英美侵权法 笔记及案例分析.docx

英美侵权法 笔记及案例分析.docx

《英美侵权法 笔记及案例分析.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英美侵权法 笔记及案例分析.docx（31页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

英美侵权法笔记及案例分析

criminallaws:

beyondallreasonabledoubt

2.3typesoftortlaw

a）intentionaltorts

theharmisdesiredortheresultsofharmarewithinknowledge（thesubstantialcertaintyoftheharm）.

b）negligence/tortsofnegligence:

legaldutyisowned;breakofthatduty;anddamageiscausedtoplaintiff.Theforeseeabilityiscrucial.

c）strictliabilitytorts:

Aliabilityassignedregardlessoffaultasamatterofsocialpolicy.（noforeseeabilityofinjuryorblameworthyconductisrequired）

3.remedies

Compensatorydamages

Punitivedamages（requiremalicious,fraudulent,orevilmotives）

二、intentionaltorts

1.generalelementsofintentionaltorts

a）elements（3）（primafaciecase）

avolitionalact:

amovementdictatedbyaperson’smind（wrongfulact）

intent:

generalintent（substantialcertaintyoftheconsequences）&specificintent（wanttobringabouttheresults）

causation:

（causalrelationship）theresultmustbelegallycausedbytheact

b）transferredintentdoctrine（intentissue）

i.Definition:

whileAintendstocommitatortagainstonepersonbutinsteadcommitsadifferenttortagainstthatperson,orcommitsthesametortbutagainstadifferentperson,orcommitadifferentintentagainstadifferentperson,theintentistransferredtotheothertortortheinjuredperson.

ii.Application:

assault,battery,falseimprisonment,trespasstoland,trespasstochattels.

c）eggshellskullrule（compensatoryissue）

anintentionaltortfeasorisordinaryliableforallconsequences,whetherforeseeableornot,whichareactualcauseofhisconduct.

Case13Vosburgv.Putney

Proceduralhistory:

VosburgsuedPutneyforassaultandbattery.ThejuryrenderedaverdictforPlaintiffintheamountof$2,800.Thedefendantappealed,thecasewasagaintriedinthecircuitcourt,andthejudgmentwasreversedforerrorandthenewtrialresultedinaverdictforPlaintiffintheamountof$2,500.

Facts:

Putney（Defendant,11-yearsold）slightly,butunlawfully,kickedVosburg（Plaintiff,14-yearsold）onthelegduringschoolintendingnoharm.Althoughthekickwasslight,PlaintifflosttheuseofhislimbbecauseDefendant'skickrevivifiedapreviousinjury.

Issue:

1.Whiletheintenttodoharmisoftheessenceofanassault,whetherthedefendanthadtheintent?

（intent）

2.Whilethedefendantjustkickedslightlyonthelegoftheplaintiff,whetherhewasliableforallinjuriesresultingdirectlyfromthewrongfulactevenitcouldnothavebeenforeseen?

（damage）

Holding:

1.Yes

2.Yes

Reasons:

1.Inactionsforassaultandbattery,Plaintiffmustshoweitherthattheintentionwasunlawful,orthatDefendantisatfault.Iftheintendedactisunlawful,theintentiontocommititmustnecessarybeunlawful.Inthiscase,theactwasunlawfulsinceittookplaceduringclass,ratherthanontheplayground.ThecourthelditwasunlawfulandthatunlawfulnesswasenoughtoimposeliabilityonDefendant.

2.Thewrongdoerisliableforallinjuriesresultingdirectlyfromthewrongfulactwhethertheycouldorcouldnothavebeenforeseenbyhim,whichistheso-called“eggshellskullrule”.

Judgment:

Judgmentreversedandcaseremandedforanewtrial.

2.Intentionaltortstotheperson（4types）

a）Battery

i.Definition:

theintentional,unprivileged,andeitherharmfuloroffensivecontractwiththepersonofanother.

ii.Elements:

（3）

Act:

bringsaboutharmfuloroffensivecontactstoplaintiff'spersonoreffects（rule:

plaintiff'spersonincludesanythingdirectlyconnectedtotheperson,suchasapenorabookheldbytheplaintiffperson.）

Intent:

tomakeacontact（physicaltouch）

Causation:

betweentheactandharmfuloroffensivetouching

Ps:

defendant'slikeordisliketowardstheplaintiffisexplainablebutnotnecessarytoestablishtheprimafaciecase.

b）Assault

i.Definition:

anactcreatingareasonableapprehensionintheplaintiffofimmediateharmfuloroffensivecontacttotheplaintiff’sperson

ii.Elements:

（3）

Act:

creatingareasonableapprehensionintheplaintiffofimmediateharmfuloroffensivecontacttotheplaintiff’sperson

Intent:

tocauseapprehension

Causation:

betweentheactandapprehension

Apprehension:

meanstheplaintiff'sexpectationofthebattery

Adisplayofforcewhichdirectedspecificallytowardstheplaintiff（e.g.athreateninggesturesuggestingimminent,unconsentedcontact）

Thevictimbeawareofthethreateningconductandactuallyfeelthreatened（notrequireactuallybefrightened,test:

areasonableperson）

e.g1:

a13yearoldboyinmilitaryuniformcarriedaplasticgunandthreatenedanadult------apprehensiveofimminentharm?

-------reasonablepersonstandard.

e.g2:

BstandbehindA；BwanttostabA；Afinditlater；AwanttosueB；isthereanassault？

Answer：

thereisnoassault——thereisNOapprehensiveof imminentharmwithinA'sknowledge

iii.Differencesbetweenassaultandbattery（act）

1.Act:

withoutphysicaltouch-->Assault;withphysicaltouch--->Battery.

2.Time:

beforephysicaltouchh-->Assault;afterphysicaltouch--->Battery.

Case15Fisherv.CarrouselMotorHotel,Inc.

Proceduralhistory:

FishersuedCarrouselMotorHotel,Inc.,theBrassRingClubandtheemployeeRobertW.Flynnforactualandexemplarydamagesgrowingoutofanallegedassaultandbattery.Thejuryreturnedaverdictof$400foractualdamagesand$500inpunitivedamages.Thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentforthedefendantnotwithstandingtheverdict.（JNOV）TheplaintiffappealedandtheCourtofCivilAppealsaffirmed.

Facts:

AtaprofessionalconferenceheldinDefendant'shotel,oneofDefendant'semployeesforciblyremovedaplatefromthePlaintiff'shand,shoutingthata"Negrocouldnotbeservedintheclub".Defendant'semployeedidnotmakephysicalcontactwithPlaintiff,buttheeventwaswitnessedbymanyofPlaintiff'scolleagues.

Issue:

1.Whilethedefendantdidn’tdoanyphysicalharmtotheplaintiff’sbodybutsnatchedanobjectfromhishands,whetheranactionablebatterywascommitted?

2.WhetherthedefendantsmustrespondinexemplaryaswellasactualdamagesforthemaliciousconductofFlynn?

Holding:

1.Yes.

2.Yes.

Reasons:

1.Thedispossessionofanobjectfromone’shandinanoffensivemannerisactuallyunwantedandintentionalinvasionofone'sperson（anoffensetohisdignity）,thusconstitutesabattery.

2.Aprincipalormasterisliableforexemplaryorpunitivedamagesbecauseofhisagentiftheagentwasemployedinamanagerialcapacityandwasactinginthescopeofemployment.Inthiscase,FlynnwasthemanageroftheBrassRingClubandwasactingwithinthecourseandscopeofhisemployment.

Judgment:

Thetrialcourterredinoverrulingthatmotionandinenteringjudgmentforthedefendantsnotwithstandingtheverdict;andtheCourtofCivilAppealserredinaffirmingthejudgment.Thejudgmentsbelowarereversedandjudgmentishererenderedfortheplaintifffor$900withinterestfromthedateofthetrialcourt’sjudgmentandforcostsofthissuit.

c）Falseimprisonment

i.Definition:

anactoromissiontoactofthedefendantthatconfinesorrestrainstheplaintifftoaboundedarea.

ii.Elements（3）

Act:

unlawfulandunconsenteddetentionoftheplaintiffwithinboundaries

Intent:

toconfinetheplaintiff,omissionorarbitrarily

Causation:

betweentheactandapprehension

Confine:

useofunreasonableforce,threatofforceorassertionoflegalauthorityofthedefendant,andharmtotheplaintifforknowledgebytheplaintiffoftheconfinement,bothphysicallyandmentally

Aboundedarea:

apparentlackofareasonableexit

e.g.theshopownermistakenlyshutsomebodydownintheshopwhenhethoughtthereisnobodythere→falseimprisonment

iii.Defense——Shopliftingrule

a）Definition:

Shopkeepershaveaprivilegetodetainsuspectedthiefforinvestigation,whichmaynegateoneoftheelementsoffalseimprisonment.

b）Elements:

（4）

reasonablebelief:

believetheplaintiffwasasuspectedthief

reasonableperiod:

thedetentionisonlyforareasonabletime

reasonablemanner:

onlyreasonableforcewasused（）

reasonablepurpose:

forreasonableinvestigation

Case16MariusS.Coblynv.Kennedy’sInc.

Proceduralhistory:

Facts:

aftershoppinginDefendant’sstore,Plaintiff,a70-year-oldman,wasleavingwhenDefendantstoppedhim.DefendantthoughtPlaintiffwasattemptingtostealanascot.Asaresult,PlaintiffwashospitalizedandsuedDefendantforfalseimprisonment..

Issue:

3.Doesrestraintofpersonalliberty,byfearofapersonaldifficulty,amounttoafalseimprisonment?

4.IfPlaintiffwasfalselyimprisoned,wastheimprisonmentprivileged?

Holding:

3.Yes

4.No

Reasons:

1.Anygeneralrestraintissufficienttoconstituteanimprisonment.Anydemonstrationofphysicalpower,which,toallappearances,canbeavoidedonlybysubmission,operatesaseffectuallytoconstituteanimprisonment.Inthiscase,GossfirmlygraspedPlaintiff’sarmandtoldhimthathehadbettergobacktoseethemanager.TherewasanotheremployeestandingnexttoGoss.ConsideringPlaintiff’sageandheartcondition,itishardlyexpectedthatPlaintiffcoulddoanythingbutcomplywithGoss’s“request”thathegobackandseethemanager.Ifamanisrestrainedofhispersonallibertybyfearofapersonaldifficulty,thatmeansifPlaintiffleftbeforeexoneratinghimself,theonlookersmighthaveinterpretedhisdepartureasanadmissionofguilt,sothatamountstoafalseimprisonment.

2.Defendant,ashopkeeper,hasaprivilegetodetainPlaintiffifdetainedinareasonablemanner,forareasonablelengthoftime,andifDefendanthadreasonablegroundsforbelievingthatPlaintiffwasattemptingtocommitlarcenyofgoodsheldforsale.Inthiscase,itisconcededthatPlaintiffwasheldforareasonable