美国侵权法讲义.docx

美国侵权法讲义.docx

《美国侵权法讲义.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《美国侵权法讲义.docx（95页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

美国侵权法讲义

TortLawOutline

Primaryconcernw/torts–whetheronewhoseactionsharmanothershouldberequiredtopaycompensationfortheharmdone

GoalsofTortSystem

-promoteefficient/safebehaviorthroughincentives/disincentives

-makepeoplewhole;puttheminplaceasifaccidentwouldn’thaveoccurred

Thetortsystemhelpscompensatepeopleinareaswhereinsuranceandthegovernmentdoesnot.

WhatisaTort?

-personv.person,insteadofpersonv.state（civil,notcriminal）

-compensationbeingsought

-injuredpersonmustbringsuit,statewon’t

-determiningliability,notillegality

-createsincentivesforgoodbehavior

-canprovidepunitivedamages

-mostlyinstatecourts

Negligence

Negligence–failureofaDtotakereasonablecaretoprotectareasonableP.Elements:

1.Dhadaduty

2.Dbreachedthatduty/stdofcare

3.Dcausedtheinjury（actualandproximate）

4.Pwasinjured,therearelegallycompensabledamages

Negligence–conductwhichfallsbelowthestandardestablishedbylawfortheprotectionofothersagainstunreasonableriskofharm

Formostnegligentactions,anactisnegligentonlyoftheactorfailstousereasonablecare.Anactorisreq’dtousereasonablecarethatareasonable,prudentpersoninhisposition,withhisinfoandcompetence,wouldrecognizenecessarytopreventanunreasonableriskofharmtoanother.

-Note:

reasonablecareistheordinarystandardofcarerequirement,thisstandardcanbealsobe“noduty”oraheightenedduty（discussedfurtherinstandardofcaresection）.

-Variouswaysfordeterminingreasonableactivityarealsodiscussedindetailinthe“standardsofcare”section（pg6）

Tortsbecameandimportantandlargepartofthelawinthelate19thcenturyb/cthemachinescreatedbytheindustrialrevolutionledtoseveralunintentionalinjuries.

-Priortotheindustrialrevolution,therewerenoexactrulesforstrictliabilityornegligence.

Hammontreev.Jenner（pg3）

CourtofAppealofCalifornia,1971

Facts:

-Jenner（D）runshiscarintoHammontree’s（P）shopwhenhehasaseizure

-Psufferedpersonalinjuriesanddamagestohershop

-DwastakingmedicineprescribedbydoctortopreventseizuresanddoctorsaidthatDwassafetodriveacar.

P’sArgument

-PwantedtouseproductliabilityprecedenttoimposestrictliabilityonD

Court’sRuling

-Courttreatsseizureasanunforeseeableactb/cDtookreasonablecaretopreventhimselffromhavingaseizures.

-Courtdeclinestosuperimposethestrictliabilityofproductliabilitycasesupondriversunderthecircumstanceshere.

-Innocentvictimwasnotcompensated

NotableExtras

-TheDMVwasnotadefendanteventhoughitdidgivethedriverpermissiontodrive.Thisisb/cgovt.agencieshavebeentraditionallyimmunefromtorts.

-TheMDthatapprovedDtodrivewasnotsuedb/citwasseenthattheforeseeableriskwasverybroadinthattherewasnocertainpersonthatwouldbeharmed.

LitigationProcess

Twobasesforthrowingoutcases

1.lineoflegalreasoning

2.insufficientfacts

BurdenofProduction–includeallelementsandsupportedbyfacts（primafaciecase）

BurdenofPersuasion–evidencestrongenoughtowincase

-Note:

Ifthereisnotdisputeoverfacts,thecasenevergoestoajuryb/cjuryisonlytrieroffact.

VicariousLiability

VicariousLiability–Liabilitythatasupervisorypartybearsfortheactionableconductofasubordinateorassociate.Onlyapplieswhentheemployeewasactingwithinthescopeofhisemploymentwhenthetortoccurred.

-aka:

respondentsuperior

Policygoalsoftherespondentsuperiordoctrine

-preventingfutureinjuries（makingcompaniesliableshouldforcethemtobemoresafeinthefuture）

-assuringcompensationtovictims（companiesaremoreoftensolventthanindividuals）

-spreadinglossescausedbyanenterpriseequitably（doesn’thurtthecompanyasbadasitwouldanindividual）

Twotypesofrelationship

1.Employer–Employee

∙BirknerTest–criteriahelpfulfordeterminingifwhenanemployeeisacting“inthescopeofhisemployment”

1.Employeemustbeabouttheemployer’sbusinessanddutiesassignedbyemployer

2.Employee’sconductmustoccursubstantiallywithinthehoursandordinaryspatialboundariesofemployment

3.employee’sconductmustbemotivated,atleastinpart,bythepurposeofservingtheemployer’sinterest

Ask4questionstodeterminetheBirknertest

1.Whatwasshedoing?

2.Whywasshedoingit?

3.Whenwasit?

4.Wherewasit?

2.Employer–IndependentContractor

∙relationshipnormallyNOTvicariouslyliable,except:

1.employingcontractorfor“abnormallyorinherentlydangerousactivity”

2.employingcontractorforsomethingthatisconsidereda“nuisance”

3.non-delegableduty（ex.fixingyourbrakesoracitykeepingthestreetsingoodrepair）

4.ifthecontractorwasactingwithit’sapparentauthority:

（all3mustbepresent）

1.arepresentationbythepurportedprincipal（employer）

2.arelianceonthatrepresentationbyathirdparty

3.achangeinpositionbythe3rdpartyinrelianceontherepresentation

Policy–principal（employer）shouldbeestoppedtodenyauthorityofanagentwhentheprincipalpermittedanappearanceofauthorityintheagentand,indoingso,justifieda3rdparty’srelianceuponthatappearanceofauthority

BorrowedServantDoctrine–ifanemployeewasperformingactforsomeoneelse,evenifwithinthenormaltimeandareaofregularemployment,theemployeeisdeemedtobeaborrowedservantofthepartyhewasactingforandthustheregularemployerisNOTliableforthosespecificactions.

Christensenv.Swensen（pg18）

SupremeCourtofUtah,1994

Facts

-Swensen（D）,asecurityguardemployedbyBurns（alsoD）SecurityworkingataGenevaplant,tookanallowed15minutebreaktogotothecaféacrossthestreet.

-Whileshewasdrivingback,shehitChristensent’s（P）motorcycle.

Issue

-WasDoperatingwithinscopeofheremploymentwhenshehittheP?

P’sargument

-Burnspassivelyendorsedtothetripstocafébynotdisallowingthem

-Bygivingemployeesonly15minutesforbreak,Burnswasforcingthemtohurry

-Swensenwasintheareasurroundingherpost

Court’sRuling

-thereisaquestionoffactwhethertheBirknerstandardsweremet,sosummaryjudgmentcannotbeallowed

Lisav.MayoHospital:

-Facts:

hospitaltechniciansexuallyassaultedpatient

-Ruling:

theassaultwas“notariskpredictablycreatedbyorfairlyattributedtothenatureofthetechnician’semployment.”Sohospitalwasnotliableforhospitaltechnician.

Bakerv.St.FrancisHospital:

-Facts:

employeeatchildcarefacilitybangedbaby’sheadagainstawallb/citwouldnotsopcrying

-Ruling:

defendantfacilityisvicariouslyliableb/ctheactionoccurredinthecourseofemploymentandwasinthefurtheranceofthejobtheemployeewasperforming

Roesslerv.Novak（pg24）

FloridaDistrictCourtofAppeals,2003

Facts

-Roessler（P）hadscanstakenathospitalandthenhadsurgery

-Pclaimsdoctorreadscanswrongandactednegligently

-Pclaimsthedoctorwasinthescopeoftheagencyandthisthehospitalisvicariouslyliable

Issue

-Didthehospitalsatisfyitsburdentoestablishthatnogenuineissuesofmaterialfactexisted（topasstheR56motion）regardingitsvicariousliability?

D’sArgument

-Ddidn’tknowtheMDwasanindependentcontractorandheassumedtheMDworkedforthehospital.

-Dreliedonthehospitaltohirehighqualityworkers.

Court’sRuling

-Hospitaldidnotsatisfytheburdenb/ctherearereasonablequestionsoffactwhethertheMDwasthehospital’sapparentagent

-Ahospitalcanbeheldvicariouslyliablefortheactionsofindependentcontractorsifapparentagencyfound

ConcurringOpinion

-theS.C.orlegislatureneedstosimplifytherulesofliability

-thisshouldbetreatedasanon-delegabledutycase

-thereistoomuchfocusonwhatthePthoughtandhowheperceivedthesituation

HistoricalDevelopmentofNegligence

Brownv.Kendall（pg35）

SCofMassachusetts,1850

Facts

-TheP’s（Brown）andD’s（Kendall）dogswerefightingandDwashittingthemwithasticktotryandmakethemstop

-WhileDwashittingthemheaccidentallyhitP（whowasbehindhim）injuringhim

Issue

-Howfar,andunderwhatqualifications,isthepartywhocommittedanunconsciousactthatcauseddamageresponsible?

-Dictasaysthatifanactcausedimmediateharm,thantheinjurerwasresponsible

Court’sRuling

-TheburdenofproofisontheplaintifftoprovethattheactwaseitherintentionalortheDwasin-fault（nottakingordinarycare）

-Ifanactcouldnotbeavoidedbytheuseofcarereasonablyrequiredforthesituation,theinjurerisnotliable.（whichisthecasehere）

Adamsv.Bullock（pg40）

CourtofAppealsofNY,1919

Facts

-Drunsatrolleyline,employinganoverheadwiresystem

-P,ayoungboy,wasplayingandswingingalongmetalwireonabridgeoverthetrolleyroute.ThewirePwasswingingflewunderneaththebridgeanditstruckthewiresystemofthetrolley,shockingandburningP.

Court’sRuling

-Dwasinlawfulpracticebyusinganoverheadtrolleysystem.Negligence,therefore,cannotbeimputedtohimb/chechosetousethatsysteminsteadofanother.

-Ddoeshaveadutytoadoptallreasonableprecautionstominimizedanger,butthereisnoevidencethatthisdutywasignored.（thishadneverhappenedbefore）

-Thisextraordinaryperilcouldnothavebeenpreventedorpredictedwithordinarycaution.

USv.CarrollTowing（pg44）

USCourtofAppeals,1947

Facts

-TwomenaboardtheCarroll,atugboat,readjustedthelinesoftheAnnaC,inordertofittheirboatin

-TheAnnaClaterbrokeloose,ranintoanotherboatandsank

-ThecargointheAnnaCbelongedtotheUSgovt.