法律英语专题：侵权法(tort law)资料讲解

合集下载

法律英语专题侵权法toraw

it at someone pointing a gun at someone pointing a realistic toy gun at someone
Criminal assault and tortious assault
Criminal assault can occur even when no threat is perceived by the victim.
★The essence of the tort is the natural mental harm that results when one’s freedom is restricted without justification.
Elements
intent to confine a person within a certain area
was riding, causing him to fall and be injured mixing something offensive in food that he knows another will eat—the other does in fact eat the offensive matter
Battery
Definition
an intentional act that causes a harmful or offensive contact
‘Harmful’ contact
contact that objectively intends to injure, disfigure, impair, or cause pain
Categories of torts
intentional torts

Tort Law 侵权法

在美国，侵权法主要属于各州的法律范畴，而且主要由判例法组成。

在联邦法律中1946年的Federal Tort Claims Act (联邦侵权索赔法）是最主要的一个法律。

侵权行为可分为故意侵权行为（intentional tort)、过失侵权行为（negligence or negligent tort)和严格责任侵权行为(strict liability tort). 对侵权行为的一般救济方法是对侵权行为所造成的损害予以一定的金钱补偿，在涉及交通事故等领域的侵权赔偿已广范采用了保险赔偿的方式。

Text 课文Part One: Introduction第一部分基本概念1. The law of tort is still the source of most civil suits in the United States, with damage claims for automobile accidents taking first place. Many circumstances contribute to this: (a) the plaintiff in an American civil suit is ordinarily entitled to try his claim before a jury which will often--and understandably--rely more on human than on legal considerations, for instance when a child has been injured in an automobile accident or through a defective product of a large enterprise; (b) Compensation and damages include not only the actual loss but also the intangible damage. A plaintiff can therefore often play on the human reaction of the jury: for instance, what is appropriate compensation for a permanent disability such as the loss of a limb? (c) American law permits the participation of the attorney in the plaintiff’s recovery (contingent fee) which not uncommonly amounts to 25 to 33 percent of the verdict. As a result of all of these factors, a tort action may be a lengthy proceeding, result in large expenses, for instance through honoraria for experts (which may deter the "small "plaintiff from suing at all), and may end in the award of a very large verdict. It is no linger uncommon that a jury will aware a verdict in excess of＄100,000. These conditions have been the touchstone for several reform endeavors which will be discussed in more detail below.1．在美国，侵权行为法产生的诉讼仍是大多民事诉讼案件的主要来源，其中基于交通事故产生的损害赔偿案件居于首位。

Tort Law侵权法英文版

侵权责任法Tort Liability Law第一章一般规定General Provisions第一条为保护民事主体的合法权益，明确侵权责任，预防并制裁侵权行为，促进社会和谐稳定，制定本法。

In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects, clarify the tort lability, prevent and punishtortious conduct, and promote the social harmony and stability, this Law is formulated.第二条侵害民事权益，应当依照本法承担侵权责任。

本法所称民事权益，包括生命权、健康权、姓名权、名誉权、荣誉权、肖像权、隐私权、婚姻自主权、监护权、所有权、用益物权、担保物权、著作权、专利权、商标专用权、发现权、股权、继承权等人身、财产权益。

Those who infringe upon civil rights and interests shall be subject to the tort liability according to this Law.“Civil rights and interests” in this Law include the right to life, right to health, right to name, right to reputation, right to honor, right to portrait, right of privacy, marital autonomy, guardianship, ownership, usufruct, security interest, copyright, patent right, exclusive right to use a trademark, right to discover, equities, right of succession, and other personal and property rights and interests.第三条被侵权人有权请求侵权人承担侵权责任。

TortLaw（美国侵权法）.-1doc

TortLaw（美国侵权法）.-1docTort law is a body of law that deals with civil wrongs, except those that arise from contract problems.The purpose of tort law is to compensate an injured party through the award of damages for the injuries incurred during a tortious act.CategoriesThere are three broad categories of torts:1. Intentional torts:2. negligence3. strict liability1. Intentional torts:Intentional torts are ones where the defendant desires to bring about a particular result.Intentional torts include actions that the layperson often associates with criminal law but are also covered by tort law.The main intentional torts against persons are:a. battery.b. assault.c. false imprisonment.d. intentional infliction of emotional distress.The main intentional torts against property are:a. trespass to land.b. trespass to chattels.c. conversion2. Negligence:The defendant has not intended to bring about a certain result, but has merely behaved carelessly.There are no individually-named torts in this category,merely the general concept of "negligence." (generic tort)3. Strict liability:The defendant is held liable even though he did not intend to bring about the undesirable result, and even though he behaved with utmost carefulness.INTENTIONAL TORTSAssaultBatteryFalse imprisonmentIntentional infliction of emotional distressTrespass to landTrespass to chattels, andConversionAssault and batteryAssault and battery are intentional torts, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plaintiff in fear of an imminent battery, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff.The wrongful touching need not inflict physical injury, and may be indirect. (contact through a thrown stone, spitting) Assault occurs when the defendant's acts intentionally cause the victim's reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact.In other words, the defendant has committed the tort of assault if he has intentionally caused the plaintiff to think that she will be subjected to a harmful or offensive contact.The interest being protected is plaintiff's interest in freedom from apprehension of the contact; thus the tort can exist even if the contact itself never occurs.Apprehension:The victim must perceive that harmful or offensive contact isabout to happen to him.Imminent Harmful or Offensive Contact:For assault to be actionable the victim's apprehension must be of imminent harmful or offensive contact."Words alone" rule:Ordinarily, words alone are not sufficient, by themselves, to give rise to an assault.Normally there must be some overt act – a physical act or gesture by defendant – before plaintiff can claim to have been assaulted.Castiglione v. Galpin, 325 So.2d 725 (1976)Plaintiffs, sewerage and water board employees, brought suit for damages resulting from an alleged assault in which defendant allegedly pointed a shotgun at them after being informed that his water would be turned off because of nonpayment of a water bill.The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans rendered judgment in favor of each plaintiff in the sum of $750, and defendant appealed.Holding: The Court of Appeal held that where defendant threatened plaintiffs with bodily harm in the event they turned the water off and where defendant had a shotgun at the time, whether gun remained on defendant's lap or was pointed at plaintiffs, plaintiffs were in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery, and thus defendant was liable for assault; that the award to each plaintiff in the sum of $750 was not excessive.BatteryBattery occurs when the defendant’s acts intentionally cause harmful or offensive contact with the victim’s person.Accidental contact, by contrast, must be analyzed undernegligence or strict liability.Harmful or Offensive Contact:Battery encompasses either harmful or offensive contact.Even trivial offensive contact can constitute a battery.An offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury.Mohr v. Williams, 104 N.W. 12 (Minn. 1905). P consults D, an ear doctor, about her right ear. She consents to an operation on that ear, but does nothing about her left ear. During the operation, D discovers that the left ear (but not the right ear) needs surgery, and performs it.Held, the surgery on the left ear was an unauthorized, offensive contact, and constituted battery even though it was not in fact harmful to P's health.Reasonableness standard for "offensive" contact:In determining whether a particular contact is "offensive," the standard is not whether the particularplaintiff was offended, but whether "an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to his dignity" would have been offended.Extends to personal effects:A battery may be committed not only by a contact with the plaintiff's body but also by a contact with her clothing, an object she is holding, or anything else that is so closely identified with her body that contact with it is as offensive as contact with the body would be.Unforeseen consequences:Once it is established that the defendant intended to commit a harmful or offensive touching and such a contact occurs, the defendant is liable for any consequences which ensue, eventhough he did not intend them, and in fact could not reasonably have foreseen them.Damages:If the plaintiff can establish that the intentional harmful or offensive contact occurred, she may recover nominal damages even if she suffered no physical injury.This might be the case, for instance, where the contact is "offensive" but not "harmful."Mental disturbance:She may also recover compensation for any pain, suffering, embarrassment, or other mental effect, even in the absence of physical harm.Punitive damages:If the defendant's conduct was particularly outrageous, the court may award punitive damages.Cole v. Turner (1704)522 U.S. 1056 118 S. Ct. 711 139 L. Ed. 2d 652 1998 U.S.No facts are given.The lightest angry touch constitutes battery. A gentle touch made in close quarters with no ill intention is not a battery. A forceful or reckless touch, in close quarters is a battery.Any degree of touching coupled with angry mindset qualifies as battery.Talmage v. Smith, 101 Mich. 370, 59 N.W. 656 (Mich. 1894).Facts. Defendant threw a stick toward one member of a group of several boys to get them to leave his property. The stick missed the first boy and struck Plaintiff in the eye. Plaintiff sued and recovered on a jury verdict.The jury was instructed that Defendant could be liable if he threw the stick with the intent to hit the first boy or Plaintiff anddid so with force that was unreasonable under the circumstances.Issue. Was the jury properly instructed that Defendant could be liable if he intended to hit either boy and used unreasonable force?Held. Yes. The judgment was affirmed, with costs.When a Defendant intends to inflict harmful or offensive contact upon one party but instead inflicts such contact upon another, he is liable for the resulting injury.Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.Facts: The plaintiff was approached while standing with a plate. One of the defendant’s employees snatched the plate out of his hand and made a racist remark. The plaintiff was not touched and didn’t suffer physical injur y, but was hurt emotionally.The jury in the trial found for the plaintiff and awarded damages. The trial court set aside the verdict and found for the defendants. The Court of Civil Appeals upheld the ruling, and the plaintiff appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.Issue: Can a plaintiff have a cause for battery if he or she was neither touched nor in apprehension of physical injury?Rule: The basis of an action for battery is the ―unpermitted and intentional invasion of the plaintiff’s person and not the ac tual harm done to the plaintiff’s body‖.Analysis: The rule is clear in saying that ―it is not necessary to touch the plaintiff’s body or even his clothing; knocking or snatching anything from the plaintiff’s body or touching anything connected with his perso n, when done in an offensive manner, is sufficient.‖The court says that ―personal indignity‖ is the essence of battery, so it doesn’t matter whether or not there was physicalcontact or injury.Conclusion: The court held that snatching the plate away from the plaintiff constituted battery and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for mental suffering, ―even in the absence of any physical injury‖.The court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and awarded damages to the plaintiff. He was allowed to recover $400 in compensatory damages for his "humiliation and indignity" even though he suffered no physical injury. He also recovered $500 in punitive damages.False ImprisonmentFalse imprisonment is a restraint of a person in a bounded area without justification or consent.In false imprisonment, the defendant unlawfully acts to intentionally cause confinement or restraint of the victim within a bounded area.Bounded Area:The victim must be confined within an area bounded in all directions.The bounded area can be, however, a large area, even an entire city.The plaintiff must be confined within definite physical boundaries.Blocking of the plaintiff's path is not enough: it is not enough that the path the plaintiff wishes to travel is obstructed by the defendant, or that the plaintiff is prevented from entering a particular place. Awareness of Confinement:False imprisonment requires that the victim be conscious of the confinement at the time of imprisonment.The Restatement §42 modifies this requ irement and wouldfind liability for false imprisonment, even when the victim is not aware of the confinement, if the victim is harmed by the confinement.Contrary to the Restatement, some authorities hold that a child can be subject to false imprisonment even if the child was neither aware of the confinement nor harmed.Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman,461 S.W.2d 195 (1970)Facts: Newman was admitted to the defendant’s nursing home. Newman decided he wanted to leave and made several attempts to do so. He was forcibly restrained by the defendants. There was no court order for him to be restrained.Issue:Did the nursing home falsely imprison Newman? If so, is the nursing home liable for punitive damages?Held: Yes. The jury’s verdict was upheld, except t he award was found excessive.Rule:False imprisonment occurs when one person directly restrains another person’s physical freedom without legal justification. Punitive damages can be awarded if the defendant intentionally violates the rights of the plaintiff.Discussion. This is a rather straightforward false imprisonment case. Plaintiff was even able to identify a contractual provision specifically demonstrating the Defendant’s knowledge that it acted in disregard of his rights. The relative simplicity of the case allows the Court to set forth the precise elements of the tort of false imprisonment.Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing Co, 203 Mont. 263, 661 P.2d 35, 1983 Mont.Facts. An employee of Defendant informed Defendant that Plaintiff, a recently hired te mporary employee at Defendant’sjewelry department, had stolen a watch. The store manager invited Plaintiff into his office, claiming she was being given a tour as a new employee.The manager closed the door behind him, and Plaintiff was ultimately questioned in the room for 20 to 45 minutes by the manager, at least one uniformed police officer, and others, during which time Plaintiff did not ask or attempt to leave and was not told she could not leave. The manager was eventually satisfied that Plaintiff had not committed the theft.Issue. Was the jury wrong to find that Plaintiff had not been restrained against her will?Held. No. The jury’s verdict was upheld. The Court found that Plaintiff was not unlawfully restrained against her will because she would have entered the office voluntarily, never asked or attempted to leave, and was never told she could not leave.Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressIntentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) exists when the defendant, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly causes the victim severe emotional or mental distress, even in the absence of physical harm .Elements:Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly;Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous;Defendant’s act i s the cause of the distress; andPlaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant’s conduct.Intent:There are three possible types of culpability by Defendant:(1) Defendant desires to cause Plaintiff emotional distress;(2) Defendant knows with substantial certainty that P will suffer emotional distress; and(3) Defendant recklessly disregards the high probability that emotional distress will occur."Transferred intent":The doctrine of "transferred intent" is not generally applicable in cases of intentional infliction of mental distress.That is, if the defendant attempts to cause emotional distress to X, or to commit some other tort upon him, and plaintiff suffers emotional distress (e.g., because he witnesses the defendant's attempt and becomes frightened), P will not usually be able to recover.Immediate family present:The main exception is that the transferred intent doctrine is applied if:(1) Defendant directs his condu ct to a member of Plaintiff’s immediate family;(2) Plaintiff is present; and(3) Plaintiff’s presence is known to Defendant."Extreme and outrageous":Plaintiff must show that Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, i.e., Defendant’s conduct has to be "beyond all possible bounds of decency."Actual severe distress:Plaintiff must suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff must show at least that her distress was severe enough that she sought medical aid. Most cases do not require Plaintiff to show that the distress resulted in bodily harm.Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, 100 So.2d 396 (1958) Facts: Plaintiff, a customer in Defendant’s store, inquired asto the price of a certain item. The employee responded that ―if you want to know the price, you’ll have to find out the best way you can…‖ because ―you stink to me‖. Plaintiff brought suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and claimed the insulting characterization of her bodily scent led to a heart attack and other injuries. The trial court dismissed the case for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff appealed.Issue.Was the trial court correct to find that the Plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to state an independent cause of action?Held. Yes. The judgment was affirmed.Rule: An action for intentional infliction of mental distress may lie if the distress is severe, or if an insult is suffered by a patron/customer of a common carrier such as an employee of a hotel, theater, or telegraph office.Analysis: The court asserts that a line should be drawn between emotional distress that is severe and distress that is not severe.The line that the court chooses is that ―there is liability only for conduct exceeding all bounds which could be tolerate d by society‖.The court further determines that mere vulgar insults do not exceed such bounds.Conclusion: The motion to dismiss is affirmed.Taylor v. Vallelunga, 171 Cal.App.2d 107, 339 P.2d 910 (1959) (bystander claim)Facts. Plaintiff Taylor witnessed Defendants intentionally attacking and beating her father, Plaintiff Gerlach. While Gerlach sued for his physical damages, Taylor sued to recover for the emotional distress she experienced as a result of witnessing theevent.Taylor failed to allege that the Defendants knew she was present for the event or that they intended the beating to cause her to suffer distress. The trial court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Taylor’s claim and Taylor appealed.Issue. Did the trial court err in dism issing Taylor’s complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress?Held. No. The dismissal was affirmed. When a Plaintiff seeks to recover for emotional distress but does not allege any physical damage, she is required to prove that the emotional distress was intentionally inflicted upon her by the Defendant.When a Defendant is not even aware of the Plaintiff’s presence or does not commit the acts causing the distress with the intention of causing Plaintiff such distress, the Defendant has not intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff.TrespassTrespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into 3 groups: trespass to the person,trespass to chattels, andtrespass to land.Trespass to the personMost jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person:assault;battery; andfalse imprisonment.。

法律英语专题：侵权法(tort-law)

was riding, causing him to fall and be injured mixing something offensive in food that he knows another will eat—the other does in fact eat the offensive matter
Tort Law
General
Tort
a civil wrong which unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm
★It does not include breach of contract or trust. (A civil wrong can be a tort, breach of contract or breach of trust.)
Many judges utilize the Restatement of Torts (2nd) as an influential guide.
The Restatement is an influential treatise issued by the American Law Institute, which summarizes the general principles of common law United States tort law.
With the tort of assault, a perceived threat by the victim is paramount.
Assault
＊A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping victim and misses can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the victim would not be aware of the possible harm.

Tort 侵权-法律英语术语

Tort 侵权-法律英语术语Tort 侵权-法律英语术语由整理。

1.In tort law the duty is imposed by the law.在侵权法中，责任是由法律规定的。

2.Some jurisdictions have established this tort to providea remedy for malicious deeds.有些司法管辖区规定了此种侵权行为，目的是对恶意行为受害人提供救济。

3.Such tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable.此种侵权行为为要承担共同和连带责任。

4.The law of tort provides rules of conduct that regulate how members of society interact and remedies if the rules are breached and damage is suffered.侵权行为法提供行为规则，规范社会成员的相互交往以及在该规则被违反和损害发生是，如何进行救济。

5.The law of tort aims to compensate those who have suffered as a result of a tort.侵权行为法的目的在于补偿被侵害人。

6.Tort law is a branch of civil law that is connected with civil wrongs， but not contract actions.侵权法属于民法的一部分，其与民事过错相关，与合同行为无关。

7.Tort liability for negligence presupposes causality between the negligent act and the injury to person or property.过失侵权责任以过失行为与对人身或财产的侵权之间的因果关系为前提。

法律英语之侵权的相关内容

Definition of tort侵权的定义Categories of tort侵权行为的分类Intentional torts故意侵权Meaning of intent意向书的含义The main intentional torts主要的故意侵权Defenses to intentional torts故意侵权的抗辩Cases for in-class discussionNegligent tort *过失侵权*Meaning of negligence疏忽的含义Components of a negligent tort: Duty of care 疏忽侵权的组件：注意义务Defenses to negligent torts过失侵权行为的抗辩Cases for in-class discussionStrict liability *严格责任*Meaning of strict liability严格责任的含义The main torts where strict liability applies 主要侵权，严格责任的适用范围Limitations on strict liability 严格法律责任的限制Cases for in-class discussionGeneral IntroductionThe definition of tort侵权的定义A civil wrong wherein one person's conduct causes a compensable injury to the person, property, or a recognized interest of another, in violation of a duty imposed by law.一个人的行为引起了一种损害他人的人身，财产，公共利益，或违反法律所规定的义务的可赔偿的民事错误。

tortlawpassage美国侵权法概论

tortlawpassage美国侵权法概论@1、An overview of tort lawGood morning,everyone. Today let us talk about tort law. And through our speech so that you have a general understanding of tort law. In China, our tort law promulgated in 2009,the tort law is a new things.Generally speaking, tort law is a civil areas and tort is the law of civil wrongs. Tort law usually provides people with the rights to compensation when another person harms their legally protected interests.Its general characteristics are:(1)Tort is a certain civil legal consequences that between Infringer and the infringed party(2) infringement of a crime against a civil statutory right of the main or absolute power,mainly referring to property rights,personal rights and intellectual property rights,the claims can not be a tort of infringement of the object;A tort is to harm other people's civil rights and interests,such as personal rights, property rights are civil rights;other than the legitimate interests of the civil rights,such as the reputation of the deceased, name,etc(3)tort perpetrator consciously behavior,unilateral implementation of wrongdoing by the infringe statutory civil rights and obligations, tort is a legal fact.Now ,lets my teammate give us an introduction about the s cope of the T ort Liability Act@2、The scope of the Tort Liability ActGood morning everyone,now I will tell your something about Scope of the T ort Liability Act.First ,I will tall you what is Tort Liability,tort liability is tortfeasor against civil rights and interests of others Infringement of civil rights and interests shall bear the civil legal consequences.It belongs to one of civil liability.Tort liability applicable to a wide range ,such as The right to life, the right to health,the right to a name,the right of reputation ,PortraitFor Example:marital autonomy means citizens have the right to freedom of marriage,and that the citizens in accordance with the law according to their own will,voluntarily married or divorced own right,free from interference by others.Male and female citizens of their own marriage or divorce,comply with the conditions of the law, there is complete freedom to express their true meaning,anyone can not use the right to replace them to make a decision,or force them to make a decision against their will;Not only parents the right to interfere in the freedom of their children's marriage or divorce, and that their children have no right to interfere with the freedom oftheir parents divorce,remarriage and widowhood party freedom.Personal rights associated with personal or an inalienable right to direct property content,also known as personal non-property rights.Personal rights and property rights constitute the two major categories of basic civil rights in civil law.The two major categories of personal rights, including the right of personality and the right to identity,personality rights,including the right to life, physical power, the right to health,the right to a name,the name of rights,the right of reputation, honor and image rights.The right to an identity, including parental rights,spouse rights,the right of kinship.@3The principle of Tort LiabilityUnder civil law principle,the principle of attribution of tort have three principles:namely:the principle of fault liability,liability without fault principle and the principle of equitable responsibility.Fault liability principle,refers to the fault of the perpetrator is to accept the principle of attribution of civil liability Elements,general tort for fault liability principle,the principle as a principle of our tort law generally attributable status.liability without fault principle in case law,not whether the perpetrator should bear the Civil Responsibility of the judge in the presence of fault of the perpetrator,usually limit the scope of the principle of responsibility applies only to special provisions in thelaw situation,the"Civil Law"and"personal damages to explain" expressly provided.The principle of equitable responsibility in the law does not provide for the principle of liability without fault,apply the principle of fault liability of the unconscionability of the victim, according to the principle of fairness between the parties assigned damage assumed responsibility principle.The implementation of the principle of fault liability under civil law for the general tort and implement who advocate who is the burden of proof;special tort,product liability,liability for damage of the highly dangerous job,environmental pollution damages the animals cause damage responsibility,the responsibility of guardianship,the implementation of the principle of liability without fault;cause damage to buildings, etc.,and the ground construction cause damage to the implementation of the principle of presumption of fault.In thecase of the parties no fault of the law did not require the implementation of no-fault liability for damage caused applicable, based on the concept of social equity,the principle of equitable responsibility.Ok,next welcome to my teammate.thank you@4 The Concurrence between tort liability and libility for breach of contractHello,everyone,just now,my teammates had told something about the Overview,scope,and principle of Tort Liability.now I will tell your The Concurrence between tort liability and libility for breach of contract.The Concurrence between tort liability and libility for breach The Concurrence between tort liability and libility for breach means the behavior of a person for a violation include a double feature of infringement and breach the law on tort liability at the same time. knowing what kind of law should apply phenomenon is becoming important.Being in real life, due to the diversity and complexity of wrongdoing, tort liability and liability for breach of competition and cooperation is inevitable.For example, the civil medical liability.Medical tort is the responsibility of behavior by medical institutions due to the fault of the medical institutions and their medical staff, resulting in compromised patients in treatment activities. medical malpractice tort liability is assumed by the medical institutions due to their infringement and adverse consequences. Medical liability for breach of contract party shall bear civil liability for breach of contractual obligations. Medical institutions should bear the liability for breach of medical behavior as a contractual relationship; When we focus only onthe results ofthe patient's actual damages, medical institutions should bear tort liability for their actions. Liability for breach of contract and tort liability are two basic types of civil liability, due to the multiplicity of the complexity of the civil relations, the nature of the civil offense, these two types of responsibility often occurred competing.In China, it is generally applicable in practice is to request the right to freedom of competing. allowing the parties to free choice of the right of claim of damages for infringement and breach of the right to claim damages.Ok,that is all,thank you for your listen.Question:1/What is tort? If a dog bite you,can you say tort?2/The principle of Tort Liability have three main category,how do you distinguish them?3/Do you know the he Concurrence between tort liability and liability for breach of contract?。

精选法律英语专题侵权法讲义.

The plaintiff must have a reasonable apprehension of such contact.
Actual fear on the plaintiff’s part is not required.
Examples
Assault
swinging a baseball bat at someone holding a rock and threatening to throw
Categories of torts
intentional torts
General
negligence strict liability torts
Intentional Torts
பைடு நூலகம்
General
Definition
An intentional tort is a tort resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor.
（优选）法律英语专题侵权法课件
General
Tort
a civil wrong which unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm
★It does not include breach of contract or trust. (A civil wrong can be a tort, breach of contract or breach of trust.)
dignitary torts
defamation invasion of privacy
Torts Against the Person

(优选)法律英语专题侵权法课件

it at someone pointing a gun at someone pointing a realistic toy gun at someone
Criminal assault and tortious assault
Criminal assault can occur even when no threat is perceived by the victim.
Subcategories
torts against the person
assault battery false imprisonment intentional infliction of emotional distress
General
property torts
trespass to land trespass to chattels (personal property) conversion
Categories of torts
intentional torts
General
negligence strict liability torts
Intentional Torts

General
Definition
An intentional tort is a tort resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor.
Purpose of tort law
to provide relief to the injured party through the award of damages for the injuries incurred during a tortious act

英美法律制度 Tort Law

For example, the tort of battery requires proof of intent to cause contact with another person. While, the intent in false imprisonment is to confine another person. But in general, the intentional torts are not defined in such a way as to require defendant to have intended to harm the plaintiff.

Example: Defendant points a water gun at Plaintiff, making it seem like a robbery, when in fact it is a practical joke. If Defendant has intended to put Plaintiff in fear of imminent harmful bodily contact, the "intent" for assault is present, even though Defendant intended no "harm" to Plaintiff. In Vosburg v. Putney 1891, a schoolboy deliberately swung his foot across the aisle to touch a classmate. The contact caused serious injury that the schoolboy never expected. And he was held liable for the damages, because we don’t require an intent to harm to constitute a battery.

Tort Law(美国侵权法).-1 doc

Tort law is a body of law that deals with civil wrongs, except those that arise from contract problems.The purpose of tort law is to compensate an injured party through the award of damages for the injuries incurred during a tortious act.CategoriesThere are three broad categories of torts:1. Intentional torts:2. negligence3. strict liability1. Intentional torts:Intentional torts are ones where the defendant desires to bring about a particular result.Intentional torts include actions that the layperson often associates with criminal law but are also covered by tort law.The main intentional torts against persons are:a. battery.b. assault.c. false imprisonment.d. intentional infliction of emotional distress.The main intentional torts against property are:a. trespass to land.b. trespass to chattels.c. conversion2. Negligence:The defendant has not intended to bring about a certain result, but has merely behaved carelessly.There are no individually-named torts in this category, merely the general concept of "negligence." (generic tort)3. Strict liability:The defendant is held liable even though he did not intend to bring about the undesirable result, and even though he behaved with utmost carefulness.INTENTIONAL TORTSAssaultBatteryFalse imprisonmentIntentional infliction of emotional distressTrespass to landTrespass to chattels, andConversionAssault and batteryAssault and battery are intentional torts, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plaintiff in fear of an imminent battery, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff.The wrongful touching need not inflict physical injury, and may be indirect. (contact through a thrown stone, spitting)Assault occurs when the defendant's acts intentionally cause the victim's reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact.In other words, the defendant has committed the tort of assault if he has intentionally caused the plaintiff to think that she will be subjected to a harmful or offensive contact.The interest being protected is plaintiff's interest in freedom from apprehension of the contact; thus the tort can exist even if the contact itself never occurs.Apprehension:The victim must perceive that harmful or offensive contact is about to happen to him.Imminent Harmful or Offensive Contact:For assault to be actionable the victim's apprehension must be of imminent harmful or offensive contact."Words alone" rule:Ordinarily, words alone are not sufficient, by themselves, to give rise to an assault.Normally there must be some overt act – a physical act or gesture by defendant – before plaintiff can claim to have been assaulted.Castiglione v. Galpin, 325 So.2d 725 (1976)Plaintiffs, sewerage and water board employees, brought suit for damages resulting from an alleged assault in which defendant allegedly pointed a shotgun at them after being informed that his water would be turned off because of nonpayment of a water bill.The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans rendered judgment in favor of each plaintiff in the sum of $750, and defendant appealed.Holding: The Court of Appeal held that where defendant threatened plaintiffs with bodily harm in the event they turned the water off and where defendant had a shotgun at the time, whether gun remained on defendant's lap or was pointed at plaintiffs, plaintiffs were in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery, and thus defendant was liable for assault; that the award to each plaintiff in the sum of $750 was not excessive.BatteryBattery occurs when the defendant’s acts intentionally cause harmful or offensive contact with the victim’s person.Accidental contact, by contrast, must be analyzed under negligence or strict liability.Harmful or Offensive Contact:Battery encompasses either harmful or offensive contact.Even trivial offensive contact can constitute a battery.An offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury.Mohr v. Williams, 104 N.W. 12 (Minn. 1905). P consults D, an ear doctor, about her right ear. She consents to an operation on that ear, but does nothing about her left ear. During the operation, D discovers that the left ear (but not the right ear) needs surgery, and performs it.Held, the surgery on the left ear was an unauthorized, offensive contact, and constituted battery even though it was not in fact harmful to P's health.Reasonableness standard for "offensive" contact:In determining whether a particular contact is "offensive," the standard is not whether the particularplaintiff was offended, but whether "an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to his dignity" would have been offended.Extends to personal effects:A battery may be committed not only by a contact with the plaintiff's body but also by a contact with her clothing, an object she is holding, or anything else that is so closely identified with her body that contact with it is as offensive as contact with the body would be.Unforeseen consequences:Once it is established that the defendant intended to commit a harmful or offensive touching and such a contact occurs, the defendant is liable for any consequences which ensue, even though he did not intend them, and in fact could not reasonably have foreseen them.Damages:If the plaintiff can establish that the intentional harmful or offensive contact occurred, she may recover nominal damages even if she suffered no physical injury.This might be the case, for instance, where the contact is "offensive" but not "harmful."Mental disturbance:She may also recover compensation for any pain, suffering, embarrassment, or other mental effect, even in the absence of physical harm.Punitive damages:If the defendant's conduct was particularly outrageous, the court may award punitive damages.Cole v. Turner (1704)522 U.S. 1056 118 S. Ct. 711 139 L. Ed. 2d 652 1998 U.S.No facts are given.The lightest angry touch constitutes battery. A gentle touch made in close quarters with no ill intention is not a battery. A forceful or reckless touch, in close quarters is a battery.Any degree of touching coupled with angry mindset qualifies as battery.Talmage v. Smith, 101 Mich. 370, 59 N.W. 656 (Mich. 1894).Facts. Defendant threw a stick toward one member of a group of several boys to get them to leave his property. The stick missed the first boy and struck Plaintiff in the eye. Plaintiff sued and recovered on a jury verdict.The jury was instructed that Defendant could be liable if he threw the stick with the intent to hit the first boy or Plaintiff and did so with force that was unreasonable under the circumstances.Issue. Was the jury properly instructed that Defendant could be liable if he intended to hit either boy and used unreasonable force?Held. Yes. The judgment was affirmed, with costs.When a Defendant intends to inflict harmful or offensive contact upon one party but instead inflicts such contact upon another, he is liable for the resulting injury.Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.Facts: The plaintiff was approached while standing with a plate. One of the defendant’s employees snatched the plate out of his hand and made a racist remark. The plaintiff was not touched and didn’t suffer physical injury, but was hurt emotionally.The jury in the trial found for the plaintiff and awarded damages. The trial court set aside the verdict and found for the defendants. The Court of Civil Appeals upheld the ruling, and the plaintiff appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.Issue: Can a plaintiff have a cause for battery if he or she was neither touched nor in apprehension of physical injury?Rule: The basis of an action for battery is the ―unpermitted and intentional invasion of the plaintiff’s person and not the actual harm done to the plaintiff’s body‖.Analysis: The rule is clear in saying that ―it is not necessary to touch the plaintiff’s body or even his clothing; knocking or snatching anything from the plaintiff’s body or touching anything connected with his perso n, when done in an offensive manner, is sufficient.‖The court says that ―personal indignity‖ is the essence of battery, so it doesn’t matter whether or not there was physical contact or injury.Conclusion: The court held that snatching the plate away from the plaintiff constituted battery and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for mental suffering, ―even in the absence of any physical injury‖.The court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and awarded damages to the plaintiff. He was allowed to recover $400 in compensatory damages for his "humiliation and indignity" even though he suffered no physical injury. He also recovered $500 in punitive damages.False ImprisonmentFalse imprisonment is a restraint of a person in a bounded area without justification or consent.In false imprisonment, the defendant unlawfully acts to intentionally cause confinement or restraint of the victim within a bounded area.Bounded Area:The victim must be confined within an area bounded in all directions.The bounded area can be, however, a large area, even an entire city.The plaintiff must be confined within definite physical boundaries.Blocking of the plaintiff's path is not enough: it is not enough that the path the plaintiff wishes to travel is obstructed by the defendant, or that the plaintiff is prevented from entering a particular place. Awareness of Confinement:False imprisonment requires that the victim be conscious of the confinement at the time of imprisonment.The Restatement §42 modifies this requirement and would find liability for false imprisonment, even when the victim is not aware of the confinement, if the victim is harmed by the confinement.Contrary to the Restatement, some authorities hold that a child can be subject to false imprisonment even if the child was neither aware of the confinement nor harmed.Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman,461 S.W.2d 195 (1970)Facts: Newman was admitted to the defendant’s nursing home. Newman decided he wanted to leave and made several attempts to do so. He was forcibly restrained by the defendants. There was no court order for him to be restrained.Issue:Did the nursing home falsely imprison Newman? If so, is the nursing home liable for punitive damages?Held: Yes. The jury’s verdict was upheld, except the award was found excessive.Rule:False imprisonment occurs when one person directly restrains another person’s physical freedom without legal justification. Punitive damages can be awarded if the defendant intentionally violates the rights of the plaintiff.Discussion. This is a rather straightforward false imprisonment case. Plaintiff was even able to identify a contractual provision specifically demonstrating the Defendant’s knowledge that it acted in disregard of his rights. The relative simplicity of the case allows the Court to set forth the precise elements of the tort of false imprisonment.Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing Co, 203 Mont. 263, 661 P.2d 35, 1983 Mont.Facts. An employee of Defendant informed Defendant that Plaintiff, a recently hired temporary employee at Defendant’s jewelry department, had stolen a watch. The store manager invited Plaintiff into his office, claiming she was being given a tour as a new employee.The manager closed the door behind him, and Plaintiff was ultimately questioned in the room for 20 to 45 minutes by the manager, at least one uniformed police officer, and others, during which time Plaintiff did not ask or attempt to leave and was not told she could not leave. The manager was eventually satisfied that Plaintiff had not committed the theft.Issue. Was the jury wrong to find that Plaintiff had not been restrained against her will?Held. No. The jury’s verdict was upheld. The Court found that Plaintiff was not unlawfully restrained against her will because she would have entered the office voluntarily, never asked or attempted to leave, and was never told she could not leave.Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressIntentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) exists when the defendant, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly causes the victim severe emotional or mental distress, even in the absence of physical harm .Elements:Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly;Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous;Defendant’s act is the cause of the distress; andPlaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant’s conduct.Intent:There are three possible types of culpability by Defendant:(1) Defendant desires to cause Plaintiff emotional distress;(2) Defendant knows with substantial certainty that P will suffer emotional distress; and(3) Defendant recklessly disregards the high probability that emotional distress will occur."Transferred intent":The doctrine of "transferred intent" is not generally applicable in cases of intentional infliction of mental distress.That is, if the defendant attempts to cause emotional distress to X, or to commit some other tort upon him, and plaintiff suffers emotional distress (e.g., because he witnesses the defendant's attempt and becomes frightened), P will not usually be able to recover.Immediate family present:The main exception is that the transferred intent doctrine is applied if:(1) Defendant directs his condu ct to a member of Plaintiff’s immediate family;(2) Plaintiff is present; and(3) Plaintiff’s presence is known to Defendant."Extreme and outrageous":Plaintiff must show that Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, i.e., Defendant’s conduct has to be "beyond all possible bounds of decency."Actual severe distress:Plaintiff must suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff must show at least that her distress was severe enough that she sought medical aid. Most cases do not require Plaintiff to show that the distress resulted in bodily harm.Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, 100 So.2d 396 (1958)Facts: Plaintiff, a customer in Defendant’s store, inquired as to the price of a certain item. The employee responded that ―if you want to know the price, you’ll have to find out the best way you can…‖ because ―you stink to me‖. Plaintiff brought suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and claimed the insulting characterization of her bodily scent led to a heart attack and other injuries. The trial court dismissed the case for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff appealed.Issue.Was the trial court correct to find that the Plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to state an independent cause of action?Held. Yes. The judgment was affirmed.Rule: An action for intentional infliction of mental distress may lie if the distress is severe, or if an insult is suffered by a patron/customer of a common carrier such as an employee of a hotel, theater, or telegraph office.Analysis: The court asserts that a line should be drawn between emotional distress that is severe and distress that is not severe.The line that the court chooses is that ―there is liability only for conduct exceeding all bounds which could be tolerate d by society‖.The court further determines that mere vulgar insults do not exceed such bounds.Conclusion: The motion to dismiss is affirmed.Taylor v. Vallelunga, 171 Cal.App.2d 107, 339 P.2d 910 (1959) (bystander claim)Facts. Plaintiff Taylor witnessed Defendants intentionally attacking and beating her father, Plaintiff Gerlach. While Gerlach sued for his physical damages, Taylor sued to recover for the emotional distress she experienced as a result of witnessing the event.Taylor failed to allege that the Defendants knew she was present for the event or that they intended the beating to cause her to suffer distress. The trial court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Taylor’s claim and Taylor appealed.Issue. Did the trial court err in dism issing Taylor’s complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress?Held. No. The dismissal was affirmed. When a Plaintiff seeks to recover for emotional distress but does not allege any physical damage, she is required to prove that the emotional distress was intentionally inflicted upon her by the Defendant.When a Defendant is not even aware of the Plaintiff’s presence or does not commit the acts causing the distress with the intention of causing Plaintiff such distress, the Defendant has not intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff.TrespassTrespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into 3 groups:trespass to the person,trespass to chattels, andtrespass to land.Trespass to the personMost jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person:assault;battery; andfalse imprisonment.。