19세기 영국과 미국의 산업발전과 보통법상 엄격책임원리의 발전과 변용: 환경피해사건의 경우

In English-American common law system, the conflicts between individuals are treated under the common law, which are defined by court decisions, whereas in the continental legal system a civil code is applied to those conflicts. Although in modern era the strict liability is generally understood as a legislated rule for special purpose such as environmental protection, old common law in England originally knew the strict liability rule, Sic utere tuo. Since almost 16th centuries this rule has been applied in nuisance cases. Sic utere tuo rule makes anyone whose property get infringed redress and recover their damages regardless of the social value of dependent's activity or breaking his or her duty. However, faced with the industrial era courts could not but choose the value between contemporary industrial progress and old property ownership. While in England the court stuck to their old sic utere tuo rule in nuisance cases, in America particularly the antebellume north begun to change their interpretation to support the technology-driven industrial progress. This distinction between two countries brings the different responses to the famous nuisance case, Rylands v. Fletcher in 1866. In England, influential academic opinion and several famous succeeding cases describe that Rylands was just readdressing the old common law rule, sic utere tuo. However, in England recent cases showed weakening the strict liability by requiring forseeablity even to the nuisance cases where Rylands rule could be applied. Nevertheless, in America Rylands led the 2nd Restatement of Tort to stipulate the strict liability on ‘abnormously dangerous activity'. Consequently, all these trends show the history where the rule of liability had been continuously modified and adopted to social and economic change.