1、英美侵权法笔记及案例分析一、Introduction1.Comparison of conceptsa)Torts v. Contract lawi.legal basis:torts: legislationcontract law: agreementconsent ii.purpose (remedy):torts: restoration to original position and requirements of punitive damages in some cases.contract law: Protecting 3kinds of interests: restitu
2、tion, reliance, and expectation interests (should the contract performed)iii.form of remedy:torts: monetarycontract law: monetary, injunctive relief, rescind the contract, equitable relief of special performanceb)Torts v. Constitutionoverlapping issues but considered in different angles eg.(defamati
3、on) :freedom of speech v. right of reputationc)Torts v. Criminal lawsi.legal basis:torts: private lawcriminal laws: public lawii.purposetorts: Injured party seeking personal relief criminal laws: protect the public and satisfy its sense of justice by punishing the wrong doersiii.form of remedytorts:
4、 monetarycriminal laws: fines , imprisonment, death penaltyiv.standard of prooftorts: preponderance of the evidencecriminal laws:beyond all reasonable doubt2. 3 types of tort lawa)intentional tortsthe harm is desired or the results of harm are within knowledge(the substantial certainty of the harm).
5、b)negligence /torts of negligence:legal duty is owned; break of that duty ; and damage is caused to plaintiff. The foreseeability is crucial.c)strict liability torts:A liability assigned regardless of fault as a matter of social policy.(no foreseeability of injury or blameworthy conduct is required)
6、3.remediesCompensatory damages Punitive damages (require malicious, fraudulent, or evil motives)二、intentional torts1.general elements of intentional tortsa)elements(3)(prima facie case)a volitional act: a movement dictated by a persons mind(wrongful act)intent: general intent (substantial certainty
7、of the consequences)& specific intent(want to bring about the results)causation: (causal relationship)the result must be legally caused by the actb)transferred intent doctrine(intent issue)i.Definition: while A intends to commit a tort against one person but instead commits a different tort against
8、that person, or commits the same tort but against a different person, or commit a different intent against a different person, the intent is transferred to the other tort or the injured person.ii.Application: assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels.c)eggshell sku
9、ll rule(compensatory issue)an intentional tortfeasor is ordinary liable for all consequences, whether foreseeable or not, which are actual cause of his conduct.Case 13 Vosburg v. PutneyProcedural history: Vosburg sued Putney for assault and battery. The jury rendered a verdict for Plaintiff in the a
10、mount of $2,800. The defendant appealed, the case was again tried in the circuit court, and the judgment was reversed for error and the new trial resulted in a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $2,500. Facts: Putney (Defendant, 11-years old) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff,
11、14-years old) on the leg during school intending no harm. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendants kick revivified a previous injury.Issue:1.While the intent to do harm is of the essence of an assault, whether the defendant had the intent?(intent)2.While th
12、e defendant just kicked slightly on the leg of the plaintiff, whether he was liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act even it could not have been foreseen?(damage)Holding:1.Yes2.YesReasons:1.In actions for assault and battery, Plaintiff must show either that the intention was
13、 unlawful, or that Defendant is at fault. If the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit it must necessary be unlawful. In this case, the act was unlawful since it took place during class, rather than on the playground. The court held it was unlawful and that unlawfulness was enough to imp
14、ose liability on Defendant. 2.The wrongdoer is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act whether they could or could not have been foreseen by him, which is the so-called “eggshell skull rule”.Judgment:Judgment reversed and case remanded for a new trial. 2.Intentional torts to
15、 the person(4 types)a)Batteryi.Definition: the intentional, unprivileged, and either harmful or offensive contract with the person of another.ii.Elements: (3) Act: brings about harmful or offensive contacts to plaintiffs person or effects(rule: plaintiffs person includes anything directly connected
16、to the person, such as a pen or a book held by the plaintiff person.)Intent:to make a contact(physical touch)Causation:between the act and harmful or offensive touchingPs:defendants like or dislike towards the plaintiff is explainable but not necessary to establish the prima facie case.b)Assaulti.De
17、finition:an act creating a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiffs personii.Elements: (3)Act: creating a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiffs personIntent: to cause apprehensi
18、on Causation: between the act and apprehensionApprehension: means the plaintiffs expectation of the batteryA display of force which directed specifically towards the plaintiff (e.g. a threatening gesture suggesting imminent, unconsented contact)The victim be aware of the threatening conduct and actu
19、ally feel threatened (not require actually be frightened, test: a reasonable person)e.g1: a 13 year old boy in military uniform carried a plastic gun and threatened an adult-apprehensive of imminent harm? -reasonable person standard.e.g2: B stand behind A;B want to stab A; A find it later;A want to
20、sue B;is there an assault?Answer:there is no assaultthere is NO apprehensive of imminent harm within As knowledgeiii.Differences between assault and battery(act)1.Act: without physical touch-Assault ; with physical touch-Battery.2.Time: before physical touch h-Assault ; after physical touch-Battery.
21、Case 15 Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.Procedural history:Fisher sued Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., the Brass Ring Club and the employee Robert W. Flynn for actual and exemplary damages growing out of an alleged assault and battery. The jury returned a verdict of $400 for actual damages and $50
22、0 in punitive damages. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict.(JNOV) The plaintiff appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.Facts: At a professional conference held in Defendants hotel, one of Defendants employees forcibly removed a plate from the Pla
23、intiffs hand, shouting that a Negro could not be served in the club. Defendants employee did not make physical contact with Plaintiff, but the event was witnessed by many of Plaintiffs colleagues.Issue:1.While the defendant didnt do any physical harm to the plaintiffs body but snatched an object fro
24、m his hands, whether an actionable battery was committed?2. Whether the defendants must respond in exemplary as well as actual damages for the malicious conduct of Flynn?Holding:1.Yes.2.Yes.Reasons:1.The dispossession of an object from ones hand in an offensive manner is actually unwanted and intent
25、ional invasion of ones person(an offense to his dignity), thus constitutes a battery.2.A principal or master is liable for exemplary or punitive damages because of his agent if the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting in the scope of employment. In this case,Flynn was the manag
26、er of the Brass Ring Club and was acting within the course and scope of his employment.Judgment:The trial court erred in overruling that motion and in entering judgment for the defendants notwithstanding the verdict; and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the judgment. The judgments below
27、 are reversed and judgment is here rendered for the plaintiff for $900 with interest from the date of the trial courts judgment and for costs of this suit.c)False imprisonmenti.Definition:an act or omission to act of the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area.ii.Element
28、s(3)Act: unlawful and unconsented detentionof the plaintiff within boundariesIntent: to confine the plaintiff, omission or arbitrarilyCausation: between the act and apprehensionConfine: use of unreasonable force, threat of force or assertion of legal authority of the defendant, and harm to the plain
29、tiff or knowledge by the plaintiff of the confinement, both physically and mentallyA bounded area: apparent lack of a reasonable exite.g. the shop owner mistakenly shut somebody down in the shop when he thought there is nobody therefalse imprisonmentiii.DefenseShoplifting rulea)Definition: Shopkeepe
30、rs have a privilege to detain suspected thief for investigation, which may negate one of the elements of false imprisonment.b)Elements: (4)reasonable belief: believe the plaintiff was a suspected thiefreasonable period: the detention is only for a reasonable timereasonable manner :only reasonable fo
31、rce was used()reasonable purpose: for reasonable investigationCase 16 Marius S. Coblyn v. Kennedys Inc.Procedural history: Facts: after shopping in Defendants store, Plaintiff, a 70-year-old man, was leaving when Defendant stopped him. Defendant thought Plaintiff was attempting to steal an ascot. As
32、 a result, Plaintiff was hospitalized and sued Defendant for false imprisonment.Issue:3.Does restraint of personal liberty, by fear of a personal difficulty, amount to a false imprisonment?4.If Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned, was the imprisonment privileged?Holding:3.Yes4.NoReasons:1.Any general restraint is sufficient to constitute an imprisonment. Any demonstration of
copyright@ 2008-2022 冰豆网网站版权所有
经营许可证编号:鄂ICP备2022015515号-1