在Edwards诉Honeywell一案中,如何判定被告的主观过错,成为案件审理的关键。主审法官经过分析,最终判定被告不存在谨慎义务,从而认定被告的行为不构成过失侵权。“谨慎义务”的存在已成为美国过失侵权责任成立的必备要件之一,因其相对客观的标准,而在责任认定中具有相当的科学性。反观我国“主观过错”标准则过于宽松,过错认定不是十分科学合理。我国在过错责任“过错”要素的认定上有必要借鉴“谨慎义务”理论,以探索出更科学合理的过错认定方法。 How to determine the accused’s subjective fault in Edwards v. Honeywell is the key to hearing the case. After analysis, the presiding judge eventually decided that there was no cautious obligation on the part of the defendant, so that the defendant’s act did not constitute negligent infringement. The existence of “cautious obligation” has become one of the essential requirements for the establishment of tort liability in the United States. Because of its relatively objective standard, it is quite scientific in determining its liability. On the contrary, the criterion of “subjective fault” in our country is too lenient and the fault identification is not very scientific and reasonable. It is necessary for our country to draw on the theory of “cautious obligation” in order to find fault liability “fault ” in our country so as to explore a more scientific and reasonable method of fault identification.