📚 AS WJEC Law: Formula and Theorem Quick Reference Handbook | AS WJEC 法律：公式定理速查手册
In legal studies, the ability to recall and apply key principles is as crucial as solving equations in mathematics. This handbook presents the core doctrines, tests and legal ‘formulae’ required for AS WJEC Law as a series of digestible, structured steps. Each legal ‘formula’ is broken down into its elements, enabling you to quickly reference and apply them to problem questions and essays.
在法律学习中，背诵并运用关键原则的能力如同数学中解方程一般至关重要。本手册将AS WJEC法律课程所需的核心原则、测试和法律“公式”提炼为一系列易于消化的结构化步骤。每条法律“公式”都分解为各个要素，让你能够快速查阅并将其应用于问题分析和论文写作中。
1. Doctrine of Precedent (Stare Decisis) | 先例原则（遵循先例）
The doctrine of precedent, or stare decisis, is the cornerstone of common law. The ‘formula’ for determining whether a court is bound by a previous decision involves a three-step check: (1) identify the ratio decidendi (the legal reason for the decision) versus obiter dicta (persuasive comments); (2) determine the hierarchy of the courts — decisions of higher courts bind lower courts; (3) ascertain whether the material facts are sufficiently similar.
先例原则（或称遵循先例）是普通法的基石。判断一个法院是否受先前判决约束的“公式”包含三个步骤：（1）识别判决理由（ratio decidendi）与附带意见（obiter dicta）；（2）明确法院等级——上级法院的判决对下级法院具有约束力；（3）确定案件关键事实是否足够相似。
If the precedent is from a higher court and the ratio is directly on point, the later court must follow, unless it can distinguish the case on material facts or overrule if permitted.
若先例来自上级法院且判决理由直接相关，则后审法院必须遵循，除非能够基于关键事实加以区分，或在允许的情况下予以推翻。
2. Caparo Test for Duty of Care in Negligence | 疏忽请注意义务的卡帕罗测试
The Caparo test (from Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]) is the modern formula for establishing a duty of care in negligence. The three stages must all be satisfied:
卡帕罗测试（源自Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]案）是认定疏忽中注意义务的现代公式。三个条件必须同时满足：
1. Foreseeability of harm: would a reasonable person foresee that the defendant’s conduct could cause damage to the claimant?
1. 损害的可预见性：一个理性人是否能够预见被告的行为可能对原告造成损害？
2. Proximity: is there a sufficiently close legal relationship between the claimant and defendant?
2. 接近性：原告与被告之间是否存在足够密切的法律关系？
3. Fair, just and reasonable: is it fair, just and reasonable for the court to impose a duty, considering public policy?
3. 公平、公正、合理：考虑到公共政策，法院施加义务是否公平、公正且合理？
Failure to satisfy any one stage means no duty arises. This formula is the go-to for novel duty situations.
未能满足任一条件则注意义务不成立。该公式是处理新型注意义务情形的首选方法。
3. Breach of Duty: The Reasonable Man Formula | 违反义务：理性人公式
The standard of care is determined by the ‘reasonable man’ test. The formula is: Did the defendant act as a reasonable person would in the same circumstances? The court considers several factors within this equation:
注意标准由“理性人”测试确定。公式为：被告是否如同一个理性人在相同情境下那样行事？法院在该等式中考量以下因素：
1. Probability of harm: how likely was the injury? (Bolton v Stone)
1. 损害发生的概率：伤害发生的可能性有多大？（Bolton v Stone案）
2. Seriousness of the harm: what is the magnitude of the risk? (Paris v Stepney BC)
2. 损害的严重性：风险的大小如何？（Paris v Stepney BC案）
3. Cost of precautions: how practical was it to avoid the risk? (Latimer v AEC)
3. 预防措施的成本：规避风险的可行性如何？（Latimer v AEC案）
4. Social utility of the activity: does the defendant’s action have social value? (Watt v Hertfordshire CC)
4. 行为的社会效用：被告的行为是否具有社会价值？（Watt v Hertfordshire CC案）
The defendant is judged against the reasonable person of ordinary prudence, not by their own personal characteristics (except in special cases like children).
对被告的判断标准是普通谨慎的理性人，而非其个人特征（儿童等特殊情况除外）。
4. Causation: ‘But For’ and Legal Cause | 因果关系：“若无则不”与法律原因
Causation in negligence involves a two-part formula. First, the factual causation ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s breach, would the claimant have suffered the loss? (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital). Second, the legal causation (or remoteness) test: was the damage of a type that was reasonably foreseeable? (The Wagon Mound). If a new intervening act (novus actus interveniens) breaks the chain, the defendant may not be liable.
疏忽中的因果关系包含两部分公式。首先，事实因果关系的“若无则不”测试：若非被告违反义务，原告是否会遭受损失？（Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital案）。其次，法律因果关系（即遥远性）测试：损害类型是否属于合理可预见的类型？（The Wagon Mound案）。若有新的介入行为（novus actus interveniens）打破因果链条，被告可能不承担责任。
These two limbs act as a gatekeeper: the claimant must pass both to establish causation.
这两个条件起到把关作用：原告必须同时满足二者才能确立因果关系。
5. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957: The Common Duty | 占有人责任法1957：共同注意义务公式
Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, an occupier owes a ‘common duty of care’ to all lawful visitors. The statutory ‘formula’ is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the visitor is reasonably safe for the purposes for which they are on the premises. Key factors include:
根据1957年《占有人责任法》，占有人对所有合法访客负有“共同注意义务”。法定“公式”为：在所有情形下采取合理注意，确保访客因其进入场所的目的而处于合理安全状态。关键因素包括：
1. The nature of the premises and the danger
1. 场所和危险的性质
2. The age of the visitor (children deserve a higher standard)
2. 访客的年龄（儿童应受更高标准保护）
Published by TutorHao | AS 法律 Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导Cancel reply