美国侵权法相关演示

2.1. 4 Causation
This element refers to actual cause and proximate cause. It will be treated in its own section.
3 Negligence
Amongst unintentional torts one finds negligence as being the most common source of common law. Most Americans are under the impression that most people can sue for any type of negligence, but it is untrue in most US jurisdictions (partly because negligence is one of the few torts for which ordinary people can and do obtain liability insurance.)
例如：某被告驾车高速行驶撞伤了街角的路人甲，站 在两个街区以外的一栋高楼上的路人乙看到了撞伤人 的这一场景，受到严重的惊吓，从楼上掉下摔成重伤。 毫无疑问，被告对甲某负有谨慎驾驶的义务，应对甲 某承担责任。但是，要求被告对两个街区以外的高楼 上的乙某也负有谨慎驾驶的义务，对其所受的伤害承 担责任是不合理的，因为一个正常人，无论是如何小 心，处在被告的位置，也绝不可能预见到自己的行为 会对乙某造成伤害。
It is a form of extra contractual liability that is based upon a failure to comply with the duty of care of a reasonable person, which failure is the actual cause and proximate cause of damages. That is, but for the tortfeasor’s act or omission, the damages to the plaintiff would not have been incurred, and the damages were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tortious conduct.
美国侵权相关内容演示
1 帕斯格拉芙诉长岛火车站案 帕斯格拉芙诉长岛火车站一案，是 在美国侵权法历史上最重要的、最 具有传奇色彩的经典案例之一。美 国的本杰明卡多佐法官为此案所写 的判决书确立了美国侵权法的一项 重要的原则，奠定了该案在美国侵 权法史上里程碑式的地位。
1924年8月的一个星期天，帕斯格拉芙太太和她的 女儿正在纽约长岛火车站的站台上等待一辆从纽 约去洛克威海滩的火车。当火车站的两个工作人 员帮助一位旅客登上一辆已开动的火车时，不小 心碰掉了这位旅客携带的一个包裹。令人意想不 到的是这位旅客的包裹内竟然装的是烟花爆竹， 包裹掉到铁轨上发生爆炸。爆炸的冲击力将许多 英尺外的一杆秤击倒，砸在帕斯格拉芙太太的头 上。受到伤害和惊吓之后，帕斯格拉芙得了严重 的口吃症，虽然经过多次治疗，仍然未得到完全 恢复。而那位携带烟花爆竹的旅客登上火车后去 向不明。
帕斯格拉芙诉长岛火车站一案为美国法院分析 疏忽大意的过失侵权行为确立了一个新的标准， 即被告只对可预见的原告承担责任。所以，一 个人不可能对其引起的所有伤害都承担法律责 任。不是所有的伤害都能获得法律救济，一个 人也不可能对其所引起的 torts
2.1.3 Result
This element typically refers to damage, although damage is not required to prevail on certain intentional torts, such as trespass to land.
Intentional torts involve situations in which the defendant desires or knows to a substantial certainty that his act will cause the plaintiff damage. They include battery, assault， false imprisonment,intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"), trespass to land, trespass to chattels, conversion, invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution,abuse of process, fraud, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with business relations, and defamation of character.
卡多佐法官并不这样认为。卡多佐在此案的判决意 见中写道：一个正常的小心谨慎的人所感知的危险 的范围决定应承担责任的范围。假如一个人在拥挤 的人群中不小心碰了他旁边的人，使得该人携带的 炸弹落地爆炸，炸伤了周围的人，承担责任的应该 是携带炸弹的人而不是碰掉炸弹的人，因为后者在 做这样一个不经意的举动时根本就无法预料到有如 此巨大的危险存在。在此案中，以当时的情形，谁 也不会预料到一个包裹的掉落会对远在站台另一端 的原告造成伤害的危险。如果被告的工作人员存在 过失的话，该过失应当是对那位携带包裹的旅客的 过失，而不是对原告的过失。合理感知的危险决定 应遵守的义务。
帕斯格拉芙诉长岛火车站要求赔偿。下级法院 做出的有利于帕斯格拉芙的判决。然而纽约州 最高法院推翻了下级法院的判决，认为帕斯格 拉芙无权从铁路公司获得赔偿，而且她还应当 承担铁路公司的诉讼费用。
帕斯格拉芙无辜地被伤害，却没有得到任何赔偿， 这真是一个令人不可思议的案子。该案的核心问题 在于火车站两位工作人员的行为是否构成对帕斯格 拉芙的过失侵权。在对帕斯格拉芙案做出裁决之前， 法院分析此类案件的标准是：首先考虑被告是否存 在疏忽大意的过失；其次判断被告的疏忽大意的过 失是否是造成原告伤害的最直接原因。显然，由于 被告的两位工作人员在帮助那位携带包裹的旅客上 车时的疏忽，碰掉包裹，引起爆炸，导致帕斯格拉 芙受伤。因此被告存在疏忽大意的过失，而且被告 疏忽大意的过失是造成原告伤害的最直接原因。被 告似乎应当为帕斯格拉芙所受的伤害承担责任。
2.1 Elements
The elements of most intentional torts follow the same pattern: intent, act, result, and causation.
2.1.1Intent
This element typically requires the defendant to desire or know to a substantial certainty that something will occur as a result of his act. Therefore, the term intent, for purposes of this section, always includes either desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty.
2.1.2 Act
The element of an act varies by whatever tort is in question but always requires voluntariness. For example, if Dave has a muscle spasm that makes his arm fling out to his side and hit Paula, who is standing next to him, any case that Paula attempts to bring against Dave for battery will fail for lack of the requisite act (which will be discussed in the section on battery, below). The act was not voluntary.
This situation might occur if, as opposed to the examples above, Dave shoots a gun in a remote part of the desert without looking just for fun, not wanting to hit anyone, but the bullet does hit someone. Dave did not have a desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty that someone would get hit in this situation. He may, however, be liable for some other tort, namely negligence.
This element would still be satisfied, as David had knowledge to a substantial certainty that harm would result. In contrast, if all that can be said about the defendant's state of mind is that he should have known better, he will not be liable for an intentional tort.
For an example in battery, Dave shoots a gun into a crowd of people because he is specifically trying to hit someone with a bullet. This element would be satisfied, as David had an actual desire to procure the harm required for this tort. Alternatively, Dave shoots a gun into a crowd of people for some reason and genuinely hopes no one gets hit but knows that it is virtually inevitable that someone will actually get hit.
2.1.1.1 Transferred intent
Transferred intent is the legal principle that intent can be transferred from one victim or tort to another. In tort law, there are generally five areas in which transferred intent is applicable: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. Generally, any intent to cause any one of these five torts which results in the completion of any of the five tortious acts will be considered an intentional act, even if the actual target of the tort is one other than the intended target of the original tort.