许多例证并非特别新近。然而，其持续相关性在于：一个通常被视为较为枯燥、且绝不会被视为涉及性别问题的法律领域（例如性侵法或家庭法），在仔细考察后，实际上充斥着未明言的性别假设。因此，揭示损害赔偿评估中的“隐性性别”的目的是提醒我们，任何法律领域都同样可能受到性别分析的影响（参见 Graycar 和 Morgan 2002）。

Damages for loss of earning capacity: loss of capacity to do paid work
因丧失劳动能力而造成的损害赔偿：丧失从事有偿工作的能力

When women are injurced in an accident, assessment of their damages can be negatively affected by stereotypes and assumptions. Sometimes this happens explicitly, for example by the use of depressed ‘female’ wage figures or ‘female’ work life tables for women.’ Equally importantly, though less overtly, sometimes this happens implicitly through the use of stereotypes and gendered assumptions about women’s lack of attachment to the paid labour market. Each of these will be considered in turn.
当女性在事故中受伤时，对其损害的评估可能受到刻板印象和假设的负面影响。有时这种情况会明确地表现出来，例如使用“女性”工资数据或“女性”工作寿命表来评估女性的损害。同样重要的是，尽管这种情况不太明显，但有时它会通过对女性缺乏对有偿劳动市场依附性的刻板印象和性别假设来隐性地发生。我们将分别讨论这些情况。

The use of gendered (or racialised) actuarial data to calculate loss of future earning capacity
使用基于性别（或种族）的精算数据来计算未来收入损失能力

There is a considerable literature in North America dealing with the use of explicitly gendered and sometimes race-specific actuarial tables in the context of damages assessment. 2 2 ^(2){ }^{2} This trend of using gendered wage tables does not seem to have captured widespread currency in Australia, although it is certainly not wholly absent from damages assessments. For example, in one case in NSW, the plaintiff was a young woman and the Court of Appeal had to choose between using average female carnings to estimate her loss of future earning capacity, or using median female earnings (Rosnial v Government Insurance Office [1997]). Notably, no question was raised about whether it was appropriate to use female wage rates, which have been and continue to be consistently lower than men’s. 3 3 ^(3){ }^{3}
北美地区存在大量文献探讨在损害赔偿评估中使用明确区分性别、有时甚至区分种族的精算表。 2 2 ^(2){ }^{2} 这种使用性别工资表的趋势似乎并未在澳大利亚广泛流行，尽管它在损害赔偿评估中绝非完全缺失。例如，在新南威尔士州的一起案件中，原告是一名年轻女性，上诉法院必须在使用女性平均工资来估算其未来收入损失，还是使用女性中位数工资（Rosnial v Government Insurance Office [1997]）之间做出选择。值得注意的是，没有人质疑使用女性工资率的适当性，而女性工资率一直且继续低于男性工资率。 3 3 ^(3){ }^{3}
By contrast, the use of such data has been commented upon critically by courts in both the United States and Canada. Onc of the earliest such discussions was in
相比之下，美国和加拿大法院对这类数据的使用也提出了批评。其中最早的讨论之一出现在
a 1991 decision from British Columbia called Tucker v Asleson [1991]. There the female plaintiff 1 1 ^(1){ }^{1} argucd that her loss of future carning capacity should be assessed on the basis of tables of average carnings for a university educated man (an amount of $ 9 + 7 , 000 $ 9 + 7 , 000 $9+7,000\$ 9+7,000 ) while the defendant argued that female tables should be used (because of the history of sex discrimination in employment, this would have amounted to a mere $ 302 , 000 $ 302 , 000 $302,000\$ 302,000 ). The trial judge accepted the plaintiff’s argument about the use of male wage figures, a decision that was not disturbed by the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Tucher v Asleson [1993]).
1991 年不列颠哥伦比亚省的一项裁决，案名为 Tucker v Asleson [1991]。在该案中，女原告 1 1 ^(1){ }^{1} 主张，其未来抚养能力损失应根据大学毕业男性的平均抚养标准表进行评估（金额为 $ 9 + 7 , 000 $ 9 + 7 , 000 $9+7,000\$ 9+7,000 ），而被告则主张应使用女性抚养标准表（鉴于就业领域长期存在的性别歧视，此举将构成一种 $ 302 , 000 $ 302 , 000 $302,000\$ 302,000 ）。一审法官采纳了原告关于使用男性工资数据的论点，该裁决未被不列颠哥伦比亚省上诉法院多数意见推翻（Tucker v Asleson [1993]）。
In 2005, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice which had decided to reject the use of female wage data in assessing damages for a 17 -year-old girl catastrophically injured in an accident, who, at the time of her injury, had not yet completed high school (Walker v Ritchie [2005]. 5 5 ^(5){ }^{5} Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal reviewed the Canadian case law on this issue, starting with Tucker a Asleson. The trial judge had concluded:
2005 年，安大略省上诉法院维持了安大略省高等法院的一项裁决，该裁决拒绝在评估一名 17 岁女孩因事故造成严重伤害的损害赔偿时使用女性工资数据。该女孩在受伤时尚未完成高中教育（Walker v Ritchie [2005]）。 5 5 ^(5){ }^{5} 无论是地方法院还是上诉法院，均审查了加拿大在此问题上的判例法，其中以 Tucker v Asleson 案为起点。地方法院法官得出结论：
In my view, the use of statistical figures which reflect the entire population, without division as to gender . . . avoids the problem of having two separate tables and then having to choose between them and apply what seem like appropriate adjustments. The choice of the general average figures for university graduates seems especially appropriate here where the court is attempting to make a forecast stretching many years into the future, and where a couple of the suggested future professions, barring the accident, are teaching in which pay equity has been achieved, and human kinetics, where a good deal of the employment is with government or government supported institutions, where pay equity is mandated.
在我看来，使用反映整个人口的统计数据，而不按性别进行划分……可以避免出现两个独立的表格，然后在两者之间进行选择并应用看似适当的调整。在法院试图对未来多年做出预测的情况下，选择大学毕业生的总体平均数据似乎尤为合适。此外，所提议的未来职业中，除意外情况外，部分职业如教师已实现薪资平等，而人体运动学领域的大部分就业岗位属于政府或政府支持的机构，这些机构均强制执行薪资平等政策。
(Walker v Ritchie [2004]: [135])
（沃克在里奇[2004]: [135]）
The Ontario Court of Appeal endorsed this approach, noting that while damages assessments must be based on the particular evidence in the individual case, a ‘court must be equally cognizant of the fact that gender-based earnings statistics are grounded in retrospective historical data that may no longer accurately project the income a person would achieve in the future’ (Walker v Ritthic [2004]: [55]).
安大略省上诉法院采纳了这一做法，指出虽然损害赔偿的评估必须基于个案中的具体证据，但“法院必须同样意识到，基于性别的收入统计数据是建立在回顾性历史数据之上的，这些数据可能不再准确地预测一个人在未来能够获得的收入”（Walker v Ritthic [2004]: [55]）。
In their recently published treatise, The Measure of Injury: Race, Gouder, and Tort Law, Martha Chamallas and Jemnifer Wriggins provide an overview of the status of gendered and racialised wage tables in assessing personal injury damages in the United States (Chamallas and Wriggins 2010: 158-70). They refer to a 2008 judgment where it was held that the use of raced life expectancy data to calculate personal injury damages in tort cases violates the equal protection and due process guarantees enshrincd by the US Constitution (Chamallas and Wriggins 2010: 156; sce also Wriggins 2008: 53-7). The court was hearing a case involving an African American victim of the 2003 Staten Island Ferry crash, and held that ‘by allowing the use of “racc”-based life expectancy tables, which are based on historical data, courts are essentially reinforcing the underlying social inequalities of our society rather than describing a significant biological difference’ (Mcilillan u’ City of New Lork [2008]).
在他们最近发表的专著《伤害的衡量：种族、古德尔与侵权法》中，玛莎·查马拉斯和杰姆尼弗·里金斯对美国在评估人身伤害赔偿时使用性别化和种族化的工资表的现状进行了概述（查马拉斯和里金斯 2010: 158-70）。他们援引了 2008 年的一项判决，该判决认为，在侵权案件中使用基于种族的预期寿命数据来计算人身伤害赔偿违反了美国宪法所保障的平等保护和正当程序原则（Chamallas and Wriggins 2010: 156；参见 Wriggins 2008: 53-7）。法院审理了一起涉及 2003 年斯塔滕岛渡轮事故中一名非裔美国受害者的案件，并裁定：“允许使用基于种族（“racc”）的预期寿命表格——这些表格基于历史数据——法院实际上是在强化我们社会中存在的根本性社会不平等，而非描述显著的生物学差异”（麦克利兰诉纽约市案[2008]）。
While the focus of this decision was raced life expectancy figures, Weinstein J also commented that "Courts are increasingly troubled by “race”- and gender-based figures for calculating loss of future income’ (253) before going on to review some of the cases that had applied raced earnings related data, to the cletriment of plaintiffs. Those he considered included Wheeler Tarpeh-Doe v United States [1991]. 6 6 ^(6){ }^{6} Although it would perhaps be premature to see the decision in McAfillan as having the effect of reversing the trend of using raced or gendered wage tables, the focus on the clubious constitutionality of that practice, at least in relation to life expectancy, does suggest that it might soon come to be viewed as inappropriate (Chamallas and Wriggins 2010: 166). ? ?  ^("? "){ }^{\text {? }}
尽管本案的焦点在于种族差异的预期寿命数据，韦恩斯坦法官还指出，法院越来越对“基于种族和性别的数据用于计算未来收入损失”感到担忧（253），随后他审查了部分适用种族相关收入数据的案件，这些案件对原告不利。他提及的案例包括 Wheeler Tarpeh-Doe v United States [1991]。 6 6 ^(6){ }^{6} 尽管或许尚早将麦卡菲兰案的裁决视为逆转使用种族或性别工资表趋势的标志，但其对该做法合宪性的质疑，至少在预期寿命问题上，确实暗示该做法可能很快被视为不恰当（Chamallas and Wriggins 2010: 166）。 ? ?  ^("? "){ }^{\text {? }}
Chamallas and Wriggins also refer to the approach taken by Kenneth Feinberg, the Special Master of the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, who ‘made a choice to ignore race and to reject the use of gender-based statistics that would have lowered awards for families of female victims’ on the basis of considerations of public policy and equity (Final Rule 2002; Chamallas 2003). They claim (perhaps optimistically) that what is most significant about these two recent US examples is:
查马拉斯和里金斯还提到了肯尼思·费恩伯格（Kenneth Feinberg）的做法，他是联邦“9·11 受害者赔偿基金”的特别主管。费恩伯格基于公共政策和公平考虑，选择忽视种族因素，并拒绝使用可能导致女性受害者家属赔偿金额降低的基于性别的统计数据（最终规则 2002；查马拉斯 2003）。他们声称（或许过于乐观），这两个最近的美国案例中最值得注意的是：
that, after years of neglecting the issue, some courts are finally expressing doubts about the legality and fairness of gender- and raced-based assessments and are reaching to reform damage calculations in a manner consistent with constitutional principles and civil rights norms.
经过多年对这一问题的忽视，一些法院终于开始对基于性别和种族的评估的合法性和公平性表示怀疑，并正在寻求以符合宪法原则和公民权利规范的方式改革损害赔偿计算方法。
(Chamallas and Wriggins 2010: 166)
（查马拉斯和里金斯 2010: 166）
But while it is important, at least symbolically, to confront the inherent bias that flows from using gendered or raced wage tables, the decision as to which table to use may not in fact be anywhere near as important to the final outcome of a case as a trial judge’s choice of what figure to use as the appropriate reduction for vicissitudes (the issue of ‘vicissitudes’ is discussed below, in the context of ‘implicit’ rather than explicit ways in which damages are reduced). In Tucker v v vv Asteson [1991] whic the judge used male rather than female figures, he then applied a 60 to 65 per cent reduction for vicissitudes, leading to a much smaller award. So the result is a somewhat hollow victory for the plaintiff. What this demonstrates clearly is that these explicitly gendered rationales for reduction of damages are perhaps not so separate as they may superficially appear from the less explicit uses of gender stereotypes. The same factors that lead to women’s average earnings being significantly less than those of men (such as the unequal distribution of work in the home and discriminatory assumptions about women’s lack of attachment to paid work) are relied on by courts to reduce damages for vicissitudes. Moreover, the use of gendered wage tables and a reduction for vicissitudes would constitute double discounting. On this basis, I would endorse the cautionary view of Supreme Court of Canada Justice Dickson in Andrews v Grand and Toy Alberta [1978]:
然而，尽管从象征意义上说，直面使用性别或种族工资表所固有的偏见是重要的，但选择使用哪张工资表的决定，可能实际上对案件最终结果的影响，远不如审判法官在裁量“变故”因素时选择何种数值作为适当减损比例重要（“变故”问题将在下文讨论，重点在于损害赔偿减损的“隐性”而非“显性”方式）。在 Tucker v. Asteson [1991]一案中，法官使用了男性而非女性数据，随后对变故因素适用 60%至 65%的减损比例，导致赔偿金额大幅减少。因此，原告的胜利显得有些名不副实。这清楚地表明，这些明确基于性别的损害赔偿减少理由，或许并非如表面上看起来的那样与性别刻板印象的隐性应用完全分离。导致女性平均收入显著低于男性的相同因素（如家庭中工作分配的不平等以及对女性缺乏对有偿工作依附性的歧视性假设），也被法院用于减少因变故而减少的损害赔偿。此外，使用性别工资表并因变故而减少赔偿构成双重折扣。基于此，我支持加拿大最高法院迪克森大法官在安德鲁斯诉格兰德与托伊阿尔伯塔案[1978]中的谨慎观点：
The apparent reliability of assessments provided by modern actuarial practice is largely illusionary for actuarial science deals with probabilities, not
现代精算实践所提供的评估结果看似可靠，但这种可靠性在很大程度上是虚幻的，因为精算科学研究的是概率，而非确定性。
actualities. . . [A]ctuarial evidence speaks in terms of group experience. It cannot, and does not purport to, speak as to the individual sufferer.
实际情况. . . [A]精算证据基于群体经验。它不能，也不声称能够，对个别受害者作出判断。

Assumptions about women's lack of attachment to the paid labour market
关于女性对有偿劳动市场缺乏依附性的假设

While gendered wage data may not have generated the same debates in Australia as in North America, the case law in this country is replete with examples of the implicit rationales - the ‘damaging stereotypes’ - that are used to reduce awards for loss of earning capacity to women accident victims (compare Graycar 1995). A case that reached Australia’s High Court provides a clear example ( 115 m e 2 N 2 H − 115 m e 2 N 2 H − 115 me^(2)N^(2)H^(-)115 m e{ }^{2} N{ }^{2} H^{-} Insurance Ministerial Corporation [1995a]). Maree Wym was injured in a motor vehicle accident when she was 30 and a senior employee of American Express. She had been promoted several times, had a number of staff responsible to her, and worked long hours, often working at home until 1 or 2 am . The extensive computer work aggravated her whiplash injury, and she was forced to resign at age 32. The work she undertook subsequently was far less remunerative and only part time. By the time her damages claim came to trial, she had married her long-term partner (with whom she lived while employed by American Express) and had a child.
尽管性别工资数据在澳大利亚可能并未引发与北美地区相同的激烈讨论，但该国的判例法中充斥着大量例证，揭示了用于削减女性事故受害者因丧失 earning capacity 而获得赔偿的隐性理由——即“有害的刻板印象”（参见 Graycar 1995）。一起上诉至澳大利亚最高法院的案件提供了清晰例证（ 115 m e 2 N 2 H − 115 m e 2 N 2 H − 115 me^(2)N^(2)H^(-)115 m e{ }^{2} N{ }^{2} H^{-} 保险部长公司案[1995a]）。玛丽·怀姆（Maree Wym）在 30 岁时遭遇机动车事故受伤，当时她是美国运通公司的高级员工。她曾多次晋升，管理多名下属，并经常加班至凌晨 1 点或 2 点。大量计算机工作加剧了她的颈椎损伤，她被迫在 32 岁时辞职。此后她从事的工作报酬远低于之前，且仅为兼职。当她的损害赔偿诉讼进入审判阶段时，她已与长期伴侣结婚（两人在美洲运通工作期间即已同居）并育有子女。
The main basis of the respondent’s challenge to the trial judge’s award was, as put by Handley JA in the NSW Court of Appeal, that the judge ‘had failed to make proper allowance for vicissitudes. He held that it was not probable that but for injury, the plaintiff would simply have retired to the laudable but limited role of housewife and mother and abandoned her business career’ (Hym v. NSW Insurance Ministerial Corp [1994]: 61,740). The trial judge had assessed damages on the basis that Ms Wym would have worked for American Express until age 60 and, after considering all the factors raised (such as possible maternity leave etc), reduced her assessed damages by 5 per cent for vicissitudes.
被上诉人对一审法官裁决提出异议的主要依据，正如新南威尔士州上诉法院的汉德利法官所指出的，是法官“未能适当考虑意外变故”。他认为，如果没有受伤，原告很可能不会仅仅退居到可敬但有限的家庭主妇和母亲的角色，并放弃她的职业生涯”（Hym v. NSW Insurance Ministerial Corp [1994]: 61,740）。一审法官在评估损害赔偿时，假设 Wym 女士会为美国运通工作至 60 岁，并在考虑所有相关因素（如可能的产假等）后，因不可预见的变化将评估的损害赔偿减少了 5%。
In the NSW Court of Appeal, much was made of the stressful nature of her job and the onerous responsibility it carried, along with the very long working hours. With regard to child care, the Court said: If the plaintiff . . . continued her demanding business career after marriage, and after the birth of her child or children, she and her husband would necessarily have been faced with the necessityof engaging a full time namny for the children and substantial household help during the week’ (Wym a NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation [199-4]: 61,741), and her damages were reduced to take this cost into account.
在新南威尔士州上诉法院，法院对她的工作性质极具压力、责任重大以及工作时间极长的情况给予了高度关注。关于子女照护问题，法院指出：如果原告……在结婚后以及孩子出生后继续从事高强度的工作，她和她的丈夫必然会面临必须雇佣一名全职保姆照顾孩子以及在工作日提供大量家务帮助的必要性（Wym v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation [199-4]: 61,741），因此她的赔偿金被减少以考虑这一成本。
The Court also expressed a number of reservations about the trial judge’s finding that she was likely to continue working at a senior executive level. First, they did not accept that she would be further promoted because that would have required another overseas posting:
法院还对审判法官关于她很可能继续在高级管理层工作的认定提出了若干保留意见。首先，他们不认同她会进一步晋升，因为这需要再次派往海外工作：
It would have involved separation from her fance or husband, whose business interests would have kept him in Sydney, except during holidays, and likewise
这将意味着她必须与未婚夫或丈夫分离，而他的商业利益将使他不得不留在悉尼，除了假期之外，同样地，
either separation from any children or a decision not to have any. The plaintiff was thirty-two when she resigned and her childbearing years were already limited . . .
与子女分离或决定不生育。原告辞职时年仅三十二岁，其生育年龄已然有限……
(Wymn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation [1994]: 61,741)
（Wymn 诉新南威尔士州保险部长公司案 [1994]: 61,741）
The Court held that the trial judge had erred in allowing only 5 per cent for vicissitudes. Not only was the possibility of ‘burn out’ not taken into account, but the Court did not agree with the trial judge that it was ‘quite probable’ that she would have been further promoted (though there is no mention of any evidence the contrary that was before the court). After adding ‘a fair allowance’ for domestic help, a figure the Court expressly acknowledged was based on no direct evidence (‘the Court must do the best it can’), the Court of Appeal summed up as follows:
法院认为，一审法官在仅允许 5%的变动因素时存在错误。不仅未考虑“职业倦怠”的可能性，而且法院不同意一审法官关于“她很可能获得进一步晋升”的判断（尽管法院未提及任何相反证据）。在追加“合理补偿”用于家政服务后（法院明确承认该数额缺乏直接证据，“法院只能尽最大努力”），上诉法院总结如下：
The allowance for vicissitudes . . . should include two years’ absence from work to have two children ( 8 per cent of the 23.75 years [the estimated period of working life]) together with an allowance for the prospect that the plaintiff would be unable or unwilling to remain in her job which placed such heavy demands on her time, energy and health and the love and patience of her husband. The plaintiff, of course, could have worked until sixty or later in a less demanding job but would then have earned substantially reduced salary and benefits. … A fair allowance for such vicissitudes in my opinion would be 20 per cent and this with the 8 per cent allowance for having two children gives a total deduction for vicissitudes of 28 per cent which I would adopt.
变故津贴……应包括因生育两名子女而缺勤两年的补偿（占 23.75 年[预计工作年限]的 8%），以及考虑到原告可能无法或不愿继续从事该工作（该工作对她的时间、精力和健康以及丈夫的关爱与耐心提出了极高要求）的补偿。当然，原告本可以从事一份要求较低的工作直至六十岁或更晚，但届时其薪资和福利将大幅减少。……我认为，对于此类变故的合理补偿应为 20%，加上因生育两名子女而获得的 8%补偿，变故总扣除比例为 28%，我将采纳此比例。
(Wiyn v NSW Instrance Ministerial Corporation [1994]: 61,742)
（维恩诉新南威尔士州政府部长公司案[1994]：61,742）
Applying this reasoning, Ms Wymn’s damages for loss of future earning capacity were reduced from over $ 700 , 000 $ 700 , 000 $700,000\$ 700,000 to $ 411 , 350 $ 411 , 350 $411,350\$ 411,350. She appealed and during the special leave application (the hearing in which the High Court considers whether to hear the case) one member of the High Court, McHugh J asked: ‘Well, supposing the applicant had been a male, could you imagine a judge making a finding like this’? (Wym a NSW ′ NSW ′ NSW^(')\mathrm{NSW}^{\prime} Insurance Ministerial Corporation [1995b]). 8 8 ^(8){ }^{8} Or is it more likely that in that event, the court might instead have described the plaintiff as another court described a similar, though not chromosomally challenged, plaintiff, as 'a young man with bright prospects, who has been deprived of the ability to choose to continue his career"? (Tucker v Westfield Design and Construction Pty Ltd [1993]: [28]). 9 9 ^(9){ }^{9}
根据这一推理，温姆女士因未来 earning capacity 损失而获得的赔偿金从超过 $ 700 , 000 $ 700 , 000 $700,000\$ 700,000 减少到 $ 411 , 350 $ 411 , 350 $411,350\$ 411,350 。她提起上诉，在特别许可申请听证会（高等法院考虑是否受理案件的听证会）上，高等法院的一名法官麦休（McHugh J）问道：“假设申请人是一名男性，你能想象一位法官会做出这样的裁决吗？”（Wym v NSW ′ NSW ′ NSW^(')\mathrm{NSW}^{\prime} 保险部长公司 [1995b]）。 8 8 ^(8){ }^{8} 或者，在这种情况下，法院更可能像另一家法院描述一位类似但没有染色体异常的原告那样，将原告描述为“一位前途光明、被剥夺了继续职业生涯选择权的年轻男子”？(Tucker v Westfield Design and Construction Pty Ltd [1993]: [28])。 9 9 ^(9){ }^{9}
Wym’s case resonates with many of the cases I came across when researching damages cases in the 1990s: 10 10 ^(10){ }^{10} what they have in common is a tendency to treat women’s paid work as marginal, as worthy of comment, as requiring an explanation, rather than as something that adult gender neutral people just do. The judgments often provide an explanation for why a woman works, coupled with an underlying assumption that should the particular reason given for her employment disappear she would no longer engage in paid work (see Graycar 1995). For example, a woman works because her husband left her and she’s a single parent (Harper v Bangalow Motors Pty Ltd [1990]: 9); or she might become one (Wallen
Wym 的案例与我在 20 世纪 90 年代研究损害赔偿案件时遇到的许多案例有相似之处： 10 10 ^(10){ }^{10} 它们的共同点在于，倾向于将女性的有偿工作视为边缘化的、值得评论的、需要解释的，而非成年人（不分性别）理所当然会从事的活动。判决书常常为女性工作提供解释，同时暗含一个前提：如果给出的特定就业理由消失，她将不再从事有偿工作（见 Graycar 1995）。例如，一名女性工作是因为丈夫离她而去，她成为单亲母亲（Harper v Bangalow Motors Pty Ltd [1990]: 9）；或者她可能成为单亲母亲（Wallen
v v vv Hird [1993]). One woman works to escape her husband who is violent (Stehovic v v vv City Group Pty Ltd [1994]: [84]). Another works because her husband is unemployed and therefore cannot support her and the children (Angelopolous v v vv Rubenhold, [1991]: 8 ), while yet another wants to help her daughter to attend university (Randall v v vv Dul [1994]). One woman’s religious beliefs were said by a judge to lie behind her view that ‘her role was to provide financial support to her maximum capacity for her husband and children’ (Kèlson v Transport Accident Commission [1994]). A young South Australian woman had her damages reduced on appeal because it was held that she was unlikely to take over her mother’s role in the management of a family business as she had three brothers and the business may have to support their familics. 11 11 ^(11){ }^{11} Perhaps the best explanation comes from Lord Denning in 1974:
v v vv 赫尔德 [1993]。一位女性努力逃离暴力丈夫（斯捷霍维奇 v v vv 城市集团有限公司 [1994]: [84]）。另一位女性工作是因为她的丈夫失业，无法养活她和孩子（Angelopolous v v vv Rubenhold, [1991]: 8），而另一位女性则希望帮助女儿上大学（Randall v v vv Dul [1994]）。一名女性的宗教信仰被法官认定是其认为“她的角色是尽最大能力为丈夫和子女提供经济支持”的背后原因（Kèlson v Transport Accident Commission [1994]）。一名南澳大利亚年轻女性的上诉赔偿金被减少，因为法院认为她不太可能接替母亲在家族企业管理中的角色，因为她有三个兄弟，而该企业可能需要支持他们的家庭。 11 11 ^(11){ }^{11} 或许最好的解释来自 1974 年的丹宁勋爵：
Many a married woman seeks work. She does so when the children grow up and leave the house. She does it, not solely to earn money, helpful as it is, but to fill her time with useful occupation, rather than sit idly at home waiting for her husband to return. The devil tempts those who have nothing to do.
许多已婚妇女都会寻找工作。她们这样做，是因为孩子们长大后离开了家。她们这样做，不仅仅是为了赚钱（虽然赚钱很有帮助），而是为了让自己的时间充实而有意义，而不是闲坐在家里等待丈夫归来。魔鬼会诱惑那些无所事事的人。
(Langston vAEUW [1974]: [987])
(朗斯顿诉 AEUW 案 [1974]: [987])
A common assumption in the Australian case law is that sole parents are more likely than women in two parent households to be in paid work: in fact, the opposite is truc, both in Canada and in Australia, according to data from both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Statistics Canada. 12 12 ^(12){ }^{12} I mention this to draw attention to a phenomenon that seems common in these cases: that is, basing fact-finding and judicial decision making on completely erroneous assumptions, a theme considered more fully below.
澳大利亚判例法中普遍存在一种假设，即单亲父母比双亲家庭中的女性更可能从事有偿工作。事实上，根据澳大利亚统计局和加拿大统计局的数据，情况恰恰相反，这一现象在加拿大和澳大利亚均有体现。 12 12 ^(12){ }^{12} 我提及这一点是为了引起对这些案件中一个普遍现象的注意：即在事实调查和司法决策过程中基于完全错误的假设，这一主题将在下文进一步探讨。
Paid work for women, particularly married women, is often seen to be in direct competition with other aspects of their lives - with other roles they fulfil or are expected to fulfil. In one Australian case, the court decided that a woman would not be successful running her own business because ‘she may have succumbed to competing family demands’ (Becinv GEC Australia and Ors, [1993]). Women’s capacity to bear children is also used, in a number of different (and often contrasting) ways, to disadvantage women. For young women, damages are discounted because they may in the future have time out of the workforce to have children, irrespective of whether they indicate that they did not want to do so, or planned to have no more children (compare Handley JA in Bondin v Lamaro [1994]: [5]; Dunford J in Partridge v GIO [1993]: [8]) In 1996, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reduced a trial judge’s award, deciding that the plaintiff would not have spent her working life at her pre-accident employment: "She hopes to raise a family when her spouse is suitably employed’ (Lee v Swan [1996]: [55]). But an older woman might have her damages reduced when she no longer has children to care for (Reece v Reece [1994]: [3]) or because she is considered unemployable after a history of time out of the paid workforce for family responsibilities (Kirby P in NSH Insurance Ministerial Corporation v Rayner [1993]: [6]), or because, in the words of one judge, she ‘may well have taken breaks from her employment, for example, when her children
女性的有偿工作，尤其是已婚女性的有偿工作，常常被视为与她们生活中其他方面直接竞争——与她们所承担或被期望承担的其他角色相冲突。在澳大利亚的一起案例中，法院裁定一名女性无法成功经营自己的企业，因为“她可能屈服于家庭需求的竞争”（Becinv GEC Australia and Ors, [1993]）。女性的生育能力也被以多种不同（且往往相互矛盾）的方式用来对女性造成不利。对于年轻女性，赔偿金额会被打折，因为她们未来可能需要离开职场生育子女，无论她们是否表示不愿如此，或计划不再生育（参见 Handley JA 在 Bondin v Lamaro [1994]案中的观点：[5]；邓福德法官在帕特里奇诉政府机构案[1993]中的意见：[8]）1996 年，不列颠哥伦比亚省上诉法院减少了审判法官的赔偿金额，认为原告不会在事故前的工作岗位上度过职业生涯：“她希望在配偶找到合适工作后抚养家庭”（李诉斯旺案[1996]：[55]）。但年长女性的赔偿金可能因不再需要抚养子女而减少（里斯诉里斯案[1994]：[3])，或因其因家庭责任长期脱离有薪工作而被视为无法就业（Kirby P in NSH Insurance Ministerial Corporation v Rayner [1993]: [6]），或因，如一位法官所言，她‘可能在某些时期中断工作，例如当她的子女
married and had families to visit and to assist them with their children . . .’ (Tull) v G J Coles [1993]).
已婚并有家庭需要探望，并协助他们照顾孩子……’（Tull）诉 G J Coles 案[1993]）。
Just like in Wynn’s case, a court may consider that the workplace might prove too demanding for a woman who could not be expected to keep up such a pace (see Priestley JA in Rasmus v GIO [1992]: [4]) or, that a woman’s husband might not want her to undertake full-time paid work because, as she and he ‘aged and became financially secure, her husband’s attitude might have induced [her] to retire early or to reduce her working hours’ (Park v Hobart Public Hospitals [1991]: [12]). And, while the New South Wales Court of Appeal treated the difficulties that would confront Ms Wynn in travelling overseas to secure her promotion as almost insurmountable, another female plaintiff’s award was reduced since she ‘may well have taken breaks from her employment . . . during any transfers in his work by her husband’ (Tully’v G7 Coles [1993]). For yet another woman, damages for future economic loss were reduced because of her husband’s peripatetic employment since, according to the court, ‘there must also be taken into account . . . the consequences of being married to a serviceman’ (Isabella Smith vAlichael Smilh [1991]: [69]).
与温恩案类似，法院可能认为，对于一名无法适应如此工作节奏的女性而言，工作场所可能过于严苛（参见普里斯特利法官在拉斯穆斯诉 GIO 案[1992]中的意见：[4]），或者，女性的丈夫可能不希望她从事全职有薪工作，因为随着她和丈夫“年岁增长且经济状况稳定，丈夫的态度可能促使她提前退休或减少工作时间”（Park v Hobart Public Hospitals [1991]: [12]）。尽管新南威尔士州上诉法院认为温女士在海外旅行以获得晋升所面临的困难几乎无法克服，但另一名女性原告的赔偿金被减少，因为她“可能在丈夫工作调动期间暂停工作”（Tully v G7 Coles [1993]）。对于另一名女性，未来经济损失的赔偿金被减少，原因是其丈夫的流动性工作，因为根据法院的说法，“还必须考虑……与军人结婚的后果”（伊莎贝拉·史密斯诉阿里切尔·斯米尔案[1991]：[69]）。
When the High Court reviewed the decision in Whan, they allowed the appeal in part. The Court decided that a more appropriate reduction for vicissitudes was 12.5 per cent and refused to discount the award to allow for the costs of child care pointing out that such costs may be incurred by men or women whether or not the child’s mother is in the paid workforce. The Court also said that there was ‘nothing in the evidence to suggest that the appellant was any less able than any other career oriented person, whether male or female, to successfully combine a demanding career and family responsibilities’ (Wym a NSW Amistrial Corporation [1995a]: [494]).
当高等法院审查 Whan 案的裁决时，他们部分支持了上诉。法院认为，考虑到生活变故，更合适的减损比例应为 12.5%，并拒绝因子女抚养费用而减少赔偿金额，指出此类费用可能由男性或女性承担，无论子女的母亲是否在有薪工作中。法院还表示，证据中没有任何内容表明上诉人比其他任何职业导向的人（无论男女）更难以成功兼顾高要求职业与家庭责任（Wym v NSW Amistrial Corporation [1995a]: [494]）。
Gendered assumptions about the economic consequences of marriage for women have also historically informed awards of damages to surviving female spouses in wrongful death actions. In De Sales v Ingrilli [2002b], the High Court reconsidered the issue of taking into account the prospects of a widow’s remarriage as a factor in reducing such an award. The case received some media attention as it involved assessing the widow’s prospects of remarriage by reference to her likely ‘attractiveness’ to a new partner. During the special leave hearing, the following exchange ensued between Hayne J J JJ and Gaudron J J JJ (the latter was at that time the only woman on the High Court:
关于婚姻对女性经济后果的性别刻板印象，历来也影响着在错误致死案件中对幸存女性配偶赔偿金的裁决。在 De Sales v Ingrilli [2002b]一案中，高等法院重新审视了将寡妇再婚前景作为减少赔偿金因素的考量问题。该案因涉及通过评估寡妇对新伴侣的“吸引力”来判断其再婚可能性而引起媒体关注。在特别许可听证会上，海恩 J J JJ 与高德伦 J J JJ （后者当时是最高法院唯一的女法官）之间发生了以下对话：
HAYNE J: But here, the leading judgment in the Full Court, seems to deal with the subject entirely after some introductory remarks by saying, ‘Only for my part, I would think that a woman of the appellant’s age and credentials, a 20 per cent deduction would be appropriate’. What does his Honour mean? GAUDRONJ: What his Flonour means is she is relatively good looking.
海恩法官：但在此案中，上诉法院的判决书在简要陈述后，似乎直接处理了这一问题，并表示：“就我个人而言，我认为，对于上诉人这样的年龄和资历的女性，扣除 20%是适当的。”法官阁下此话何意？高德隆法官：法官阁下此意是指她相对而言长相不错。
(De Sales v Ingrilli [2002a])
（德·塞尔斯诉英格里利案 [2002a]）
By a majority of 4 : 3 4 : 3 4:34: 3, the High Court overturned what had been a longestablished practice of making deductions on account of the assumed economic
以 4 : 3 4 : 3 4:34: 3 的多数票，高等法院推翻了长期以来一直实行的因假定经济损失而进行扣除的惯例。
benefits of a woman’s remarriage. In their joint judgment, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne J J J J JJJ J explained their rationale for deciding that the prospect of remarriage should no longer form the basis of a separate award or be used to increase the discount for general vicissitudes as follows:
女性再婚的益处。在他们的联合裁决中，高德伦、古姆和海恩 J J J J JJJ J 解释了他们决定不再将再婚的可能性作为单独赔偿的依据，或用于增加一般变故折扣的理由如下：
Even if these difficulties of predicting that a surviving spouse will form some new continuing relationship were to be surmounted, the functial consequences of its occurrence are even less predictable. Who is to say that the new relationship will endure, and that, if it endures, it will provide financial advantage to the person who is now the surviving spouse? And if it is a financially beneficial relationship at its outset, who is to say what events will intervene thereafter? Will the new spouse or partner suffer some catastrophe and the person who is now the surviving spouse then have to care and provide for the new partner, the children of the first union, any children brought by the new partner to the new union, and any children born of the new union? Who can say?
即使克服了预测配偶一方在去世后是否会建立新的持续关系这一困难，这种情况发生后的实际后果也更加难以预测。谁能保证新的关系会持续下去，而如果关系持续，它是否会为现存的配偶带来经济利益？如果关系在初期具有经济利益，谁又能预料到未来会发生什么事件？新配偶或伴侣是否会遭遇某种灾难，而现存配偶是否需要照顾并抚养新伴侣、前段婚姻所生的子女、新伴侣带入新关系中的子女，以及新关系中出生的子女？谁又能说得清？
(De Sales u Ingrilli [2002b]: [7+])
（德·萨尔斯和英格里尔 [2002b]：[7+]）

The valuation of a woman's loss of capacity to work in the home
女性因丧失家庭劳动能力而遭受的损失的评估

Because the law of torts values some losses of working capacity over others, injuries to women have often been characterised as causing non-economic loss, a characterisation that has significant consequences in damages assessments. The failure to recognise the economic nature of women’s work in the home is closely related to the common law’s historical treatment of a woman’s loss of domestic working capacity as a loss not to herself but to her husband through his action for loss of ‘consortium’ and ‘servitium’.
由于侵权法对不同类型的劳动能力损失给予不同评价，对女性造成的伤害常被归类为造成非经济损失，这种归类在损害赔偿评估中具有重要影响。未能承认女性在家中工作的经济性质，与普通法历史上将女性丧失家庭劳动能力视为非自身损失、而是通过丈夫提起的“丧失配偶扶养权”和“丧失家务劳动”索赔而归属于丈夫的处理方式密切相关。
At common law, a loss of capacity to provide household services, although historically characterised as an economic loss, was actionabic only by the woman’s husband in an action for loss of consortium (the action included damages not only for loss of services, but also for loss of society and companionship, including sexual services). After it was held by the House of Lords in 1952 that at common law, women did not have a corresponding right of action for loss of their husband’s consortium (Best u Samuel Fox and Co Lid [1952]), the action was extended to women in some jurisdictions (eg the Australian states of South Australia and Queensland) while in others (eg NSW) it was abolished. 13 13 ^(13){ }^{13}
根据普通法，丧失提供家庭服务的能力，尽管历史上被视为经济损失，但仅限于由妻子的丈夫提起的丧失配偶伴侣关系赔偿诉讼（该诉讼不仅包括因丧失服务而造成的损害赔偿，还包括因丧失配偶的陪伴和亲密关系而造成的损害赔偿，包括性服务）。1952 年，英国上议院在 Best v Samuel Fox and Co Ltd 案中裁定，普通法下女性无权就丈夫的配偶关系损失提起相应诉讼（Best v Samuel Fox and Co Ltd [1952]）。此后，部分管辖区（如澳大利亚南澳大利亚州和昆士兰州）将该诉讼权扩展至女性，而其他管辖区（如新南威尔士州）则废除了该诉讼权。 13 13 ^(13){ }^{13}
Neither approach addressed the real problem, as was so clearly shown in a 1981 article called ‘Sex, Housework and the Law’ (Riscley 1981). The extension to women of the ability to sue for loss of their husband’s consortium is a graphic illustration of how empty the formal equality or sameness model of equality can be for women (compare Graycar and Morgan 2002: 28-18). If the major element in a loss of consortium award is the loss of services, the ‘reform’ is pyrrhic only: most women do not lose their husbands’ household services when the latter are injured since they never had them in the first place. And, as for abolishing the action, while
这两种方法都没有解决真正的问题，这一点在 1981 年的一篇文章《性、家务与法律》（Riscley 1981）中得到了清晰的阐述。将女性获得因丈夫丧失配偶扶养权而索赔的权利扩展至女性，生动地说明了形式上的平等或相同模式对女性而言是多么空洞（参见 Graycar 和 Morgan 2002: 28-18）。如果丧失配偶伴侣关系赔偿的主要要素是丧失服务，那么这种“改革”只是徒有其表：大多数女性在丈夫受伤后并未丧失其家务服务，因为她们从一开始就从未享有过这些服务。至于废除该诉讼，虽然
that approach has clear rhetorical appeal, 1 − 4 1 − 4 ^(1-4){ }^{1-4} in practice there is a real loss which is then left to lie where it falls.
这种方法具有明显的修辞吸引力， 1 − 4 1 − 4 ^(1-4){ }^{1-4} 但在实际操作中，确实存在实际损失，而这些损失最终被置之不理。
The only satisfactory approach is to replace the secondary action for loss of consortium with a primary cause of action for loss of capacity to work in the home. This has been done by statute in Australia only in the ACT. 15 15 ^(15){ }^{15} Some Canadian provinces have effectively achieved this by common law development (notably in Fobel v Dean [1991] (Saskatchewan) 16 16 ^(16){ }^{16} and McLaren v Schwalbe [1994] (Alberta) 17 17 ^(17){ }^{17} ).
唯一可行的做法是将因丧失共同生活权而提起的附带请求权替换为因丧失在家工作能力而提起的主要请求权。这一做法仅在澳大利亚的首都领地（ACT）通过立法实现。 15 15 ^(15){ }^{15} 加拿大的一些省份通过普通法发展有效实现了这一目标（尤其是在 Fobel v Dean [1991]（萨斯喀彻温省） 16 16 ^(16){ }^{16} 和 McLaren v Schwalbe [1994]（阿尔伯塔省） 17 17 ^(17){ }^{17} 案件中）。
The old approach (that the loss was a loss to someone else and compensable via a secondary action) allowed some tortious conceptualisations of a woman’s injury as partly hers and partly someone else’s (and remember that only a de jure husband ever had a right to claim clamages for that loss). In one case, which was recently approved by the High Court of Australia in CSR v v vv Eddy [2005]: [16], [71], a NSW court described a woman’s loss of capacity to work in the home as ‘a partial loss of capacity to carry out housework resulting in (a) a loss to the family of part of her services . . .; (b) a loss to herself by inability to fully satisfy her personal needs in daily life . . .; and © a personal loss of the capacity to perform services for others voluntarily’ (Bumicle v Cutelli [1982]: [27]).
旧的观点（即损失属于他人，可通过二次行为获得赔偿）允许将女性的伤害部分归因于其自身、部分归因于他人（需注意，仅有法律上的丈夫才有权就该损失主张赔偿）。在最近被澳大利亚高等法院批准的 CSR v v vv Eddy [2005]案中：[16]，[71]，新南威尔士州法院将女性丧失在家中工作的能力描述为“部分丧失履行家务的能力，导致（a）家庭丧失其部分服务……；(b) 因无法完全满足日常生活中的个人需求而遭受的自身损失……；以及 © 丧失自愿为他人提供服务的个人能力”（Bumicle v Cutelli [1982]: [27]）。
The personal loss, the part claimed by the woman herself, has tended to be characterised as non-economic, rather than economic, as a loss of amenity or loss of enjoyment of life. This characterisation mirrors what is effectively a false dichotomy between work (something done outside the home for wages), and other non-remunerated activity (compare Graycar 2002). So, for example, the court in Bumicte v v vv Cutelli said: ‘the injured plaintiff has in such a case as this lost part of a capacity, the exercise of which can give to her pride and satisfaction and the receipt of gratitude, and the loss of which can lead to frustration and feelings of inadequacy’ [28]. This approach, of characterising a loss of capacity to work in the home as a loss of enjoyment of life and therefore non-economic, is the approach that I have characterised as ‘Hoovering as a Hobby’ (Graycar 1985b; 1997).
个人损失，即女性本人主张的损失部分，通常被归类为非经济损失，而非经济损失，具体表现为生活便利的丧失或生活乐趣的丧失。这种归类实际上反映了工作（指在家庭外为获取报酬而进行的活动）与其他非报酬性活动之间的虚假二分法（参见 Graycar 2002）。例如，Bumicte v v vv Cutelli 案中法院指出：“在本案中，受伤原告丧失了部分能力，该能力的行使可使其获得自豪感和满足感，并获得他人的感激，而该能力的丧失可能导致挫败感和自卑感”[28]。这种将家庭内工作能力丧失定性为生活享受丧失（而非经济损失）的观点，即我所称的“Hoovering as a Hobby”（Graycar 1985b；1997）。
A number of consequences flow from characterising women’s work in the home as non-economic: first, non-economic losses tend to be much lower than economic losses and, secondly, non-economic losses are increasingly being abolished or limited by statutory modifications to common law damages (Graycar 2003: 153-4; Finley 1997). In all the jurisdictions (such as NZ) that made changes to accident compensation in the 1970s and 1980s, little if any account was taken of the impact of those changes on the ways in which women’s work was treated in clamages asscssment (Graycar 2003: 140-3).
将女性在家中从事的工作定性为非经济活动会带来一系列后果：首先，非经济损失通常远低于经济损失；其次，非经济损失正越来越多地通过对普通法损害赔偿的法定修改而被废除或限制（Graycar 2003: 153-4; Finley 1997）。在所有于 20 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代对意外赔偿制度进行改革的司法管辖区（如新西兰），几乎没有考虑这些改革对女性劳动在赔偿评估中被对待方式的影响（Graycar 2003: 140-3）。
Another related trend is to assume that since women increasingly work outside the home, housework is shared. This assumption is, of course, unfounded as a large body of recent empirical evidence clearly tells us that women’s increased participation in the paid labour market has had little or no effect on the distribution of housework, 13 13 ^(13){ }^{13} yet remarkably, for some reason, courts state this erroneous conclusion as if it were a matter of which judicial notice could be taken.
另一个相关趋势是假设由于女性越来越多地参与家庭外工作，家务劳动得以分担。这一假设显然缺乏依据，因为大量近期实证研究明确表明，女性参与有偿劳动市场的增加对家务劳动分配几乎没有影响， 13 13 ^(13){ }^{13} 然而令人惊讶的是，出于某种原因，法院却将这一错误结论视为不言自明的司法常识。
This assumption is not confined to damages law as a well-known Australian custody case illustrates:
这一假设并非仅限于损害赔偿法，一个著名的澳大利亚监护权案件便充分说明了这一点：
[T]here has come a radical change in the division of responsibilities between parents and in the ability of the mother to devote the whole of her time and attention to the household and the family. As frequently as not, the mother works, thereby reducing the time which she can devote to her children. A corresponding development has been that the father gives more of his time to the houschold and to the family.
[T]父母之间责任分工发生了根本性变化，母亲全心全意投入家庭和家庭生活的 ability 也发生了根本性变化。如今，母亲工作的情况越来越普遍，这使得她能够投入给孩子的时间减少了。与之相应的是，父亲投入家庭和家庭生活的时间也增加了。
(Gronow : Gronow [1979]: [528])
(格罗诺夫：格罗诺夫 [1979]: [528])
The High Court did not cite any evidence for this: indeed, it would have been nigh on impossible to find any. 19 19 ^(19){ }^{19} This misperception would not be of any particular significance were it not for the fact that it is used to reducc a woman’s damages for loss of capacity to do housework. In a number of cases this same assumption - that housework is shared - has been used to reduce the damages either where this loss is recognised as a primary loss, or in the older cases, where the loss is treated as a loss of consortium. In one of the latter cases, a NSW court decided that the loss to the husband of his wife’s services was not so great since, as the judge put it, ‘we must take account of public mores . . . and where a husband and wife are both working, the sharing of domestic burdens with the wife is expected of the husband, even where his wife is perfectly healthy’ (Kealley z’ Jones [1979]: [741]). In another case in British Columbia, a trial judge noted:
高等法院并未为此提供任何证据：事实上，要找到任何证据几乎是不可能的。 19 19 ^(19){ }^{19} 这种误解本身并无特别意义，但问题在于它被用来减少女性因丧失家务劳动能力而获得的赔偿。在多起案件中，这一假设——即家务劳动是共同承担的——被用于减少赔偿金额，无论是在承认此类损失为主要损失的案件中，还是在较早的案件中，将此类损失视为配偶关系损失。在后者的一起案件中，新南威尔士州法院裁定，丈夫因妻子服务丧失而遭受的损失并不重大，因为，正如法官所言，“我们必须考虑社会习俗……当丈夫和妻子都工作时，丈夫被期望与妻子分担家务，即使他的妻子完全健康”（Kealley z’ Jones [1979]:[741]）。在不列颠哥伦比亚省的另一案件中，一名审判法官指出：
This is a family of two spouses both of whom work outside the home. The plaintiff plans to continue her career. In that type of family as opposed to a traditional family where one spouse remains at home, it is reasonable to expect both spouses to contribute fairly equally to the domestic work.
这是一个由一对夫妻组成的家庭，夫妻双方均在外工作。原告计划继续发展自己的职业生涯。与传统家庭中一方配偶留在家中不同，在这种家庭结构中，合理地期望夫妻双方在家庭事务上公平分担责任是合乎情理的。
(Krocher v Jansen [1995]: [20])
（克罗赫尔对扬森的评论 [1995]: [20]）
While this may be reasonable, it is not empirically sound, in either Australia or in Canada. Although we all might share the hope that housework will be more fairly shared in households, particularly those where both members of a couple are in paid work, my concern is that reducing damages on the basis of assumptions that bear no relationship either to the individual case or to the national statistical data, is not likely to lead the way to more equal sharing of work in the home. 20 20 ^(20){ }^{20}
尽管这可能有其合理性，但这种观点在澳大利亚或加拿大均缺乏实证支持。虽然我们都希望家庭中的家务劳动能得到更公平的分配，尤其是那些夫妻双方均有工作的家庭，但我担心，基于与个案或国家统计数据均无关联的假设来减少赔偿，不太可能推动家庭中工作分配的平等化。 20 20 ^(20){ }^{20}

Damages for the costs of caring for accident victims: Griffiths v Kerkemeyer damages
事故受害者护理费的赔偿：格里菲斯诉克尔克迈尔案赔偿

The third and final issue concerns damages for the costs of care (known in Australia as Griffiths v herliemeyer [1977] damages). Accident victims often need considerable amounts of care, care that is often provided by close family members most of whom (though of course not all) are women. 21 21 ^(21){ }^{21} Care for children, the aged, people suffering from illness, people with clisabilities, and those generally unable to look after themselves is considered quintessentially women’s work-even where it is done by men 22 22 ^(22){ }^{22} - and valued accordingly. 23 23 ^(23){ }^{23}
第三个也是最后一个问题涉及护理费用赔偿（在澳大利亚被称为格里菲斯诉赫尔利梅耶案[1977]赔偿）。事故受害者通常需要大量护理，而这种护理往往由亲属提供，其中大多数（当然并非全部）是女性。 21 21 ^(21){ }^{21} 对儿童、老年人、患病者、残疾人以及一般无法自理的人群的护理被视为典型的女性工作——即使由男性提供此类护理 22 22 ^(22){ }^{22} ——且相应地被赋予相应价值。 23 23 ^(23){ }^{23}
In Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977], the High Court decided that an injured plaintiff can recover damages for the costs of care even where the care is provided ‘gratuitously’, thereby recognising that for an accident victim there is often a person or group of people whose lives are significantly affected by taking on the onerous task of caring for the injured person. The Griffills v v vv herkemeyer doctrine, which recognises damages for the costs of care as an economic head of damages, is quite clearly distinct from the more usual characterisation of women’s work in the home as non-economic in the context of women’s claims for compensation for their own injuries. However, while Griffiths v Lerkemeyer damages relate to work done by carers (usually women), they are not paid to the care provider but instead are awarded to the accident victim in recognition of the injured person’s need for the services (Graycar 1992: 104-5).
在格里菲斯诉克尔克梅耶案[1977]中，最高法院裁定，受伤原告有权就护理费用获得赔偿，即使该护理是“无偿”提供的，从而承认对于事故受害者而言，往往存在这样的人或群体，其生活因承担照顾受伤者的繁重任务而受到显著影响。格里菲斯-克尔克梅耶原则，即承认护理费用作为损害赔偿的经济头目，与在女性索赔自身伤害赔偿的背景下，将女性家庭劳动定性为非经济活动的传统观点，有着明确的区别。然而，尽管格里菲斯诉勒克梅耶案中的损害赔偿涉及护理人员（通常为女性）所从事的工作，但该赔偿并非支付给护理提供者，而是直接授予事故受害者，以承认受伤者对护理服务的需求（格雷卡尔 1992: 104-5）。
In a series of cases starting almost immediately after the High Court’s 1977 judgment, courts started reducing the damages payable by reference to a quaint notion that, since caring work is part of the ‘ordinaty currency of family life and obligation’, it is excessive to pay damages to injured accident victims for those services (hovac v hovac [1982]: [668]; Graycar 1992: 95-7).
在 1977 年高等法院判决后不久，一系列案件中，法院开始减少赔偿金额，依据是一种过时的观念，即由于照顾工作是“家庭生活和义务的普通货币”，因此向受伤事故受害者支付赔偿金是不合理的（Hovac v Hovac [1982]: [668]；Graycar 1992: 95-7）。
The devaluation of caring work by the courts was reinforced by a number of statutory modifications (including in some cases abolition) of Griffiths v v vv Kerkemeyer damages (CSR v Eddy [2005]: [9]-[10]). In Van Gerran v Fenton, a case that brought the issue to the High Court again in 1992, the damages paid to the accident victim for the costs of his care had been calculated by reference, not to what the caring services would cost if they had to be purchased on the market, but by reference to the wages the accident victim’s wife had forgone by leaving her work as an unskilled nurse’s aide to look after him. It was this quantification that was the issue on appeal (Tan Gervan v Fenton [1992]).
法院对护理工作的贬低得到了多项法律修改（包括在某些情况下废除）的强化，这些修改涉及格里菲斯-克尔克梅耶赔偿金（CSR v Eddy [2005]: [9]-[10]）。在 1992 年将该问题再次提交至最高法院的范杰兰诉芬顿案中，事故受害者因护理费用获得的赔偿金并非根据市场购买护理服务的成本计算，而是根据受害者妻子放弃工作（她是一名非技术性护士助理）所放弃的工资来确定。正是这一赔偿金额的计算方法成为上诉的焦点（Tan Gervan v Fenton [1992]）。
When I was asked to write about this case prior to the High Court’s review of the decision (Graycar 1992), I thought it important to contextualise the issue by looking at the facts of both the case under appeal, and some other cases where something of the lives of the accident victim (and where possible, the carer) is known. I wanted to illustrate all of the day-to-day ways in which the plaintiff was affected by the accident, in other words, all of the things his wife now had to do in caring for him. I was responding to the rarity with which judgments, especially appellate judgments, provide any real picture of the parties and their lives, or any sense of the factual context in which people’s problems come before the courts. I also looked at empirical clata on work in the home that showed that women do most of the work in the home, even where they also work outside the home. I noted that women with ‘retired husbands’ have an even heavier work load than others, and pointed out that the burden of caring for accident victims also falls disproportionately on women. 24 24 ^(24){ }^{24} I then suggested that the trend towards abolishing or limiting Griffiths v v vv kerkemeyer damages flows from a series of assumptions, many of which are false, that courts use intuitively (eg that housework is shared), rather than from any available evidence. A primary assumption in these cases is that the relationships people are in remain stable and unaffected by accidents. The reality,
当我被要求在高等法院对该案（Graycar 1992）的裁决进行复审前撰写此文时，我认为有必要通过分析上诉案件的事实，以及其他一些已知事故受害者（及可能的护理人员）生活情况的案件，来为该问题提供背景。我希望全面展示原告因事故而受到的影响，换言之，即其妻子在照料他时必须承担的所有日常事务。我此举旨在回应判决书（尤其是上诉判决书）中极少提供当事人及其生活状况的真实画面，或揭示人们面临的法律问题所处的具体事实背景这一现象。我还查阅了关于家庭工作的实证研究，显示女性承担了家庭中大部分工作，即使她们也在外工作。我指出，拥有“退休丈夫”的女性工作负担比其他人更重，并强调照顾事故受害者的负担也主要由女性承担。 24 24 ^(24){ }^{24} 我随后提出，废除或限制格里菲斯 v v vv kerkemeyer 损害赔偿的趋势源于一系列假设，其中许多是错误的，法院在审理案件时会直观地采用这些假设（例如认为家务劳动是共享的），而非基于任何可用证据。此类案件中的一个核心假设是，人们所处的社会关系保持稳定且不受事故影响。然而，现实情况是，
of course, is quite different: accidents and injuries are often significant causes of relationship breakdown (see, eg, O’Brien v O’Brien [1983]; Williams v Wïlliams [198-4]). Another related issue I came across was the very real issue of violence by accident victims towards their carers, and a peculiar tendency to discuss this dispassionately, purely as a matter going to the contingency of whether the target of violence (usually the wife or mother) would remain available to continue to undertake the caring work. 25 25 ^(25){ }^{25} Sometimes it is not discussed at all, or expressly declared irrelevant.
当然，情况大不相同：意外事故和伤害常常是导致关系破裂的重要原因（参见，例如，O’Brien v O’Brien [1983]；Williams v Williams [198-4]）。我遇到的另一个相关问题是，意外受害者对护理人员施暴的现实问题，以及一种奇怪的倾向，即对此进行冷静讨论，仅仅将其视为一个偶然问题，即暴力行为的目标（通常是妻子或母亲）是否仍可继续承担护理工作。 25 25 ^(25){ }^{25} 有时这个问题根本不被讨论，或被明确宣布为无关紧要。
The Tasmanian Full Court had decided (and the High Court dissenters agreed) that Mrs Van Gervan’s work caring for her husband in their home was easier than her work at the nursing home, even though she had to look after him all the time (not just for 40 hours a week): after all, he could be left ‘alone for periods of the order of an hour or more’ (Jan Gevan v Fenton [1991]: [68], [923]; Jan Gerian v Fention [1992]: [345]). I concluded that while it may be fair to describe some of her work as a labour of love, it was hard labour, and far more onerous than bringing someone cups of tea from time to time (Graycar 1993).
塔斯马尼亚高等法院已裁定（且最高法院的反对意见也表示同意），范·杰尔万太太在家中照顾丈夫的工作比她在养老院的工作更为轻松，尽管她需要全天候照料丈夫（而不仅仅是每周 40 小时）：毕竟，他可以被独自留下“长达一小时或更长时间”（Jan Gevan v Fenton [1991]: [68], [923]; Jan Gerian v Fention [1992]: [345]）。我认为，虽然可以将她的一些工作描述为“出于爱意的劳动”，但这确实是艰苦的劳动，远比偶尔给别人端茶送水要繁重得多（Graycar 1993）。
On the issue of the valuation method (opportunity or replacement cost), I suggested that using the opportunity cost, ic what the carer/wife lost by giving up her paid work, must seem attractive to courts in a world where women earn around two-thirds of what men earn, but would not be considered apposite if the carer gave up her job as a brain surgeon or High Court judge to care for him (an unlikely event in our real world, given occupational and industrial segmentation of the workforce). Realistically, the only option is market or replacement cost for a number of reasons I outlined (and with which the High Court majority agreed).
关于估值方法（机会成本还是重置成本）的问题，我建议采用机会成本，即护理者/妻子放弃有偿工作所损失的收入，这种方法在女性收入仅为男性约三分之二的现实世界中，可能对法院具有吸引力，但若护理者放弃的是脑外科医生或高等法院法官等高技能职业（在现实世界中，鉴于劳动力市场的职业和行业分割，这种情况极不可能发生），则不应被视为恰当。现实中，由于我之前阐述的诸多原因（且高等法院多数意见亦表示认同），唯一可行的选项是采用市场价值或替代成本。
But while the High Court majority in Ian Gervan or Fenton upheld the doctrinal basis of Griffiths v v vv herkeneyer damages, a number of other developments have limited the utility of the decision. First, it has been the subject, almost since the original Griffiths a Kierkemeyer decision, of statutory modifications that limit recovery in a number of ways: there is currently no state or territory in which the full market cost is actually recoverable for this head of damages. Moreover, what had appeared to be a logical extension to this head of damages by the NSW Court of Appeal in 1999 (Sullivan v v vv Gordon [1999]) was firmly wound back by the High Court in its 2005 decision in CSR v Eddy [2005]. In their majority judgment, Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Heydon J J JJ summarised the development of this type of damages:
然而，尽管高等法院在伊恩·杰尔文（Ian Gervan）或芬顿（Fenton）案中维持了格里菲斯（Griffiths） v v vv 赫尔克内耶尔（Herkeneyer）损害赔偿的理论基础，但一系列其他发展已限制了该裁决的实用性。首先，自格里菲斯诉基尔克梅耶案原判以来，该损害赔偿头目几乎一直是立法修改的对象，这些修改以多种方式限制了赔偿范围：目前没有一个州或领地允许就该损害赔偿头目实际获得全部市场成本赔偿。此外，新南威尔士州上诉法院于 1999 年在 Sullivan v v vv Gordon [1999]一案中对该损害赔偿项目所作的看似逻辑延伸，被最高法院在 2005 年 CSR v Eddy [2005]一案中明确推翻。在多数意见中，格利森首席大法官、古莫和海登 J J JJ 总结了此类损害赔偿的发展历程：
[S]ome jurisdictions, whether by purported application of the rules in Griffiths v v vv herkemeyer, or by extension of them, or otherwise, permit recovery of damages reflecting the impaired capacity of plaintiffs to provide domestic services to their families. This claim was rejected in New South Wales by Reynolds and Mahoney JJA (Glass JA dissenting) in Bunicle v Cutelli. That case was followed by a majority (Kennedy and OnneyJJ, WickhamJ dissenting) of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Maizard a Dogle. To those jurisdictions can be added Scotland. However, the Queensland Court of Appeal (Macrossan CJ, Davies JA and FrybergJ) accepted the claim in Sturch v v vv Willmott. So did the English Court of Appeal in Daly v v vv 'General Steam Aavigation
[S]部分司法管辖区，无论是通过援引格里菲斯（Griffiths）案中的规则，还是通过对这些规则的扩展适用，或是以其他方式，均允许原告因其为家庭提供家务劳动的能力受损而获得损害赔偿。这一主张在新南威尔士州被 Reynolds 和 Mahoney 法官（Glass 法官持不同意见）在 Bunicle v Cutelli 案中驳回。该案随后被西澳大利亚最高法院全体法官（Kennedy 和 Onney 法官，Wickham 法官持不同意见）在 Maizard a Dogle 案中采纳。苏格兰也可列入此类管辖区域。然而，昆士兰上诉法院（Macrossan CJ、Davies JA 和 FrybergJ）在 Sturch v v vv Willmott 案中接受了该主张。英格兰上诉法院在 Daly v v vv 'General Steam Aavigation
Co Lld and the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia sitting on appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. A bench of five members of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Sullian 2 2 ^(2){ }^{2} Gordon then adopted a concession by counsel that Sturch i Fillilmoll was correct and Bumicle v v vv Cutelli was incorrect. Since then, Sullium v v vv Gorden has been followed in Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. The opposite view has been taken by a majority of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. Principles similar to those stated in Sullian v Gordon are applied in Canada, although there have been dissenting judgments. In the United States there is an avenue of recovery for ‘a homemaker who is not a wage earner but whose carning capacity is devoted to providing household services’. This was done by extension of principles relating to loss of earning capacity.
澳大利亚联邦法院的合议庭（由五名法官组成）在审理澳大利亚首都领地最高法院的上诉案件时，就以下问题作出裁决：新南威尔士州上诉法院的五名法官在 Sullian 2 2 ^(2){ }^{2} Gordon 一案中采纳了律师的让步意见，认为 Sturch i Fillilmoll 的裁决正确，而 Bumicle v v vv Cutelli 的裁决错误。此后，Sullium v v vv Gorden 的裁决在西澳大利亚州和澳大利亚首都领地被采纳。南澳大利亚州最高法院全体法官的多数意见持相反观点。加拿大适用与 Sullian v Gordon 案中所述原则相似的原则，尽管存在反对意见。在美国，存在一种救济途径，适用于“非工资收入者但其抚养能力专用于提供家庭服务”的家庭主妇。这是通过扩展与丧失 earning capacity 相关的原则实现的。
Finally, the Sullium a Gordon principle has been assumed, subject to various limitations to be examined later, by the legislatures in Queensland and Victoria, and enacted in the Australian Capital Territory.
最后，昆士兰州和维多利亚州的立法机构采纳了 Sullium-Gordon 原则，但该原则受多种限制，这些限制将在后续部分进行探讨，并已在澳大利亚首都领地通过立法形式确立。
(CSR ᄂ Eddy [2005]: [9]-[10])
（CSR ᄂ Eddy [2005]: [9]-[10]）
In Sullium u Gordon [1999], a five member bench of the NSW Court of Appeal expressly overruled its earlier decision in Bumide a Cutelli (discussed above). The Court of Appeal held that when a woman loses her capacity to care for others (in that case, her children), as a conscquence of tortious injury, damages are available for that loss of capacity via the Griffiths v v vv Kerkemeyer head of damages. As Mason P (with whom Spigelman CJ, Stcin JA and Powell JA agrced) put it: ‘Acknowledgment that a mother’s interrupted capacity to make her usual contributions to a household is compensable involves the law’s belated recognition of the economic value of such work’ (Sullium v Gordon [1999]: [331]-[332]). But that development was firmly set aside by the High Court in CSR v Eddy [2005] when that Court took the opportunity, in effect, to rebuke the NSW Court of Appcal, declaring that there was no such category as ‘Sullivan v Gordon’ damages. The Court reinstated the orthodoxy of Bumide v 2 v 2 v^(2)v^{2} Cutelli and overtuled all the cases that had purported to award ‘Sullivan v v vv Gordon’ damages.
在 Sullium v Gordon [1999]一案中，新南威尔士州上诉法院由五名法官组成的合议庭明确推翻了其在 Bumide v Cutelli 案（如上所述）中的先前裁决。上诉法院认为，当一名女性因侵权行为导致丧失照顾他人（该案中为子女）的能力时，可通过格里菲斯-克尔克梅耶损害赔偿原则获得该能力丧失的赔偿。正如梅森法官（斯皮格曼首席法官、斯汀法官和鲍威尔法官附议）所言：“承认母亲因能力中断而无法继续为家庭做出常规贡献可获得赔偿，意味着法律最终承认了此类工作的经济价值”（Sullium v Gordon [1999]: [331]-[332]）。但这一发展在 CSR 诉埃迪案[2005]中被最高法院明确否定。该法院借此机会实质上批评了新南威尔士州上诉法院，明确表示不存在所谓的“沙利文诉戈登”损害赔偿类别。法院恢复了 Bumide v 2 v 2 v^(2)v^{2} Cutelli 的正统观点，并推翻了所有试图授予“Sullivan v v vv Gordon”损害赔偿的案件。
In CSR v v vv Eddy, the plaintiff had developed mesothelioma as a consequence of exposure to asbestos in the workplace. While the company did not contest liability, it took the matter to the High Court after the trial and intermediate appellate courts had awarded the plaintiff ‘Sullivan v v vv Gordon’ damages in relation to the care he had previously provided for his wife who suffered from arthritis (two hours per week).
在 CSR v v vv Eddy 一案中，原告因在工作场所接触石棉而患上间皮瘤。尽管该公司未对赔偿责任提出异议，但在地方法院和上诉法院裁定原告有权获得“Sullivan v v vv Gordon”赔偿金（用于支付其患有关节炎的妻子每周两小时的护理费用）后，该公司仍将案件上诉至高等法院。
In the High Court, the plaintiff (there the respondent) argued that Sullitan v v vv Gordon damages are a natural extension of Griffills 2 hertemerer damages. The majority of the High Court did not agree: while they did not abolish Griffith x x xx Hierhemerer damages altogether, they held that they were both ‘controversial’ (as evidenced by the numerous statutory modifications) (CSR ∵ ∵ :'\because Eddy [2005]: [26]) and ‘anomalous’ as they depart from the ‘usual rule that damages other than damages payable for a loss not measurable in money are not recoverable for an injury unless the injury produces actual financial loss’ (CSR v v vv Eddy [2005]: [26]). The majority
在高等法院，原告（即被告）主张，Sullitan v v vv Gordon 损害赔偿是 Griffills 2 Hertemerer 损害赔偿的自然延伸。高等法院的大多数法官并不认同这一观点：虽然他们并未完全废除格里菲斯 x x xx 赫特梅雷尔损害赔偿，但他们认为这两种损害赔偿均具有“争议性”（如众多立法修改所证明的）（CSR ∵ ∵ :'\because 埃迪[2005]：[26])，且“异常”，因为它们偏离了“除因损失无法以金钱衡量而应赔偿的损害外，其他损害赔偿不得因伤害本身而获得，除非该伤害造成实际财务损失”的通常规则（CSR v v vv Eddy [2005]: [26]）。多数意见
characterised Sulliven v v vv Gordon damages as purporting to compensate for ‘loss to the family’, and held that this was not the usual domain of damages in tort law, which ‘concentrates on compensating injured plaintiffs’ (CSR v v vv Eddy [2005]: [42]).
苏利文 v v vv 戈登损害赔偿被认定为旨在补偿“家庭损失”，并认为这并非侵权法中损害赔偿的通常范畴，因为侵权法“专注于补偿受损害的原告”（CSR v v vv 埃迪[2005]: [42]）。
The High Court decided that while loss of the capacity to provide ‘gratuitous’ personal or domestic services was compensable, compensation was available only as part of general damages (that is, as non-economic loss) rather than as a separate head of damages, the amount of which would otherwise be separately assessed according to the commercial cost of providing the services that the plaintiff can no longer provide. In taking this view, the High Court rejected the existence of this category of clamages as a common law doctrine (CSR v Eddy [2005]: [54]), though it acknowledged that it had been assumed by legislatures in Queensland and Victoria, legislated for in the Australian Capital Territory and was accepted doctrine in Canada (CSR v Eddy [2005]: [9]-[10]). 26 26 ^(26){ }^{26}
高等法院裁定，虽然丧失提供“无偿”个人或家庭服务的能力可获得赔偿，但赔偿仅作为一般损害赔偿的一部分（即非经济损失）而非作为独立的损害赔偿项目，其金额本应根据原告无法再提供的服务之商业成本单独评估。在作出此裁决时，高等法院否定了此类索赔作为普通法原则的存在（CSR v Eddy [2005]: [54]），尽管其承认该原则曾被昆士兰州和维多利亚州立法机关假定，在澳大利亚首都领地通过立法规定，并在加拿大被视为既定法理（CSR v Eddy [2005]:[9]-[10]）。 26 26 ^(26){ }^{26}
The majority of the Court treated the provision of care for family members as, in effect, just one of the many voluntary pastimes that an injured plaintiff might engage in, and therefore too remote to address via a head of damages. This approach emerges perhaps most clearly in the following extract from the joint judgment of Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Heydon JJ (footnotes omitted):
法院的大多数法官将为家庭成员提供护理视为实质上只是受伤原告可能从事的众多自愿消遣活动之一，因此与损害赔偿的赔偿项目无关。这种观点在格利森首席大法官、古莫和海登法官的联合判决书中（脚注略）的以下摘录中最为明确：
Where is the line to be drawn 3 3 ^(3){ }^{3}. . . How far, then, does the Sullivan v v vv Gordon principle go? To loss of capacity to care for close family members (de jure or de facto), or any family members (de jure or de facto), or foster children, or members of the plaintiff’s household, whether ‘immediate’ or ‘extended’; and if to any of these classes, only to dependent members of them, or all members of them? If only to close family members, what is ‘closeness’? If only to dependent members, what is ‘dependency’? If the test turns on damage to capacity, why should recovery not extend beyond domestic services? Should it apply beyond domestic services to the wide range of educative services healthy parents supply their children of an academic, sporting or cultural kind? And if the incapacity to give gratuitous services is a loss to the giver, ought one not to pay the pious spinster whose charitable works are inhilbited by injury? Or should it extend to services provided to friends, or to neighbours? Should it extend to plaintiffs who customarily visited or helped many hospital patients, or old people, or destitute people; or provided volunteer emergency services to others even though they were complete strangers to that plaintiff?
界限应如何划定？ 3 3 ^(3){ }^{3} . . . 那么，苏利文-戈登原则的适用范围究竟有多广？是否应以丧失照顾近亲（无论法律上或事实上）的能力为界限，还是以丧失照顾任何家庭成员（无论法律上或事实上）、养子女或原告家庭成员（无论“直系”或“旁系”）的能力为界限？如果以丧失照顾任何上述类别成员的能力为界限，那么是否仅限于该类别的依赖成员，还是包括所有成员？如果仅限于近亲，那么“近亲”如何界定？如果仅限于依赖成员，什么是“依赖”？如果测试基于能力损害，为什么赔偿不应超出家庭服务范围？是否应扩展至健康父母为子女提供的广泛教育服务，如学术、体育或文化类服务？如果给予无偿服务的能力丧失对给予者构成损失，是否应赔偿因伤害而无法继续慈善工作的虔诚老处女？是否应扩展至朋友或邻居提供的服务？是否应扩展至原告惯常探访或帮助众多医院患者、老年人或穷人，或向他人提供志愿紧急服务（即使与该原告完全陌生）的情况？
(CSR v Eddy [2005]: [61]) 27 27 ^(27){ }^{27}
（CSR 在 Eddy [2005]: [61]） 27 27 ^(27){ }^{27}
And in a separate concurring judgment, McHugh J J JJ commented:
在另一份 concurring judgment 中，McHugh J J JJ 评论道：
As a matter of principle, Griffiths v v vv Lerliemerer damages are an anomaly. There is no reason in principle why the inability of an injured person to meet his or her needs should be regarded as a special case, no reason why that inability should be distinguished from incapacities such as restriction of use or movement or the pursuit of social, sporting or business activities. Incapacities falling
原则上，格里菲斯-勒里梅尔损害赔偿是一种异常情况。从原则上讲，没有理由将受害人无法满足自身需求的情况视为特殊案例，也没有理由将这种无能力与使用或行动受限、从事社会、体育或商业活动等其他无能力情况区分开来。属于以下类别的无能力情况：
into the latter categories are compensated under the head of general damages. They are compensated in the same way as pain and suffering under the general head of the loss of enjoyment of life. They are not given a special award of damages. In principle, neither should incapacity resulting in the need for services, except in respect of liabilities incurred up to the date of verdict.
属于后者类别的损害应在一般损害赔偿项下予以赔偿。其赔偿方式与因丧失生命享受而遭受的痛苦和折磨在一般损害赔偿项下相同。此类损害不单独授予特别损害赔偿。原则上，因丧失能力导致需要服务的情形也不应获得赔偿，但判决日之前产生的责任除外。
(CSR v Eddy [2005]: [91])
（企业社会责任在埃迪[2005]：[91]）

Conclusion  结论

The reversal of Sullivan v v vv Gordon by the High Court in CSR v v vv Eddy was a disappointing setback to what had appeared to be an increasing recognition of the economic value of work in the home. 28 28 ^(28){ }^{28} Over the 25 years that I have worked in this field there did appear (at least until 2005) to have been some element of a progress narrative in Australian case law developments and a sense that some of the academic work of feminist scholars in this field had had some impact on judicial decision making. 29 29 ^(29){ }^{29} But the High Court has firmly rejected this characterisation and has retturned work in the home to its ‘proper place’ in tort law, general damages for non economic loss.
最高法院在 CSR Eddy 案中推翻了 Sullivan v v vv Gordon 案的裁决，这对于此前似乎日益得到认可的家庭劳动经济价值而言，是一个令人失望的挫折。 28 28 ^(28){ }^{28} 在我从事该领域工作的 25 年间（至少直至 2005 年），澳大利亚判例法的发展确实似乎存在某种进步叙事，且学术界女性主义学者在该领域的学术研究对司法裁决产生了一定影响。 29 29 ^(29){ }^{29} 但最高法院明确否决了这种表述，并将家庭劳动重新归类为侵权法中的“非经济损失”一般损害赔偿范畴。
A loss of capacity to work in the home is not the same as providing the charitable work undertaken by the ‘pious spinster’: it is the day-to-day work that facilitates the economic activity that takes place outside the home. It is simply not appropriate to characterise this work as a loss of amenity, a loss analogous to the loss of ability to play golf (compare Graycar 2002).
丧失在家中从事劳动的能力，与“虔诚的未婚女性”所从事的慈善工作并不相同：前者是指日常劳动，这些劳动为家庭外发生的经济活动提供了便利。将这种劳动描述为“生活便利的丧失”，即与丧失打高尔夫球能力相类比的丧失，是完全不恰当的（参见 Graycar 2002）。
As long ago as 1977, the late High Court Justice Lionel Murphy clearly recognised the economic nature of work in the home when in Shaman v v vv Evans (1977) he said:
早在 1977 年，已故高等法院法官利昂内尔·墨菲（Lionel Murphy）在《萨曼·埃文斯案》（Shaman Evans, 1977）中就明确指出家庭劳动的经济性质，他指出：
A woman who loses her capacity to make the usual contributions of a wife and mother in a household suffers great economic deprivation. Actions for loss of services correctly treat this as economic injury, but as a loss to the husband on the archaic view of the husband as master or owner of his wife. The economic loss is one to the wife or mother. It is her capacity to work, either in the household or outside, which is affected.
一位女性若丧失了作为妻子和母亲在家庭中履行通常职责的能力，将遭受严重的经济剥夺。因丧失服务能力而提起的诉讼正确地将此视为经济损害，但根据将丈夫视为妻子主人或所有者的过时观念，这种损害被视为对丈夫的损失。经济损失实际上属于妻子或母亲本人。受影响的是她工作能力，无论是家庭内还是家庭外。
(Shaman v Evaus [1977]:[ 598])
（萨满在埃瓦乌斯 [1977]:[ 598]）
It was precisely this characterisation of the nature of that work that was adopted by the NSW Court of Appeal in Sulliuan v v vv Gordon ([1999]: [322]), only to be rejected by the High Court in CSR v Eddy where the Court has once again relegated that work to the field of non-economic loss (and therefore made it susceptible to statutory caps or abolition). 30 30 ^(30){ }^{30}
正是对该工作性质的这种定性，被新南威尔士州上诉法院在 Sulliuan v v vv Gordon 案（[1999]: [322]）中采纳，但随后被最高法院在 CSR 诉 Eddy 案中否决。最高法院再次将该工作归类为非经济损失领域（因此使其可能受到法定上限或废除的限制）。 30 30 ^(30){ }^{30}
While this chapter has clivided the issues examined into separate topics, at least the second and third are clearly related, focusing as they do on work in the home. And of course women’s capacity to participate effectively in paid work is necessarily dependent on their being able either to combine that work with work in the home,
虽然本章将所讨论的问题划分为独立的主题，但至少第二和第三个主题显然是相关的，因为它们都聚焦于家庭中的工作。当然，女性有效参与有偿工作的能力必然取决于她们能否将有偿工作与家庭工作相结合，
or to afford to outsource those services (for those not lucky enough to live in those households where, if we believe the case law, housework is shared). Each of the three aspects of damages assessment discussed in this chapter fundamentally involves attitudes to and understandings of women’s work and, in particular, its economic contribution to the community. With this emphatic restatement of the non-economic nature of that work, we can only wonder where the next 30 years of judicial decision making on damages assessment will take us.
或无法承担外包这些服务的费用（对于那些不够幸运、无法生活在那些家庭中的女性而言，根据案例法，家务劳动在这些家庭中是共享的）。本章讨论的损害赔偿评估的三个方面，本质上都涉及对女性劳动的态度和理解，特别是其对社区的经济贡献。在明确重申这种劳动的非经济性质后，我们不禁要问，未来 30 年的司法裁决在损害赔偿评估方面将走向何方。

Notes  注释

  • Thank you to Margie Cronin, who worked with me on damages in the 1990s, and to Anthea Vogl, who assisted me in bringing this work into the current century.
    感谢玛吉·克罗宁（Margie Cronin），她在 20 世纪 90 年代与我合作处理损害赔偿事宜，以及安西娅·沃格（Anthea Vogl），她协助我将这项工作带入 21 世纪。
    See the actuarial tables in the appendices to Harold Luntz’s Assessment of Damages for Personal Injuy and Death (2002), which are divided into those for female earnings and those for male earnings (and see 5.3.4); see also Lewis v Shimotaua [2008].
    参见哈罗德·伦茨（Harold Luntz）所著《人身伤害及死亡损害赔偿评估》（2002 年版）附录中的精算表，该表分为女性收入和男性收入两部分（见 5.3.4）；另见刘易斯诉西莫塔乌案[2008]。
    2 See eg Chamallas and Wriggins (2010); Chamallas (1994): Cassels (1995); Adjin-Tettey (2000): Adjin-Tetty (2004); Chamallas (1998); Chamallas (1995); Wriggins (2008); Finley [1997]: and Koenig and Rustad (1995).
    2 参见例如 Chamallas 和 Wriggins（2010）；Chamallas（1994）；Cassels（1995）；Adjin-Tettey（2000）；Adjin-Tetty（2004）；Chamallas（1998）；Chamallas（1995）；Wriggins（2008）；Finley [1997]；以及 Koenig 和 Rustad（1995）。
    3 See also Levis "Shimokatea [2008] a NSW District Court decision where the trial judge rejected the use of average female carnings as the plaintiff in that case had no children and therefore would not be likely to need to work part time or intermittently, ‘to the detriment of [her] earning capacity ([280]).
    3 参见莱维斯《Shimokatea [2008]》一案，新南威尔士州地方法院的审判法官驳回了使用平均女性收入作为原告的依据，因为该案原告没有子女，因此不太可能需要兼职或间歇性工作，这将“损害其 earning capacity”（[280]）。
    4 Note that the use of adjectives, such as ‘female’ is itself a marker of ‘otherness’: see for an analogous discussion Graycar (2008: 79-80).
    4 需注意，使用形容词（如“女性的”）本身即是一种“他者性”的标记：参见 Graycar（2008: 79-80）对此的类似讨论。
    5 See also the discussion of this case in Adjin-Tetty (2004; 319).
    5 参见 Adjin-Tetty（2004；319）对本案的讨论。
    6 This was a case involving a plaintiff with one white and one black parent (discussed in detail by Chamallas and Wriggins (2010: 161-2)).
    6 这是一个涉及一名原告的案件，该原告有一位白人父母和一位黑人父母（该案件在 Chamallas 和 Wriggins（2010: 161-2）中进行了详细讨论）。
    7 Chamallas and Wriggins (2010: 163) refer there to another case, also referred to by Weinstein J of his decision, USu Bcdonie ([2004]: 253-4), where a federal judge refused to use raced or gendered tables to determine the compensation award for the families of two native American homicide victims, one of whom was female. The judge in Bedonie held that as a matter of public policy, blended tables should be used to determine lost earnings.
    7 查马拉斯和里金斯（2010: 163）在此处提到了另一个案例，该案例也被韦恩斯坦法官在其裁决中引用，即 USu Bcdonie 案（[2004]: 253-4），其中一名联邦法官拒绝使用基于种族或性别的赔偿标准来确定两名美洲原住民谋杀案受害者家属的赔偿金额，其中一名受害者为女性。Bedonie 案的法官认为，作为公共政策问题，应使用混合表格来确定损失收入。
    8 McHughJ commented in response to the 28 per cent deduction for vicissitudes: ‘I camnot ever remember a case that got anywhere near that figure’ (Hinn v v vv, NSH’ Insurouce Mimisterial Corforation [1995b]; [3]). Deane J also suggested that the amount of discount for her child care responsibilities ‘seems to assume retarded children’ since ‘the child minding seems to go on for a long time’ (H13m u MSH theume USH ([1995b]): 2-3).
    8 麦休·J 就 28%的变故扣除率发表评论：‘我从未见过任何案例接近这个数字’（欣 v v vv ，NSH《保险部部长令》[1995b]；[3]）。Deane J 还建议，因子女照料责任而扣除的金额“似乎假设了智力障碍儿童”，因为“子女照料似乎持续了很长时间”（H13m u MSH theume USH ([1995b]): 2-3）。
    9 For further discussion of 11 mm , see Cooper-Stephenson (1995); Graycar (1995).
    9 有关 11 毫米的进一步讨论，请参见 Cooper-Stephenson（1995）；Graycar（1995）。
    10 This research was funded by a grant from the Australian Research Ciouncil for the port 'A the results of that work, see Graycar (1992: 1993; 1995, 1997; 2002: and 2003). See ‘Compo Cut Raises Gender Issue’, Sydney Moming Hcrald (9 August 1993), reporting Doherty v Footner (1993).
    10 本研究由澳大利亚研究理事会资助。有关该研究的成果，请参见 Graycar（1992: 1993; 1995, 1997; 2002: 和 2003）。参见《Compo Cut 引发性别问题》，《悉尼晨锋报》（1993 年 8 月 9 日），报道 Doherty v Footner（1993）一案。
    12 See Australian Social Trends 2008 (ABS, Cat No 4102.0: 121). For Canada, see Statistics Canadn, ‘Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report’, Catalogue 89-503AVE (2011: Chapter 1).
    12 参见《澳大利亚社会趋势 2008》（澳大利亚统计局，编号 4102.0：121）。关于加拿大，参见加拿大统计局，《加拿大女性：基于性别的统计报告》，目录号 89-503AVE（2011 年：第一章）。
    13 In South Australia and Queensland consortium is available to a wife where her husband is injured, and in New South Wales, Western Australian, Tasmania and the ACT, the action has been abolished completely: for details see CSR l Edd l CSR l Edd l CSR_(l)Edd_(l)\operatorname{CSR}{ }_{l} \operatorname{Edd}{ }_{l} [2005]: [4.4]. The action remains available to a husband in the Northern Territory and Victoria, except in
    13 在南澳大利亚州和昆士兰州，如果丈夫受伤，妻子可以提起诉讼；而在新南威尔士州、西澳大利亚州、塔斯马尼亚州和澳大利亚首都领地，此类诉讼已被完全废除：详情请见 CSR l Edd l CSR l Edd l CSR_(l)Edd_(l)\operatorname{CSR}{ }_{l} \operatorname{Edd}{ }_{l} [2005]: [4.4]。在北领地和维多利亚州，丈夫仍可提起此类诉讼，但以下情况除外：
    circumstances where the claimant’s wife has been injured in a road or industrial accilent: see discussion below and Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (NT) s 5: and Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic), s 93. The action has also been abolished in the UK: see Administration of Justice Act 1982, s 2.
    当索赔人的妻子在道路交通事故或工业事故中受伤时：请参见下文讨论及《机动车事故（赔偿）法》1979 年（北领地）第 5 条，以及《交通事故法》1986 年（维多利亚州）第 93 条。该诉讼程序在英国已被废除：请参见《司法行政法》1982 年第 2 条。
  1. Note that when debated in Parliament in NSW, politicians referred to equality as one of the rationales for reform: ‘I would support an amendment . . . that would make marital consortium responsibility a two-way operation applicable to both husband and wife - a situation in which either party could seek redress if he or she wishes. The constant attacks, either directly or by implication, on the traditional family, or what
    请注意，在新南威尔士州议会辩论时，政客们将平等作为改革理由之一：‘我支持一项修正案……使婚姻共同财产责任成为适用于夫妻双方的双向义务——即任何一方均可寻求救济。对传统家庭或所谓‘传统家庭’的持续攻击，无论是直接还是间接，都……’
    are to be regretted’ (NSW Legrislative Conncil, Hansard (10 May 1984-549) (Sen Fucl Nile)).
    “应予遗憾”（新南威尔士州立法议会，议事录（1984 年 5 月 10 日-549 页）（参议员福克·尼尔））。
    15 Nearly 20 years ago, the ACT abolished the action for loss of consortium and replaced it with a statutory cause of action for the primary accident victim: see for the current version, Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 100 . In assessing damages under that section, it is immaterial whether the plaintiff performed the domestic services for the benefit of other members of the household or solely for her or his own benefit: nor is account to be taken of the fact that the plaintiff neither paid, nor will s/he have to pay someone else to perform those services or that they have been or are likely to be performed gratuitously by others (s 100 (2)(a)-(d)). For background to this legislation, see Australian Laur Reform Conmission, Loss of Consortium: Compensation for Loss of Capacity to Do Houseum (1986) and Community Law Reform Committee of the Australian Capital Territory, Loss of Consortium; Loss of Capacity to do Housccork (1991). See CSRv Eddy [2005]: [53]).
    15 几乎 20 年前，澳大利亚首都地区（ACT）废除了因丧失配偶伴侣关系而提起的损害赔偿诉讼，并以一项针对主要事故受害者的法定损害赔偿请求权取而代之：参见现行版本《民法（侵权）法》2002 年（ACT）第 100 条。在根据该条规定评估损害赔偿时，原告是否为其他家庭成员提供家务服务，或是仅为自身利益提供家务服务，均不影响赔偿结果；也不考虑原告是否曾支付他人费用、或未来需支付他人费用以获得此类服务，或此类服务是否已由他人无偿提供或可能由他人无偿提供（第 100 条第 2 款（a）至（d）项）。关于该立法的背景，参见澳大利亚遗产改革委员会，《丧失共同生活权：因丧失从事家务劳动能力而获得的赔偿》（1986 年）及澳大利亚首都领地社区法律改革委员会，《丧失共同生活权；丧失从事家务劳动能力》（1991 年）。参见 CSR 诉埃迪案[2005]：[53]。
    16 The court in Fobel y y yy Dean relied upon the English Court of Appeal decision in Daly v v vv Gineral Staan Narigation [1980].
    16 法院在 Fobel y y yy Dean 一案中援引了英国上诉法院在 Daly v v vv Gineral Staan Narigation [1980]一案中的判决。
    17 Adjin-Tetty (2000: 530) notes that consortum has been abolished in most jurisdictions in Canada. See eg Law and Equity Act RSBC 1996, c. 253, s 63 (British Columbia); The Equality of Status of Married Persons Act SS 198-1-85-86 c. E-10.3 (Saskatchewan), s 6: and The Equality of Status Act RS 1 1987 c E130 (Manitoba), s I(l)©.
    17 阿德金-特蒂（2000: 530）指出，在加拿大大多数司法管辖区，共同财产制度已被废除。参见例如《法律与公平法》RSBC 1996，第 253 章，第 63 条（不列颠哥伦比亚省）；《已婚人士地位平等法》SS 198-1-85-86 第 E-10.3 章（萨斯喀彻温省），第 6 条；以及《地位平等法》RS 1 1987 第 E130 章（曼尼托巴省），第 I(l)© 条。
    18 In 2006, the Australian Bureau of Statistic reported that women still do two-thirds of all household work in Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics, How Australians Use their Time, 2006 (ABS. Catalogue No +153.0 ), Table 1. The results of data from three national surveys in Australia showed that females in dual-eamer families still spend significantly more time doing housework, and males in dual earner families spend more time doing paid work: see Jemny Chesters et al (2008); and Baxter et al (1990).
    18 2006 年，澳大利亚统计局报告称，澳大利亚女性仍承担了家庭事务的三分之二：澳大利亚统计局，《澳大利亚人如何利用时间》，2006 年（ABS. 目录号 +153.0），表 1。澳大利亚三项全国性调查的数据结果显示，双收入家庭中的女性仍花费显著更多时间从事家务劳动，而双收入家庭中的男性则花费更多时间从事有偿工作：参见 Jemny Chesters 等（2008）；及 Baxter 等（1990）。
    19 A recent study undertaken by the Australian Institute of Family Studies confirmed that it is still overwhelmingly mothers who are the primary caregivers of children: see Ruth Weston et al (2011). For men in 2006, the average time per day spent doing housework in 2006 was 43 minutes. For women, the average time spent on housework was over triple this amount, at 2 hours 11 minutes a day in 2006 . In 2006 men spent, on average, 22 domen spew 59 minutes a day on child 22006. Hers. Cat No 4153.0).
    19 澳大利亚家庭研究所在最近的一项研究中证实，母亲仍然是儿童的主要照顾者：参见 Ruth Weston 等（2011）。2006 年，男性每天平均用于家务的时间为 43 分钟。女性每天用于家务劳动的平均时间是男性的 3 倍多，达到 2 小时 11 分钟。2006 年，男性每天平均用于家务劳动的时间为 22 分 59 秒（数据来源：澳大利亚统计局，2006 年，编号：4153.0）。
20 See und where, among other things, it emer a somen women took far more responsibility for housework thas 1, Martin (1990).
20 参见及相关研究，其中指出，在某些情况下，女性承担的家务责任远超男性，例如马丁（1990）的研究。
21 ‘Care 2 devoted care on someone else’s part, often a wife or woman relative who may have to abandon her ordinary employment to nurse the plaintiff and who will in any event find the task a demanding one’ (Stephen J. Criffith : Herhemeyer [1977]: [170]-[171]).
21 “照顾 2 指他人对某人提供的专门护理，通常是妻子或女性亲属，她可能需要放弃正常工作来照料原告，并且无论如何都会发现这项任务非常艰巨”（斯蒂芬·J·克里夫斯：《赫尔海默》[1977]：[170]-[171]）。
22 In Feselinovic o Thorley [1988], the plaintill was a man who, as part of his claim, sought damages for his loss of ability to provide care for his wife. The Court described this
22 在费塞利诺维奇诉索利案[1988]中，原告是一名男子，他在诉讼中主张赔偿因丧失照顾妻子能力而遭受的损失。法院对此描述为：

Damaging Stereotypes: the Return of 'Hoovering as a Hobby'
有害的刻板印象： "吸尘作为爱好"的卷土重来

sband carer as ‘a grown man who deliberately takes himself outside the workforce to provide this type of service’ [195].
sband 护理员被定义为“一个成年男性，他有意识地选择退出劳动力市场，专门提供此类服务”[195]。
Ure forme clata on these types of work: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Hou alustralians Burcau 194e, 2006 (ABS. Catalogue No 4153.0), Table I and Table 7: Australian 4912.1) Sutistics, Hanging Care and Fork New South Hales, 2005 (ABS, Catalogue No Carrs thanary of mongs; and Australian Bureau of Statistics, Disability, Ageing and
以下是此类工作的统计数据：澳大利亚统计局，澳大利亚人口普查 194e，2006（ABS，目录号 4153.0），表 I 和表 7：澳大利亚 4912.1）统计，悬挂护理和叉新南威尔士州，2005 年（ABS，目录号 Carrs thanary of mongs；以及澳大利亚统计局，残疾、老龄化和
24 Ibid. While the
24 同上。 然而，
caring for family memer not specifally consider unpaid work done by women in reas becoms canabe extrapolate trom its findings to conclude that women carers would perform See they large amounts of unpaid household work.
对家庭成员的照料并未特别考虑女性在家庭中从事的无偿工作，因此无法将研究结果外推至其他领域，进而得出女性照料者会从事大量无偿家务工作的结论。
2.5 see the cases discussed in Graycar (1996: 86-7).
2.5 参见 Graycar（1996: 86-7）中讨论的案例。
26 At [2], the majority referred to a decision of the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia. Carter traderson ([1998]: [473]), where, they noted, Roscoe.J summarised that court’s reasons for following mtermediate appellate courts in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta,
26 在[2]中，多数意见援引了新斯科舍省上诉法院的裁决。卡特·特雷德森案（[1998]: [473]），其中，他们指出，罗斯科法官总结了该法院遵循萨斯喀彻温省、不列颠哥伦比亚省和阿尔伯塔省中间上诉法院理由的依据。
27 Inter Lewand and Newfoundand in adopting Stallinan vordon principles. It seems the ‘pious spinster’ has a life of her own in the law; compare Graycar and
27 因莱万和纽芬兰在采纳斯塔利纳·沃尔顿原则时存在分歧。似乎“虔诚的未婚女性”在法律中有着自己的生命；参见格雷卡尔和
28 mank (2007).  28 曼克（2007）。
Note, however, that at least in NSW, the effect of the decision was reversed by legislation: see now (aval Liability Act 2002, s 15B(2) (introduced in 2006). The amending legislaton and its history are discussed by Campbell JA in Amaca v. South ([2009]: [27]-[29]),
然而，需要注意的是，至少在新南威尔士州，该决定的效果已被立法所推翻：参见现行《无过失责任法》（2002 年）第 15B(2)条（2006 年引入）。关于该修正立法及其历史，坎贝尔法官在阿马卡诉南（[2009]: [27]-[29]）一案中进行了讨论。
99 With whom Giles and Tobias JJA agreed.
99 吉尔斯和托比亚斯·JJA 对此表示同意。
At the risk of some degree of immodesty, it is perhaps worth noting that the decision in
冒昧地说，或许值得一提的是，在
30 For an 2 Gordon referred to some of this author’s work on these issues.
30 对于第 2 点，戈登提到了该作者在这些问题上的部分研究成果。
(NSW) 2002  （新南威尔士州）2002

Cases  案例

Amaca v Aouch [2009] NSWCA 50
阿马卡在奥奇 [2009] 新南威尔士州法院 50
Audreus 2 Grand and Tov Albera [1978] 2 SCR 229
奥德鲁斯 2 世与托夫·阿尔贝拉 [1978] 2 SCR 229
Angelopolous v Rubchhold [1991] SA Sup Ct. 3 April 1991, Full Court (unreported)
安杰洛波洛斯诉鲁布霍尔德案 [1991] 南澳大利亚最高法院 1991 年 4 月 3 日，全体法官（未公开）
Becin a GEC Alustralia and Ors [1993] Qld Sup Ct, 13 May 1993 (unreported)
贝辛诉 GEC 澳大利亚公司等案 [1993] 昆士兰最高法院，1993 年 5 月 13 日（未公开）
Becker v Quccusland Imestment Corporation [2009] ACTSC 134
贝克尔诉库库斯兰德投资公司案 [2009] ACTSC 134
Best 2 ‘Samud Fox and Co Ltd [1952] 1 AC 716
最佳 2 ‘Samud Fox and Co Ltd [1952] 1 AC 716’
Bondin "Lamaro [1994] NSWCA 29
邦丁的《拉马罗 [1994] NSWCA 29》
Bunnicle a Cutelli [1982] 2 NSWLR 26
邦尼克对卡特利案 [1982] 2 新南威尔士州法律报告 26
Canter 2 2 ^(2){ }^{2} Anderson [1998] 160 DLR ( 4 th ) 464
坎特 2 2 ^(2){ }^{2} 安德森 [1998] 160 DLR (第 4 卷) 464
CSR ∵ ∵ :'\because Eddy [2005] 296 CLR 1
企业社会责任 ∵ ∵ :'\because 埃迪 [2005] 296 CLR 1
Dal’ z’ General Steam. Xávigation [1980] 3 All ER 696
达尔兹通用蒸汽公司诉哈维加维亚案 [1980] 3 All ER 696
De Sales v Ingrill [2002a] P57/2001 (17 April 2002) High Court of Australia transcript. Online available: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2001/541.html De Sales v Ingrilli [2002b] (2002) 212 CLR 338
德·塞尔斯诉英格里利案 [2002a] P57/2001（2002 年 4 月 17 日）澳大利亚高等法院庭审记录。在线可查：http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2001/541.html 德·塞尔斯诉英格里利案 [2002b] (2002) 212 CLR 338
Doherty "Foother [1993] SA Supreme Court, Full Court 29 April 1993 (unreported) Fobel "Dean [1991] 83 DLR (4th) 385 (Saskatchewan Court of Appeal)
多赫蒂 "福瑟 [1993] 南澳大利亚最高法院，全体法官会议 1993 年 4 月 29 日（未报告）福贝尔 "迪恩 [1991] 83 DLR (4th) 385（萨斯喀彻温省上诉法院）
Griffilhs v Kerkemeyer [1977] 139 CLR 161
格里菲尔斯诉克尔克梅耶案 [1977] 139 CLR 161
Gronote 2 Gronow [1979] 14+ CLR 513
格罗诺特 2 格罗诺 [1979] 14+ CLR 513
Harper v Bangalouc Molors Ply Itd [1990] NSWCA 85
哈珀诉班加卢克·莫洛斯·普利有限公司案 [1990] 新南威尔士州上诉法院第 85 号判决
Ficalley 'Fones [1979] I NSWLR 723
菲卡利 'Fones [1979] I NSWLR 723
Kêlson "Transfort Afcident Commission [199.]] Vic Sup Ct, 5 May 199.1 (unreported)
凯尔森“运输事故委员会[199.]”维多利亚最高法院，1991 年 5 月 5 日（未公开）
Kovac v hovac [1982] 1 NSWLR 656
科瓦茨诉霍瓦茨 [1982] 1 NSWLR 656
Krocker u Jansen [1995] 123 DLR (4th) 652
克罗克与扬森 [1995] 123 DLR (第 4 版) 652
Langston vAEUH’ [1974] 1 All ER 980
兰斯顿诉 AEUH 案 [1974] 1 All ER 980
Let v Stean [1996] BCJ No 259 (BCCA): [1996] 19 BCLR (3d) 21
斯蒂安案 [1996] BCJ 第 259 号（BCCA）：[1996] 19 BCLR (3d) 21
Levis v Shimokate [2008] NSWDC 24-4
莱维斯在西莫凯特 [2008] 新南威尔士州最高法院 24-4
McLaren i Schealle [1994] 16 Alta LR (3d) 108
麦克拉伦诉谢尔 [1994] 16 Alta LR (3d) 108
McAfillan v City of Now lork [2008] 253 FRD 247 at 250 (EDNY 2008)
麦卡菲兰诉纽约市案 [2008] 253 FRD 247 第 250 页（纽约东区联邦地区法院 2008 年）
ASII Insurance Afinisterial Corporation z Rayar [1993] NSWCA 197
ASII 保险公司诉雷亚尔案 [1993] 新南威尔士州上诉法院 197
OBrien o OBren [1983] FLC 91-316
奥布莱恩或奥布伦 [1983] FLC 91-316
Park v Hobart Public Hospitals [1991] Tas Sup Ct, 12 December 1991 (unreported)
帕克诉霍巴特公立医院案 [1991] 塔斯马尼亚最高法院，1991 年 12 月 12 日（未公开）
Partidge v GIO [1993] NSW Sup Ct, 5 May 1993 (unreported)
帕特里奇诉新南威尔士州总检察长案 [1993] 新南威尔士州最高法院，1993 年 5 月 5 日（未公开）
Randall 1 1 ^(1){ }^{1} Dul [1994] Aust Torts Reports 81-307
兰德尔 1 1 ^(1){ }^{1} 戴尔 [1994] 澳大利亚侵权法报告 81-307
Rasmus : GIO [1992] NSWCA 201
拉斯穆斯：GIO [1992] 新南威尔士州刑事上诉法院 201
Rece v Reece [1994] NSWCA 259
雷斯诉里斯案 [1994] 新南威尔士州上诉法院 259
Rosmiak v Govmment Inswance Office (NSH) [1997] 41 NSWLR 608 (NSWCA) Shaman v Evans [1977] 138 CLR 563 (HCA)
罗斯米亚克诉政府保险办公室案（NSH）[1997] 41 NSWLR 608（新南威尔士州上诉法院）萨曼诉埃文斯案[1977] 138 CLR 563（澳大利亚联邦法院）
Smith v v vv Smith [1991] ACTSC 40
史密斯 v v vv 史密斯 [1991] ACTSC 40
Stchovic "City Group Pty Ltd [1994] ACT Sup Ct, 2 November 1994 (unreported)
斯托维奇 "城市集团私人有限公司 [1994] 澳大利亚首都地区最高法院，1994 年 11 月 2 日（未公开）
Sulliuan v Gordon [1999] 47 NSWLR 319 (NSWCiA)
苏利安在戈登 [1999] 47 NSWLR 319 (NSWCiA)
Tucker (Guardian Ad Litem) v.Asleson [1991] 86 DLR (4th) 73 (BCSC)
特克尔（法定监护人）诉阿斯莱森案 [1991] 86 DLR (4th) 73 (BCSC)
Tucher (Gutardian Ad Litcm) u Asleson [1993] 102 DLR ( 4 th) 518 (BCCA)
图赫尔（古特尔迪安诉利特姆）与阿斯莱森 [1993] 102 DLR (4th) 518 (BCCA)
Tucker t t ^(t){ }^{t} Hestfiedd Design and Constanction Ptv Led [1993] 46 FCR 20 (Fecleral Court) Tulby v v vv G 7 Coles [1993] Qld Sup Ct. 13 Oct 1993 (unreported)
特克 t t ^(t){ }^{t} 赫斯特菲尔德设计与施工私人有限公司 [1993] 46 FCR 20（联邦法院） 蒂尔比 v v vv G 7 科尔斯 [1993] 昆士兰最高法院 1993 年 10 月 13 日（未报告）
U.S. v Bcdomie [2004] 317 F.Supp.2d 1285 (D. Utah 2004)
美国诉 Bcdomie 案 [2004] 317 F.Supp.2d 1285（犹他州地方法院 2004 年）
Van Graan u Follon [1991] Aust Torts Reports 81-103 (Tas Full Court)
范·格拉恩诉福隆案 [1991] 澳大利亚侵权报告 81-103（全院判决）
Lan Gerran i Fotton [1992] 175 CLR 327 (High Court of Australia)
兰·格拉南诉福顿案 [1992] 175 CLR 327（澳大利亚联邦法院）
Veselinovid v Thorley [1988] 1 Od R 191 (Queensland Court of Appeal)
维塞利诺维德诉索利案 [1988] 1 Od R 191（昆士兰上诉法院）
Waller a Ritchic [2004] 2 CPC (6th) 163: [2004] OJ No 787 (QL) (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
沃勒诉里奇克案 [2004] 2 CPC (6th) 163: [2004] OJ No 787 (QL) (安大略省高等法院)
Walker "Ritche [2005] 197 OAC 81: [2005] OJ No 1600 (QL) (Ontario Court of Appeal) * set aside by the Supreme Court of Canada on unrelated grounds: [2006] scc 45
沃克尔 "里奇 [2005] 197 OAC 81: [2005] OJ No 1600 (QL) (安大略省上诉法院) * 被加拿大最高法院以无关理由撤销：[2006] scc 45
Wallen "Hird [1993] S Ct Q 4 Oct 1993 (unreported)
沃伦 "赫德 [1993] 最高法院案例 1993 年 10 月 4 日（未公开）
Wheeler Tarpeh-Doe a United States [1991] 771 F Supp 427 (DDC 1991) Williams i Williams [1984] FLC 91-541 (Full Fam Ct)
韦勒·塔佩-多伊诉美国 [1991] 771 F Supp 427 (地方法院 1991)威廉姆斯诉威廉姆斯 [1984] FLC 91-541 (家庭法院)
Whan i.NSW’ Insurance Alinisterial Corp [1994] Aust Torts Rep 81-30-4 (NSW Court of Appeal) Whan i NSIF Insurance Afmisterial Conp [1995a] (1995) 184 CLR 485 (High Court of Australial
Whan i.NSW’ 保险公司 [1994] 澳大利亚侵权法报告 81-30-4（新南威尔士州上诉法院） Whan i NSIF 保险公司 [1995a] (1995) 184 CLR 485（澳大利亚联邦法院）
Hym "ASTF Inswance Aimistrial Corp S135/1994 [1995b] [1995] HCATrans 105 (18 April 1995). Online available: <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/1995/ 105 . html > 105 . html > 105.html >105 . \mathrm{html}>
Hym "ASTF 保险公司诉 Aimistrial 公司案，S135/1994 [1995b] [1995] HCATrans 105（1995 年 4 月 18 日）。在线可查：< http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/1995/ 105 . html > 105 . html > 105.html >105 . \mathrm{html}>

Bibliography  参考书目

Adjin-Tettey, E. (2000) ‘Contemporary Approaches to Compensating Female Tort Victims for Incapacity to Work’, Ilberta Laee Revite. 38: 504
阿德金-特特伊，E.（2000）《当代女性受害者因丧失劳动能力而获得赔偿的法律途径》，《伊尔伯塔·拉伊·雷维特》第 38 期：504 页。
  • (200-1) ‘Replicating and Perpetuating Inequalities in Personal Injury Claims Through Female-Specific Contingencies’, McGill Law Journal, 49: 309
    (200-1) 《通过针对女性的特殊条款复制和延续人身伤害赔偿中的不平等》，麦吉尔法律期刊，49: 309
    Australian Law Reform Commission (1986) Loss of Consortium: Compensation for Loss of Capatity to Do Housework, Report No 32. Australian Government Publishing Service
    澳大利亚法律改革委员会（1986）《丧失共同生活权：因丧失家务劳动能力而获得的赔偿》，报告第 32 号。澳大利亚政府出版服务处。
Baxter, J., Gibson, D. with Lynch-Blosse, M. (1990) ‘Double Take: The Links Between Paid and Unpaid Work’, Australian Government Publishing Service
巴克斯特，J.，吉布森，D. 与林奇-布洛斯，M.（1990）《双重视角：有偿工作与无偿工作的关联》，澳大利亚政府出版服务局。
Cassels, J. (1995) ‘(In)Equality and the Law of Tort: Gender, Race and the Assessment of Damages’, Idvocates Quartery, 17: 158
卡塞尔斯，J.（1995）《（不）平等与侵权法：性别、种族与损害赔偿的评估》，《律师季刊》，17: 158
Chamallas, M. (199-4) ‘Questioning the Use of Race Specific and Gender Specific Economic Data in Tort Litigation: A Constitutional Argument’, Fordham Law Review’, 63: 73
查马拉斯，M.（199-4）《质疑在侵权诉讼中使用种族特定和性别特定经济数据：一项宪法论点》，《福特汉姆法律评论》，63: 73
  • (1995) ‘A Woman’s Worth: Gender Bias in Damage Awards’, Trial, 31: 38
    (1995) 《女性的价值：损害赔偿中的性别偏见》，《审判》，31: 38
    ___(1998) ‘The Architecture of Bias: Deep Structures in Tort Law’, University of Pennglania Lave Revice, 146: 463
    ___(1998) 《偏见的架构：侵权法中的深层结构》，宾夕法尼亚大学法律评论，146: 463
  • (2003) ‘The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund: Rethinking the Damages Element in Injury Law’, Tomessee Law Review 71: 51
    （2003）《9·11 受害者赔偿基金：重新审视侵权法中的损害赔偿要素》，《汤米西法律评论》71: 51
    Chamallas, M. and Wriggins, J. (2010) The Mcasure of Injug: Race, Gender, and Tort Laev. New York: New York University Press
    查马拉斯，M. 和 里金斯，J. (2010) 《不公的衡量：种族、性别与侵权法》。纽约：纽约大学出版社。
    Chesters, J. Baxter, J. and Western, M. ‘Paid and Unpaid Work in Austrailian Households: Towards an Understanding of the New Gender Division of Labour’, paper presented at the 10th Australian Institute of Families Studies Conference, Melbourne, July 2008, Online
    切斯特斯，J. 巴克斯特，J. 和韦斯特，M. 《澳大利亚家庭中的有偿与无偿劳动：理解新的性别分工》，论文发表于第 10 届澳大利亚家庭研究学会会议，墨尔本，2008 年 7 月，在线。
    Community Law Reform Committee of the Australian Capital Territory (1991) Loss of Consontimn: Loss of Capacity to do Howsawork, Report No 4. Canberra: Community Law Reform Committee
    澳大利亚首都领地社区法律改革委员会（1991）《同意的丧失：丧失进行法律行为的能力》，报告第 4 号。堪培拉：社区法律改革委员会
    Cooper-Stephenson, K. (1995) ‘Women’s Earnings and Personal Injury: A Cianadian Perspective: Ijwa u NSII’ Insurance Ministerial Corporation’, High Court Revice, 1: 14
    库珀-斯蒂芬森，K.（1995）《女性收入与人身伤害：加拿大视角：Iwja u NSII 保险部长公司》，高等法院评论，1: 14
    Final Rule (2002), September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, 67 Fed Reg No 49 11233-01, 13 March 2002, Online
    最终规则（2002 年），2001 年 9 月 11 日受害者赔偿基金，联邦登记第 67 卷第 4911233-01 号，2002 年 3 月 13 日，在线发布。
    Finley, L. (1997) ‘Female Trouble: The Implications of Tort Reform for Women’. Temesse Laz’ Review, 64: 847
    芬利，L.（1997）《女性困境：侵权法改革对女性的影响》。《特梅塞·拉兹评论》，64: 847
    Graycar, R. (1985a) ‘Compensation for Loss of Capacity to Work in the Home’ Sydner Late Revieu. 10: 528
    格雷卡尔，R.（1985a）《家庭劳动能力丧失的补偿》悉尼晚报评论。10: 528
  • (1985b) ‘Hoovering as a Hobby: The Conmon Lav’s Approach to Work in the Home’, Refractory Girl, 28: 22
    (1985b) 《吸尘作为一种爱好：康蒙·拉夫对家庭工作的态度》，《顽固女孩》，28: 22
  • (1992) ‘Women’s Work: Who Cares?’ Syducy Law Reviae’, 14: 86
    (1992) 《女性劳动：谁来关心？》载于《Syducy 法律评论》，第 14 期，第 86 页。
    – (1993) ‘Love’s Labour’s Cost: The High Court Decision in Ian Getan a Fenton’, Torts Latu Jounal, 1: 122
    – (1993) 《爱情的代价：伊恩·盖坦诉芬顿案的高等法院判决》，《侵权法杂志》，1: 122
  • (1995) ‘Damaged Awards: The Vicissitudes of Life as a Woman’. Torts Lau’ Journal. 3:160
    (1995) 《受损的奖项：作为女性的人生起伏》。《侵权法杂志》. 3:160
  • (1996) ‘Telling Tales: Legal Stories about V’iolence Against Women’, Australian Feminist Law Journal, 7: 79 (also published in Cardow Studies in Law and Literature 8: 297)
    (1996) 《讲述故事：关于针对妇女的暴力行为的法律故事》，《澳大利亚女性主义法律期刊》，7: 79（亦收录于《卡多法律与文学研究》8: 297）
  • (1997) ‘Hoovering as a Hobby and Other Stories: Gendered Assessments of Personal Injury Damages’, Emiersity of Brilish Columbia Law Review, 31: 17
    (1997) 《吸尘作为爱好及其他故事：对人身伤害赔偿的性别评估》，不列颠哥伦比亚大学法律评论，31: 17
    (2002) ‘Sex. Golf and Stereotypes: Measuring. Valuing and Imagining the Body in C.ourt’ Torts Laze Journal, 10: 205 Court’, Torts Laze 7
    (2002) 《性、高尔夫与刻板印象：衡量、评估与想象法庭中的身体》侵权法杂志，10: 205 侵权法杂志，7
    -(2003) ‘Putting Gender on the Damages Agenda: Michael Chesterman’s Contribution to Accident Compensation’, in Kam Fan Sin (ed), Legal Explorations: Essay’s in Honow of Professor Alichael Chesternan, Sydney: Lawbook Co. 139-54
    -(2003) 《将性别纳入损害赔偿议程：迈克尔·切斯特曼对事故赔偿的贡献》，载于 Kam Fan Sin（编），《法律探索：纪念阿尔凯尔·切斯特曼教授文集》，悉尼：法律出版社，第 139-154 页。
  • (2008) ‘Gender. Race, Bias and Perspective: OR. How Otherness Colours your Judgment’. International Journal of the Legal Profession. 15: 73
    (2008) 《性别、种族、偏见与视角：或他者如何影响你的判断》。《法律职业国际期刊》。15: 73
    Graycar, R. and Millbank,J. (2007) ‘From Functional Family to Spinster Sisters: Australia’s Distinctive Path to Relationship Recognition’、 Washington Uniersity Jounal of Law and Policy, 24: 121
    格雷卡尔，R. 和 米尔班克，J. (2007) 《从功能家庭到单身姐妹：澳大利亚关系认可的独特路径》，《华盛顿大学法律与政策期刊》，24: 121
Graycar, R. aud Morgan, J. (2002) The Hidden Gonder of Laee, 2nd edn, Sydney: Federation Press
格雷卡尔，R. 莫根，J.（2002）《拉伊的隐藏财富》，第 2 版，悉尼：联邦出版社。
Koenig. T. and Rustad, M. (1995) ‘His and Her Tort Reform: Gender Injustice in Disguise’, Itashington Law Revicu. 70: 1
科尼格，T. 和 鲁斯塔德，M. (1995) 《他的与她的侵权改革：伪装下的性别不公》，《伊塔斯华盛顿法律评论》. 70: 1
Luntz, H. (2002) Assessment of Damages for Prosonal Injuy and Dealh, 4th Edition, Butterworths
伦茨，H.（2002）《人身伤害与死亡损害赔偿评估》，第 4 版，巴特沃思出版社。
Martin, E. (1990) ‘Nen and Women on the Bench: Vive la Difference?’, Judicalue, 73: 20-1
马丁，E.（1990）《女性法官：性别差异的庆祝？》，《司法评论》，73: 20-1
Riseley, A.C. (1981) ‘Sex, Housework and the Law’, Adelade Late Reviex’, 7: 421
里斯利，A.C.（1981）《性别、家务劳动与法律》，《阿德莱德晚报评论》，7: 421
Weston, R., Qu, L., Gray, M., Kaspiew, R., Moloney. L. and Hand, K. (2011) ‘Care-Time
韦斯顿，R.，曲，L.，格雷，M.，卡斯皮耶，R.，莫洛尼，L. 和汉德，K. (2011) 《护理时间》
Arrangements After the 2006 Reforms: Implications for Children and Their Parents’ Fanily Matters, 86 : 19 86 : 19 86:1986: 19
2006 年改革后的安排：对儿童及其父母家庭事务的影响， 86 : 19 86 : 19 86:1986: 19
Wriggins, J. (2008) ‘Damages in Tort Litigation: Thoughts on Race and Remedies. 1865-2007’, Review of Litigation. 27: 37
Wriggins, J. (2008) 《侵权诉讼中的损害赔偿：关于种族与救济的思考（1865-2007）》，《诉讼评论》. 27: 37

Index  索引

Aamjiwnaang First Nation (Camadian aboriginal community)
阿姆吉瓦纳格第一民族（加拿大原住民社区）
exposure to pollution see endocrine disruption
污染暴露 参见内分泌紊乱
accident victims  事故受害者
damages for care costs 12, 215-220 accidents
护理费用赔偿 12, 215-220 起事故
personal injury damages see damages actuarial data
人身伤害赔偿金，参见赔偿金精算数据
use of gendered data 11, 206-209 advertising of drug products sca drug products liability
性别数据的使用 11, 206-209 药品广告 药品责任

Australia  澳大利亚

damages awards and sexual stereotyping see damage
损害赔偿与性别刻板印象，参见损害。
damages for loss of ability to care for others 11, 12, 217-218
因丧失照顾他人能力而造成的损害赔偿 11, 12, 217-218
drug products liability 106, 107, 109-113, 116
药品责任 106, 107, 109-113, 116
duty of care 19.24
注意义务 19.24
police negligence 92-93  警方疏忽 92-93
privacy and sexual disclosure 8. 151-15-1
隐私与性信息披露 8. 151-15-1

battery  电池

as communal remedy 68-69 birth (pregnancy)
作为集体疗法 68-69 出生（怀孕）
bodily harm sce bodily harm
身体伤害 sce 身体伤害
medical negligence see bodily harm
医疗过失导致身体伤害
pollution effects see endocrine distuption bodily harm see also rape
污染影响 参见内分泌紊乱 身体伤害 参见强奸
accidents see damages  事故导致损失
alternative approach 4 , 38 − 42 4 , 38 − 42 4,38-424,38-42
替代方法 4 , 38 − 42 4 , 38 − 42 4,38-424,38-42
battery 68-69  电池 68-69
and bodily integrity 68-69
身体完整性 68-69
categorisation 3-1.  分类 3-1.
chapter summary 3-4  第三章至第四章摘要
communal 4 − 5 4 − 5 4-54-5  社区 4 − 5 4 − 5 4-54-5
conclusions as to 51 − 52 51 − 52 51-5251-52
关于 51 − 52 51 − 52 51-5251-52 的结论
endocrine disruption sec endocrine disruption
内分泌干扰 sec 内分泌干扰
hedonic theory and, + 47 − 19 + 47 − 19 +47-19+ 47-19
享乐主义理论和， + 47 − 19 + 47 − 19 +47-19+ 47-19
hierarchy of harms 190 − 192 190 − 192 190-192190-192
危害等级 190 − 192 190 − 192 190-192190-192
incremental approach to law reform +2-16
法律改革增量方法 +2-16
individual ↓ − 5 ↓ − 5 darr-5\downarrow-5  个人 ↓ − 5 ↓ − 5 darr-5\downarrow-5
‘lost chance’ doctrine 69-72
“错失良机”原则 69-72
MiFarlane" Tarside Hcalh Board 1.3, 40, 43
米法兰" 塔尔西德 Hcalh 板 1.3，40，43
and negligence generally 36-37
疏忽一般 36-37
musance 72–73  穆桑斯 72–73
offensive contact (68-69)
进攻性接触（68-69）
pain and suffering 3-1, 49
痛苦与折磨 3-1，49
‘physical’ and ‘psycho-social’ categorisation 3-1
“物理”与“心理社会”分类 3-1
pollution see condocrine disruption scale of 4 − 5 4 − 5 4-54-5
污染，参见内分泌干扰物，等级为 4 − 5 4 − 5 4-54-5
serious effects 4 , 46 − 17 , 19 − 51 4 , 46 − 17 , 19 − 51 4,46-17,19-514,46-17,19-51
严重影响 4 , 46 − 17 , 19 − 51 4 , 46 − 17 , 19 − 51 4,46-17,19-514,46-17,19-51
row 1, 3-10  第 1 行，第 3 至第 10 行
body (human)  人体
feminist theory 5, 55, 56, 66
女性主义理论 5, 55, 56, 66
Bolam a Frien Hospital Management Committee critique 7, 132-135
博拉姆·阿·弗里恩医院管理委员会批评报告第 7 期，第 132-135 页
Bolitho ’ Cith and Hacloney Hadth Authority standard of care (medical) 7, 135-137 burden of proof
博利托诉西斯案和哈克洛尼诉哈斯案 医疗过失标准 7，135-137 举证责任
rape claims 9,170-171  强奸指控 9,170-171
Canada  加拿大
drug products liability 109-113
药品产品责任 109-113
exposure to pollution see endocrine distuption
接触污染物会导致内分泌紊乱。
police megligence 91-92 remedies for rape see rape
警方疏忽 91-92 强奸的补救措施 参见强奸
care of accident victims
事故受害者的救治与护理
damages for costs of 12,215-220
赔偿费用为 12,215 至 220 元。