英语翻译12.2.PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY.Any liability of the of the

英语翻译
12.2.PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY.Any liability of the of the Architect for breach of this agreement,or for any other cause of action arising out of the breach of this agreement,shall be limited to those damages actually caused by the Architect’s breach and shall not include any liability for damages caused by the Contractor,the Owner,or other members of the construction team.
A.Insurance
The most obvious risk-shift measure is through insurance,but the enormous cost of architects’ and engineers’ liability insurance -- and the huge deductibles that typically apply to them -- make them a very unsatisfactory method of shifting the risk from themselves.A much better method is to shift the risk from the Architect and his insurance carrier to other members of the construction team’s insurance carriers,which can be done through the use of an “additional insured” clause in the Owner/Architect Agreement and,through it,in the Owner/Contractor Agreement.A typical clause might read as follows:
12.3.ADDITIONAL INSURED.To the extent possible,the Owner will include the Architect as an additional insured on all policies of insurance on this
Project,and will require,in its contract with the Contractor,that the Contractor and its subcontractors include the Architect as an additional insured on all of the policies of insurance which they are required to maintain in effect on the Project.
Although the Supreme Court has refused to extend the express negligence doctrine to additional insured provisions,see,Getty Oil Company v.Insurance Co.of North America,845 S.W.2d 794 (Tex.1992),prudence would dictate that,in light of the opinion in Dresser Industries v.Page Petroleum,853 S.W.2d 505 (Tex.1993),the clause be conspicuous.
A.Indemnification
A much-attempted,but [at least in this author’s experience] seldom successful attempt at risk shifting in Owner/Architect contracts is the use of contractual indemnification clauses.These generally take one of two forms:(1) Indemnification from the consequences of the negligent acts of others; and (2) indemnification from the consequences of one’s own negligence.The statutory and common law limitations upon the use of the latter are considerable,although the former can and is frequently is used by some of the members of the construction team to shift risks.
1 Indemnification from the Architect’s Own Negligence
a Statutory Limitations
Some jurisdictions have statutory limitations which affect the designer’s attempt to require the Contractor to indemnify the Architect.See,e.g.,Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code Ann.Section 130.002 (Vernon Supp.1996) which states that:
A covenant or promise in,...a construction contract is void and unenforceable if the covenant or promise provides for a contractor ...to indemnify or hold harmless a registered architect,registered engineer or ...from liability for damage that:

12.2. PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY.
12.2 比例分摊责任
Any liability of the of the Architect for breach of this agreement, or for any other cause of action arising out of the breach of this agreement, shall be limited to those damages actually caused by the Architect’s breach and shall not include any liability for damages caused by the Contractor, the Owner, or other members of the construction team.
建筑师因违反此协议,或因任何引起违反此协议的其他行为的原因而承担的任何责任,应限于由建筑师的违反实际引起的那些损害,不应该包括对任何由承包商、业主或施工团队其他成员引起的损害的责任.
A. Insurance
A. 保险
The most obvious risk-shift measure is through insurance, but the enormous cost of architects’ and engineers’ liability insurance -- and the huge deductibles that typically apply to them -- make them a very unsatisfactory method of shifting the risk from themselves. A much better method is to shift the risk from the Architect and his insurance carrier to other members of the construction team’s insurance carriers, which can be done through the use of an “additional insured” clause in the Owner/Architect Agreement and, through it, in the Owner/Contractor Agreement. A typical clause might read as follows:
最明显的风险转移措施是通过保险,但建筑师和工程师的责任险的巨大成本,以及一般来说适用于他们的巨大免赔额,使它们成为一种转移自己风险不能令人满意的方法.一种好得多的方法是将风险从建筑师及其保险公司转移到施工团队其他成员的保险公司,这可以通过在业主/建筑师协议中采用“附加投保”条款,并通过它而实现.典型的条款可以读出出如下：
12.3. ADDITIONAL INSURED.
12.3 附加投保
To the extent possible, the Owner will include the Architect as an additional insured on all policies of insurance on this Project, and will require, in its contract with the Contractor, that the Contractor and its subcontractors include the Architect as an additional insured on all of the policies of insurance which they are required to maintain in effect on the Project. 在可能的程度上,业主将在本项目所有保险单上作为附加投保而包括建筑师,而且将在其与承包商的合同中要求,承包商及其分承包商在所有他们被要求保持对项目有效的保险单上作为附加投保而包括建筑师.
Although the Supreme Court has refused to extend the express negligence doctrine to additional insured provisions, see, Getty Oil Company v. Insurance Co. of North America, 845 S.W.2d 794 (Tex. 1992), prudence would dictate that, in light of the opinion in Dresser Industries v. Page Petroleum, 853 S.W.2d 505 (Tex. 1993), the clause be conspicuous. 虽然最高法院一直拒绝将明示过失原则扩展到附加投保条款中,这可参见Getty 石油公司对 北美保险公司的案例, 845 S.W.2d 794 (Tex. 1992), 但是鉴于Dresser Industries公司对Page石油公司案例853 S.W.2d 505 (Tex. 1993)中的观点,为审慎起见,该条款是醒目的.
A. Indemnification
A．赔偿
A much-attempted, but [at least in this author’s experience] seldom successful attempt at risk shifting in Owner/Architect contracts is the use of contractual indemnification clauses. These generally take one of two forms: (1) Indemnification from the consequences of the negligent acts of others; and (2) indemnification from the consequences of one’s own negligence. The statutory and common law limitations upon the use of the latter are considerable, although the former can and is frequently is used by some of the members of the construction team to shift risks. 在业主/建筑师的合同中,在风险转移上一个常常尝试,但（至少在本作者的经验中）很少成功的尝试是使用合同赔偿条款.这些条款一般取两种形式的一种：1）来自因其他人过失行为的后果的赔偿；2）来自因自己过失的后果的赔偿.虽然前者常常被要转移风险的施工团队的某些成员所采用,但对于后者的使用,法定的限制和普通法的限制是相当大的.
1 Indemnification from the Architect’s Own Negligence
1. 来自建筑师自己过失的赔偿
a Statutory Limitations
a. 法定限制
Some jurisdictions have statutory limitations which affect the designer’s attempt to require the Contractor to indemnify the Architect. See, e.g., Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. Section 130.002 (Vernon Supp. 1996) which states that: A covenant or promise in, . . . a construction contract is void and unenforceable if the covenant or promise provides for a contractor . . .to indemnify or hold harmless a registered architect, registered engineer or . . . from liability for damage that:
某些管辖权有法定的限制,这会影响到设计师要求承包商赔偿建筑师的意图.参见Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. 的案例,Section 130.002 (Vernon Supp. 1996),它说明了：一项在……一份施工合同中的契诺或承诺,如果该契诺或承诺为承包商提供了……以赔偿或保持无害于一名注册建筑师、注册工程师或……那么从以下的损害责任来说是无效的,或是无法执行的：