英美侵权法 笔记及案例分析.docx

一、 Introduction1. Comparison of conceptsa) Torts v. Contract lawi. legal basis:torts: legislationcontract law: agreement\consent ii. purpose (remedy):torts: restoration to original position and requirements of punitive damages in some cases.contract law: Protecting 3kinds of interests: restitution, 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.(defamation) :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: 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).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)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 person’s mind(wrongful act)intent: general intent (substantial certainty 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 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 skull 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 amount 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, 14-years old) on the leg during school intending no harm. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant's 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 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 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 impose 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 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 plaintiff's person or effects(rule: plaintiff's 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 touch)Causation:between the act and harmful or offensive touchingPs:defendant's like or dislike towards the plaintiff is explainable but not necessary to establish the prima facie case.b)Assaulti. Definition:an act creatin。