英美侵权法 笔记及案例分析.docx

1、英美侵权法 笔记及案例分析criminal 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).b)negligence /torts of negligence:legal duty is owned; break of that duty ; and damage is caused to pl

2、aintiff. 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)3.remediesCompensatory damages Punitive damages (require malicious, fraudulent, or evil motives)二、inte

3、ntional 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 of the consequences)& specific intent(want to bring about the results)causation: (causal relationship)

4、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 that person, or commits the same tort but against a different person, or commit a different intent aga

5、inst 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 skull rule(compensatory issue)an intentional tortfeasor is ordinary liable for all consequences, whether

6、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 amount of $2,800. The defendant appealed, the case was again tried in the circuit court, and the judgme

7、nt 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, 14-years old) on the leg during school intending no harm. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost

8、 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 the defendant just kicked slightly on the leg of the plaintiff, whether he was liable for all injuries r

9、esulting 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 unlawful, or that Defendant is at fault. If the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit it

10、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 impose liability on Defendant. 2.The wrongdoer is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wro

11、ngful 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 the person(4 types)a)Batteryi.Definition: the intentional, unprivileged, and either harmful or offens

12、ive 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 to the person, such as a pen or a book held by the plaintiff person.)Intent:to make a contact(physical

13、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.Definition:an act creating a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive c

14、ontact 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 apprehension Causation: between the act and apprehensionApprehension: means the plaintiffs expectation of the bat

15、teryA 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 actually feel threatened (not require actually be frightened, test: a reasonable person)e.g1: a 13 year old

16、 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 sue B；is there an assault？Answer：there is no assaultthere is NO apprehensive of imminent harm within As

17、 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.Case 15 Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.Procedural history:Fisher sued Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.

18、, 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 $500 in punitive damages. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict.

19、(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 Plaintiffs hand, shouting that a Negro could not be served in the club. Defendants employee did not make p

20、hysical 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 from his hands, whether an actionable battery was committed?2. Whether the defendants must respond in exem

21、plary 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 intentional invasion of ones person(an offense to his dignity), thus constitutes a battery.2.A principal or m

22、aster 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 manager of the Brass Ring Club and was acting within the course and scope of his employment.Judgment:The tri

23、al 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 are reversed and judgment is here rendered for the plaintiff for $900 with interest from the date of t

24、he 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.Elements(3)Act: unlawful and unconsented detentionof the plaintiff within boundariesIntent: to confine the pla

25、intiff, 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 plaintiff or knowledge by the plaintiff of the confinement, both physically and mentallyA bounded area: appa

26、rent 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: Shopkeepers have a privilege to detain suspected thief for investigation, which may negate one of the elements o

27、f 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 force was used()reasonable purpose: for reasonable investigationCase 16 Marius S. Coblyn v. Kennedys Inc.

28、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 a result, Plaintiff was hospitalized and sued Defendant for false imprisonment.Issue:3.Does restraint

29、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 physical power, which, to al

30、l appearances, can be avoided only by submission, operates as effectually to constitute an imprisonment. In this case, Goss firmly grasped Plaintiffs arm and told him that he had better go back to see the manager. There was another employee standing next to Goss. Considering Plaintiffs age and heart

31、 condition, it is hardly expected that Plaintiff could do anything but comply with Gosss “request” that he go back and see the manager. If a man is restrained of his personal liberty by fear of a personal difficulty, that means if Plaintiff left before exonerating himself, the onlookers might have i

32、nterpreted his departure as an admission of guilt, so that amounts to a false imprisonment.2.Defendant, a shopkeeper, has a privilege to detain Plaintiff if detained in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable length of time, and if Defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that Plaintiff was attempting to commit larceny of goods held for sale. In this case, it is conceded that Plaintiff was held for a reasonable