案例簡介:殼牌訴訟案(尼日利亞)

For an English-language version of this case profile, please click here.

Para la versión en español de este perfil de caso, haga clic acá.

Pour une version française de ce profil, cliquez ici.

基奧貝勒(Kiobel)訴殼牌公司案

2002年,奧戈尼族生存運動組織(MOSOP)成員、奧戈尼族活動人士巴瑞南∙基奧貝勒博士(Dr. Barinem Kiobel)的妻子埃絲特∙基奧貝勒(Esther Kiobel)及其他十一位來自奧戈尼地區的尼日利亞人共同向美國聯邦法院提起了對荷蘭皇家殼牌公司的訴訟。MOSOP對奧戈尼地區石油開採過程中所造成的環境破壞展開抗議活動,並且主張奧戈尼族享有更多的自治權。1994年,巴瑞南∙基奧貝勒及其他MOSOP成員遭到軍方的非法隔離監禁,之後,軍政府成立的特別法庭在違反國際公平審判標準的程序下將他們以謀殺罪名處決。該訴訟稱,殼牌通過其下屬企業——尼日利亞殼牌石油開發公司(SPDC)為尼日利亞軍隊提供交通便利,允許軍方將公司產業作為打擊奧戈尼族的軍事戰備區,並且為士兵提供食品和軍餉。原告稱,被告公司合謀參與了施虐、非法處決、以及其他有違《外國人侵權索賠法》(ATCA)的行為。

2008年3月,州地方法院批准了被告的請求,以不具備屬人管轄權(Personal Jurisdiction)為由駁回了原告的起訴。2009年11月16日,原告提出再議申請,要求法院就司法管轄權問題重新進行調查。這一請求獲得了批准。法庭在提案中表示,該案適用《外國人侵權索賠法》的條件是美國與SPDC之間必須存在直接業務聯繫。2010年6月21日,地區法院作出判決,認為原告方未能證明存在這一直接業務聯繫。因此,法官駁回了針對SPDC的訴訟請求。原告對這一判決提起上訴。2010年9月17日,上訴法庭就企業被告是否適用ATCA給出最終意見。大部分意見支持下級法院做出的駁回起訴的決定。此外,法庭還認為,ATCA不適用於控告企業違反國際法的情況。 然而,上訴法院合議庭第三位法官卻單獨撰寫了一份意見書,雖同意多數法官做出的裁決,但同時也強烈反對他們就這一裁決給出的理由。 他寫道,多數法官的意見給“國際法及國際法保護基本人權的宗旨帶來了嚴重打擊。”2010年10月14日,原告方提交復議申請,請求全院庭審對案件進行復議。2011年2月4日,上訴法庭拒絕對案件進行復議。2011年6月原告向最高法院提起申訴,要求最高法院審理下級法庭作出的上訴裁決 。2011年10月17日,最高法院宣佈將審理原告的上訴,並於2012年2月28日舉行了口頭辯論。3月5日最高法庭宣佈本次開庭期內將不會對案件做出裁決。法庭要求原被告雙方提交補充材料,並且將在下次開庭期間審理該案件 。法庭要求雙方就聯邦法院是否有權根據《外國人侵權索賠法》對發生在美國境外的涉嫌違反國際法的案件進行審理提交說明材料。2012年10月1日,法庭覆審了該案件。2013年4月17日,最高法院下發判決,認為《外國人侵權索賠法》並不適用於美國境外發生的行為,並維持了駁回起訴的裁決。此頁列出了所有與最高法院復議本案相關的文件。

- "Companies Shielded as U.S. Court Cuts Human-Rights Suits", Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 17 Apr 2013
- "Views on Kiobel v. Shell", Salil Tripathi, Institute for Human Rights and Business, 9 Oct 2012
- "Alien torts in America's courts", Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 8 Oct 2012
- "Shell, Corporate Responsibility and Respect for the Law", Amol Mehra & Katie Shay, International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, 3 Oct 2012
- "Argument recap: In search of an [Alien Tort Statute] compromise", Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog, 1 Oct 2012
- "Supreme Court may narrow law in human rights cases", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 1 Oct 2012
- "The U.S. Supreme Court must preserve the Alien Tort Statute for international corporate human rights cases", Marco Simons, EarthRights International, 13 Jun 2012
- "Torture Suits Against Companies Including Shell Draw U.S. High Court Review", Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 17 Oct 2011
- "US court upholds key Shell ruling in Nigeria case", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 4 Feb 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Corp. y los litigios transnacionales sobre derechos humanos, Francisco Javier Zamora Cabot, julio 2011 
- "2nd Circuit Rejects Corporate Liability in Alien Tort Cases", Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, 20 Sep 2010
- “Nigeria Torture Case Decision Exempts Companies From U.S. Alien Tort Law”, Bob Van Voris & Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg, 17 Sep 2010
“Judge Kimba Wood Dismisses Defendant from Aliant Tort Statute Class Action for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction”, Russell Jackson, Jackson on Consumer Class Actions & Mass Torts, 25 Jun 2010

Esther Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company et al.
- [PDF] Opinion of US Supreme Court, 17 Apr 2013
Petitioners/plaintiffs (Kiobel) - Supplemental Reply Brief, 31 Aug 2012
Respondents/defendants (Shell) - Supplemental Brief, 1 Aug 2012
- [PDF] Supplemental brief for petitioners/plaintiffs (Kiobel), 6 Jun 2012
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Brief for Respondents, 27 Jan 2012
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Brief for Petitioners, 14 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 6 Jun 2011
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al., 4 Feb 2011 [order denying plaintiffs' petition for rehearing]
- [PDF] Petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 14 Oct 2010
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Order affirming District Court’s dismissal of lawsuit, 17 Sep 2010
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York: [PDF] Opinion and Order [regarding 2008 motion to dismiss], 21 Jun 2010
Opinion and Order re Plainitffs' motion for reconsideration, 16 Nov 2009
Opinion and Order, 25 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief for the United States as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief of Former US Senator Arlen Specter, Human Rights First, and the Anti-Defamation League as amici curiae in support of petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief of Earth Rights Intl. as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, 21 Dec 2011

 

維瓦訴殼牌公司案

在基奧貝勒訴訟案之前,1996年,肯∙維瓦(Ken Wiwa)(在1995年與巴瑞恩∙基奧貝勒一起被處決的已故奧戈尼族活動人士肯∙薩羅-維瓦之子)與其他MOSOP成員也曾就相關案由提起訴訟。維瓦訴訟案的被告公司與基奧貝勒案相同。該案訴稱,為了鎮壓MOSOP組織的活動,尼日利亞軍政府和安全部隊折磨和殺戮該組織的成員,犯下了違背人權的罪行,而荷蘭皇家殼牌公司則合謀參與了這些侵犯行為。原告方贏了多項預審裁決 ,包括法庭否決了被告方提出駁回起訴的申請。

2009年6月初,原被告雙方宣佈達成1550萬美元的和解協議。根據和解協議,十名原告將獲得補償,被告也將替原告支付一部分訴訟費用。此外,還將設立 Kiisi 基金,旨在造福奧戈尼族,由獨立董事管理。基金將為奧戈尼族的教育、婦女項目、成人掃盲、小型企業等提供資金支持。

- “Shell settles human rights suit for $15.5M”, Chris Kahn, Associated Press, 8 Jun 2009
- [video] Shell in court over alleged Nigeria crimes, Al Jazeera English, 3 Jun 2009
- "Juicio contra la petrolera Shell  por la muerte del poeta nigeriano Saro-Wiwa", Sandro Pozzi, el País, 27 mayo 2009
- "Shell must defend Nigerian rights suit, judge says", David Glovin, Bloomberg, 23 Apr 2009
- “Shell Faces Human Rights Grilling”, Tim Webb, Independent [UK], 11 Apr 2004
- “Big Oil and an Activist's Death: Family Sues to Probe Role Played by Shell in Nigerian's Execution”, Elizabeth Neuffer, Boston Globe, 03 Jun 2001

- Shell:
 - Shell in Nigeria: Issues
 - Shell settles Wiwa case with humanitarian gesture, 8 Jun 2009

- [PDF] Statement of the Plaintiffs in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch/Shell, Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. SPDC, Lucky Doobee, Monday Gbokoo, David Kiobel, Karalolo Kogbara, Blessing Kpuinen, James N-nah, Friday Nuate, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Jr., Michael Vizor, Owens Wiwa, 8 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Statement of Plaintiffs' Attorneys in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch/Shell, Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. SPDC, 8 Jun 2009
- EarthRights International (NGO representing plaintiffs): Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell) [includes links to court opinions and plaintiffs’ complaints filed in this case]
- Center for Constitutional Rights (NGO representing plaintiffs):
Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum [synopsis]
- [PDF] On Eve of Trial, Settlement Agreements Provide $15.5 Million for Compensation to Nigerian Human Rights Activists and to Establish Trust Fund, 8 Jun 2009

- The Case Against Shell [joint project of EarthRights International and Center for Constitutional Rights]: Wiwa v. Shell

- US Circuit Court for the Second Circuit:
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell, 14 Sep 2000 [reversal of lower court’s dismissal of the case]

- US District Court for the Southern District of New York:
- [PDF] Wiwa v Shell – Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, 8 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell - Denial of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 23 Apr 2009
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell – Dismissal of RICO claims against defendants, 18 Mar 2009

獲取這些結果的RSS提要

以下是所有相關材料

文章
+ Français - 隱藏

作者: Amnesty International

« Nigeria/Pays-Bas : le jugement concernant Shell est « une avancée cruciale vers la justice » », 1er mai 2019

Le tribunal de district de La Haye a rendu le 1er mai 2019 un jugement provisoire dans l’affaire intentée par Esther Kiobel et trois autres femmes concernant l’implication de Shell dans l’arrestation illégale, la détention et l’exécution de leurs époux par l’armée nigériane. 

 Le tribunal a statué en faveur des plaignantes, assurant qu’il est compétent pour juger de cette affaire qui ne doit pas faire l’objet d’un délai de prescription.

Le tribunal a également statué que Shell devait remettre des documents internes confidentiels aux avocats des plaignantes qui auront la possibilité d’interroger les témoins.

Amnesty International a salué la décision du tribunal, qui a ordonné à Shell de rendre publics certains documents internes, mais regrette qu’il n’ait pas ordonné que soient remis tous les documents demandés par les avocats d’Esther…

Esther Kiobel a intenté un premier procès à Shell en 2002 à New York mais, en 2013, la Cour suprême américaine a statué que les États-Unis n’étaient pas compétents en l’espèce, ce qui signifie que les tribunaux américains n’ont jamais eu à examiner sur le fond les allégations formulées contre Shell…

Les quatre plaignantes accusent Shell d’avoir joué un rôle déterminant dans l’arrestation et la détention illégales de leurs maris, les atteintes à leur intégrité physique, les violations de leurs droits à un procès équitable et à la vie, et leur propre droit à une vie de famille. Amnesty International a aidé Esther Kiobel à porter l’affaire devant la justice néerlandaise en 2017, et a publié un document de synthèse intitulé In The Dock, qui décrit en détail l’implication de Shell dans les arrestations et les exécutions…

.

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: Bart H. Meijer, Reuters (UK)

A Dutch court said on Wednesday it has jurisdiction to hear a damages suit brought against Royal Dutch Shell by four widows of activists executed by the Nigerian government in 1995.

In a preliminary decision, judges at the Hague District Court said they would allow the suit to go forward, a rare win in a decades-long legal fight, though the claimants must still prove their case. Shell denies wrongdoing or responsibility.

"The court considers itself capable" of hearing the case, said presiding judge Larissa Alwin, reading the decision of a three-judge panel. "This procedure will continue."

Dutch courts do not award large punitive damages claims, though the case has the potential to embarrass Shell and provide a measure of comfort for the activists' families if it finds the company bears responsibility in their deaths...

Shell, headquartered in the Hague, paid $15.5 million to victims' families in the United States in a 2009 settlement in which it also denied any responsibility or wrongdoing. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected U.S. jurisdiction in 2013.

"I am glad that the (Dutch) court has found it has jurisdiction," said lead plaintiff Esther Kiobel, whose husband Barinem Kiobel was among the executed activists.

"My husband was killed like a criminal. I want him to be exonerated."

Judge Alwin cautioned that the three-judge panel did not agree with assertions by the widows that Shell should have done more to prevent their husbands' executions...

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: Kate Hodal, Guardian

A Dutch court has ruled that it has jurisdiction to determine whether Royal Dutch Shell was complicit in the Nigerian government's execution of the Ogoni Nine, environmental protesters who fought against widespread pollution in the Niger Delta.

In a 50-page ruling hailed by campaigners as an "important precedent" for global human rights cases, judges at The Hague's district court said on Wednesday that they would allow the case to go forward, also indicating that the claimants – widows of four of the activists – would be able to bring further evidence to prove their case.

The ruling, which was partially read out to members of the public, also stipulated that the oil firm must now hand over confidential internal documents.
The four widows accuse Shell of instigating a deadly crackdown by the military government of the time against peaceful protesters in Ogoniland, in the Niger Delta, the most valuable oil-producing region in Africa.

Nine members of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, including its leader, Ken Saro-Wiwa, were executed in 1995 by the Nigerian authorities, following a widely discredited trial.

Esther Kiobel, whose husband, Dr Barinem Kiobel, was among the nine executed, said the decision would help exonerate the men.

"We shall prove our case. We have the evidence," she said. "I wouldn't be fighting this fight if I didn't have what it takes. I've been fighting for decades."

It has been a 24-year battle to get even this far. After exhausting all legal recourse in Nigeria, Kiobel first brought a class action against Shell in New York in 2002, where the US supreme court finally ruled in 2013 that the case had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction. A writ was then brought in The Hague, where the oil multinational is based.

Shell denies all allegations that it was complicit in the deaths of the Ogoni Nine or human rights abuses, but it has acknowledged that it was aware Nigeria's military was taking action to protect the company's infrastructure. In 2009, it paid out $15.5m (£11.9m) in an out-of-court settlement to Saro-Wiwa's family and others, but denied any wrongdoing.

 

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: Amnesty International

The District Court of The Hague today issued an interim ruling in the case brought by Esther Kiobel and three other women with regard to Shell’s involvement in the unlawful arrest, detention and execution of their husbands by the Nigerian military.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, that the court does have jurisdiction of the case and that this should not be time barred. It also ruled that Shell should hand over some confidential internal documents to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, and that they would have the opportunity to examine witnesses.

Mark Dummett, Amnesty International’s Head of Business and Human Rights, said:

“This decision marks a vital step towards justice for Esther and the other plaintiffs. It also sets an important precedent for other victims around the world who are seeking to hold powerful corporations to account, and who struggle to access justice.

“We salute Esther Kiobel, Victoria Bera, Blessing Eawo and Charity Levula. It’s only because of their courage and persistence that we’ve got this far.

“The women believe their husbands would still be alive today were it not for Shell’s relentless pursuit of profit, which encouraged the Nigerian government’s bloody crackdown on protesters even when it knew the deadly human cost. Shell might now face questioning in a court of law about what they knew and how they contributed to this horrifying event in Nigerian history.

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: Mark Dummett, Amnesty Global Insights, Medium

"Ruling due in Esther Kiobel’s epic legal battle against Shell", 24 Apr 2019

On 1 May, a court in The Hague, the oil multinational’s home town, will deliver a ruling on whether a case brought by Esther and three other Nigerian women over Shell’s role in their husband’s deaths can proceed.

The four widows accuse Shell of instigating a brutal crackdown by the-then military regime against peaceful protesters in Ogoniland, in Africa’s most valuable oil-producing region, the Niger Delta, in the 1990s. The protests were over pollution, the chronic lack of development, and the unfair distribution of oil wealth.

The ensuing crackdown culminated in the unlawful arrest, detention, and execution of the four women’s husbands in November 1995, alongside five other men, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, the writer, and activist who led the protests.

The Nigerian regime falsely accused the “Ogoni Nine” of involvement in a murder, and the men have never been exonerated, despite widespread criticism of the blatantly unfair trial, including by Amnesty International.

With little hope of achieving justice back home or of bringing a case against former members of the Nigerian government, Esther Kiobel and the other widows have instead been seeking to hold Shell accountable for its involvement in the human rights violations against protesters in Ogoniland. They are seeking a public apology as well as compensation...

Esther first sued Shell in the US, where she was granted asylum, in 2002. Shell fought the case on jurisdictional grounds all the way through the courts, and the Supreme Court eventually dismissed it in 2013. The US courts never got to examine the facts of the case or Shell’s responsibility. Four years later, Esther sued Shell in the Netherlands, where it is headquartered, along with the three other widows, Victoria Bera, Blessing Eawo and Charity Levula.

按此查看全文

文章
+ Deutsch - 隱藏

作者: Deutsche Welle

'Verbrechen in Nigeria: Shell vor Gericht', 12 Feb 2019

Der britisch-niederländische Ölmulti Shell muss sich in den Niederlanden wegen Menschenrechtsverbrechen in Nigeria verantworten. Vier Witwen des Volkes der Ogoni werfen dem Konzern vor, die nigerianische Militärregierung in den 90er Jahren bei der Verhaftung und Ermordung ihrer Männer unterstützt zu haben. "Über Jahre hat Shell dafür gekämpft, dass dieser Fall nicht vor Gericht verhandelt wird", sagte die Klägerin Esther Kiobel laut Amnesty International. [...]

Die Ogoni hatten im Niger-Delta gegen die Verschmutzung ihres Lebensraumes durch die Ölförderung gekämpft. Der Protest wurde von Diktator Sani Abacha 1995 blutig niedergeschlagen. Shell, das seinen Firmensitz in den Niederlanden hat, hatte enge Verbindungen zur Militärdiktatur. [...]

Die Klägerinnen wollen die Komplizenschaft des Unternehmens an der Hinrichtung ihrer Ehemänner nachweisen und eine Entschuldigung sowie Entschädigungen erstreiten. In der Klageschrift wird Shell der Mittäterschaft an der ungesetzlichen Verhaftung und Hinrichtung von neun Männern bezichtigt. Die sogenannten Ogoni Nine, darunter Barinem Kiobel und der Autor Ken Saro-Wiwa, wurden wegen ihres Protests am 10. November 1995 gehängt. [...]

Die Klage gegen Shell wurde im Juni 2017 von Esther Kiobel und drei weiteren Frauen bei einem Zivilgericht in Den Haag eingereicht. Das Unternehmen sorgte immer wieder für Verzögerungen und bemühte sich, einen Prozess abzuwenden: Shell habe "keine Rolle bei der Verhaftung, dem Prozess und der Hinrichtung dieser Männer gespielt". [...]

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: BBC

"Nigeria: Ogoni widow testifies against Shell in The Hague", 12 February 2019

The widow of a Nigerian activist suing oil giant Shell over the execution of her husband says his death left her "traumatised" and "poverty-stricken".

Esther Kiobel is testifying in court in The Hague, demanding compensation from the Netherlands-based firm.

She is among four women who accuse Shell of being complicit in the hanging of their husbands by Nigeria's military in 1995. Shell denies the allegation.

The activists led mass protests against oil pollution in Nigeria's Ogoniland.

In a statement, [Shell] said the executions were "tragic events which shocked us deeply".

"We have always denied, in the strongest possible terms, the allegations made in this tragic case...

Saro-Wiwa and the eight other activists were executed after a secret trial in which they were convicted of murdering four Ogoni traditional leaders.

They denied the charge, and said they were framed...

...At his trial, Saro-Wiwa said the case was designed to prevent the Ogoni people from fighting against oil pollution which had devastated the region's environment and had caused poverty and disease.

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: Associated Press

"Nigerian widows sue Shell for complicity in activist deaths", 12 February 2019

The widows of four Nigerian activists have opened a civil court case against oil company Shell, alleging it was complicit in the deaths of their husbands more than two decades ago...

...Their husbands were among nine activists from the Ogoni tribe, led by writer Ken Saro-Wiwa, who were hanged in 1995 for the murder of four political rivals. Supporters say they were targeted because of their involvement in protests against environmental damage by Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary...

...Shell’s Nigerian arm, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited, denied responsibility. 

按此查看全文

文章
+ Français - 隱藏

作者: Amnesty International

« 23 ans après, la fin de l’impunité pour Shell ? », 12 février 2019

Le géant pétrolier est accusé d’être complice de graves violations des droits humains commises par le gouvernement nigérian dans les années 90 contre le peuple ogoni. Un tribunal prendra connaissance le 12 février des premiers éléments de cette affaire...

Esther Kiobel, Victoria Bera, Blessing Eawo et Charity Levula, quatre femmes ogonis, intentent un procès à Shell. Elles accusent la multinationale d’avoir tenu un rôle dans l’arrestation, la détention et l’exécution illégales de leurs époux par l’armée nigériane, à la suite d’une opération de répression brutale envers des manifestants ogonis contre la pollution dévastatrice causée par Shell dans la région...

Ce sera la première fois, dans ce combat pour la justice qui dure depuis plus de 20 ans, qu’Esther Kiobel et les autres demanderesses auront la possibilité de livrer leur récit devant la justice...

Leurs veuves demandent désormais une indemnisation et des excuses publiques de la part de Shell....

按此查看全文

文章
+ English - 隱藏

作者: John M. Eubanks, Motley Rice LLC (Petitioners’ Counsel in Jesner v. Arab Bank)

Imagine a situation where an international bank with a presence in Manhattan holds accounts for known terrorists and serves as the end-payor to beneficiaries of a fund created for the explicit purpose of supporting an armed uprising typified by suicide bombings and indiscriminate killing of civilians carried out by known terrorist organizations with whom the bank’s accountholders are directly affiliated. Then, picture this international bank being immune from lawsuits filed by the victims of these suicide bombings and indiscriminate killings solely on the basis of its corporate form. This is precisely the issue with which the Supreme Court will grapple in Jesner v. Arab Bank, to be argued before the Court on October 11, 2017. 

Jesner addresses the same question that was raised in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. during the October Term 2011. That question is whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), creates a categorical bar to corporate liability for violations of the law of nations, or customary international law…

…The language of the ATS does not explicitly exempt corporations. In fact, the text of the statute…specifically lays out who can sue (“an alien”), but it provides no limitation for who can be sued.

…[W]here a corporation engages in conduct that it knows will facilitate violations of the law of nations such as terrorism, crimes against humanity, or even genocide, can that corporation be held liable under the ATS to the victims of those violations? The answer is a simple “yes” based on the statutory text and common law’s interpretation of tort liability, and it is up to the Supreme Court to make this determination.

按此查看全文