Skip to main content
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

When American Law Meets Chinese Law Eye to Eye: How Two Legal Systems Approach the Duty to Protect

Published/Copyright: June 8, 2010
Global Jurist
From the journal Global Jurist Volume 10 Issue 2

This essay investigates some of the similarities and differences between United States and Chinese law through a series of discussions between a fictional U.S. lawyer (Mr. West) and his Chinese colleague (Ms. Zhong). It derives inspiration from the memorable fictional dialogue between Professor Comparovich and his inquiring friends in Schlesinger's classic Comparative Law. The discussions begin with the analysis of two cases litigated in the United States and in China. They both raised the issue of the existence and scope of the duty of owners of premises to protect their tenants or guests from the risk of being injured by a third person who is, in most cases, an intruder. This topic is chosen as it provides an instructive occasion to understand the oddities and similarities in one legal system from the perspective of the other legal system.The essay does not aim to provide encyclopedic coverage of the duty to protect under either U.S. or Chinese law. Rather, it creates an interactive exchange between the two legal systems and thus promotes a better mutual understanding of both legal systems.The U.S. case is Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Realty Corporation, 141 U.S. App. D.C. 370; 439 F.2d 477 (U.S. App. 1970). Tenant Kline sued her landlord after an intruder assaulted her in the common hallway of her apartment building late at night. The Chinese case is Wang Liyi & Zhang Lixia v. Galaxy Hotel (2000). In this case an intruder robbed and murdered a guest in a Shanghai hotel. The victim's parents sued the hotel for an apology and compensation.

Published Online: 2010-6-8

©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Topics Article
  2. The Function of Law in Habermas' Modern Society
  3. Fighting Homogenization: The Global Infiltration of Technology and the Struggle to Preserve Cultural Distinctiveness
  4. Martti Koskenniemi and the Spirit of the Beehive in International Law
  5. Legal Colonialism - Americanization of Legal Education in Israel
  6. Australians Torturing Australians Overseas: The Risk of Complicity
  7. Political Theory Put to the Test: Comparative Law and the Origins of Judicial Constitutional Review
  8. Advances Article
  9. Convergence, Path-Dependency and Credit Securities: The Case against Europe-Wide Harmonisation
  10. When American Law Meets Chinese Law Eye to Eye: How Two Legal Systems Approach the Duty to Protect
  11. Law as Subjects' Production: A Foucauldian Argument for Class Action
  12. Legal Tradition as an Obstacle: Europe's Difficult Journey to Class Action
https://doi.org/10.2202/1934-2640.1363

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Topics Article
  2. The Function of Law in Habermas' Modern Society
  3. Fighting Homogenization: The Global Infiltration of Technology and the Struggle to Preserve Cultural Distinctiveness
  4. Martti Koskenniemi and the Spirit of the Beehive in International Law
  5. Legal Colonialism - Americanization of Legal Education in Israel
  6. Australians Torturing Australians Overseas: The Risk of Complicity
  7. Political Theory Put to the Test: Comparative Law and the Origins of Judicial Constitutional Review
  8. Advances Article
  9. Convergence, Path-Dependency and Credit Securities: The Case against Europe-Wide Harmonisation
  10. When American Law Meets Chinese Law Eye to Eye: How Two Legal Systems Approach the Duty to Protect
  11. Law as Subjects' Production: A Foucauldian Argument for Class Action
  12. Legal Tradition as an Obstacle: Europe's Difficult Journey to Class Action
Downloaded on 1.5.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.2202/1934-2640.1363/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button