TortLaw美国侵权法

1、Tort Lawv Tort law is a body of law that deals with civil wrongs, except those that arise from contract problems. v The purpose of tort law is to compensate an injured party through the award of damages for the injuries incurred during a tortious act. v Categories v There are three broad categories

2、of torts:v 1. Intentional torts:v 2. negligencev 3. strict liabilityv 1. Intentional torts: v Intentional torts are ones where the defendant desires to bring about a particular result. v Intentional torts include actions that the layperson often associates with criminal law but are also covered by t

3、ort law. v The main intentional torts against persons are: v a. battery.v b. assault.v c. false imprisonment.v d. intentional infliction of emotional distress.v The main intentional torts against property are:v a. trespass to land.v b. trespass to chattels.v c. conversionv 2. Negligence: v The defen

4、dant has not intended to bring about a certain result, but has merely behaved carelessly. v There are no individually-named torts in this category, merely the general concept of negligence. (generic tort)v 3. Strict liability: v The defendant is held liable even though he did not intend to bring abo

5、ut the undesirable result, and even though he behaved with utmost carefulness. INTENTIONAL TORTSv Assaultv Batteryv False imprisonmentv Intentional infliction of emotional distressv Trespass to landv Trespass to chattels, and v ConversionAssault and batteryv Assault and battery are intentional torts

6、, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plaintiff in fear of an imminent battery, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff. v The wrongful touching need not inflict physical injury, and may be indirect. (contact through a thrown stone, spitting)v Assault v Assault occurs when th

7、e defendants acts intentionally cause the victims reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. v 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. v

8、 The interest being protected is plaintiffs interest in freedom from apprehension of the contact; thus the tort can exist even if the contact itself never occurs. v Apprehension: v The victim must perceive that harmful or offensive contact is about to happen to him.v Imminent Harmful or Offensive Co

9、ntact: v For assault to be actionable the victims apprehension must be of imminent harmful or offensive contact. v Words alone rule: v Ordinarily, words alone are not sufficient, by themselves, to give rise to an assault. v Normally there must be some overt act a physical act or gesture by defendant

10、 before plaintiff can claim to have been assaulted.v Castiglione v. Galpin, 325 So.2d 725 (1976)v 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 woul

11、d be turned off because of nonpayment of a water bill. v The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans rendered judgment in favor of each plaintiff in the sum of $750, and defendant appealed. v Holding: The Court of Appeal held that where defendant threatened plaintiffs with bodily harm in the

12、event they turned the water off and where defendant had a shotgun at the time, whether gun remained on defendants 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 su

13、m of $750 was not excessive.v Battery v Battery occurs when the defendants acts intentionally cause harmful or offensive contact with the victims person. v Accidental contact, by contrast, must be analyzed under negligence or strict liability. v Harmful or Offensive Contact: v Battery encompasses ei

14、ther harmful or offensive contact. v Even trivial offensive contact can constitute a battery. v An offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. v Mohr v. Williams, 104 N.W. 12 (Minn. 1905). P consults D, an ear do

15、ctor, 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.v Held, the surgery on the left ear was an unauthorized, offensive contact, and constit

16、uted battery even though it was not in fact harmful to Ps health. v Reasonableness standard for offensive contact: v In determining whether a particular contact is offensive, the standard is not whether the particular plaintiff was offended, but whether an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to

17、his dignity would have been offended. v Extends to personal effects: v A battery may be committed not only by a contact with the plaintiffs 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

18、offensive as contact with the body would be.v Unforeseen consequences: v 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 c

19、ould not reasonably have foreseen them. v Damages: v 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. v This might be the case, for instance, where the contact is offensive but not harm

20、ful. v Mental disturbance: v She may also recover compensation for any pain, suffering, embarrassment, or other mental effect, even in the absence of physical harm. v Punitive damages: v If the defendants conduct was particularly outrageous, the court may award punitive damages. v Cole v. Turner (17

21、04)v 522 U.S. 1056 118 S. Ct. 711 139 L. Ed. 2d 652 1998 U.S.v No facts are given.v 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.v Any degree of touching couple

22、d with angry mindset qualifies as battery.v Talmage v. Smith, 101 Mich. 370, 59 N.W. 656 (Mich. 1894).v 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 re

23、covered on a jury verdict. v 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.v Issue. Was the jury properly instructed that Defendant could be liable if

24、he intended to hit either boy and used unreasonable force?v Held. Yes. The judgment was affirmed, with costs.v 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.v Fisher v. Carrousel M

25、otor Hotel, Inc.v Facts: The plaintiff was approached while standing with a plate. One of the defendants employees snatched the plate out of his hand and made a racist remark. The plaintiff was not touched and didnt suffer physical injury, but was hurt emotionally.v The jury in the trial found for t

26、he 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.v Issue: Can a plaintiff have a cause for battery if he or she was neither touched nor in apprehen

27、sion of physical injury?v Rule: The basis of an action for battery is the “unpermitted and intentional invasion of the plaintiffs person and not the actual harm done to the plaintiffs body”.v Analysis: The rule is clear in saying that “it is not necessary to touch the plaintiffs body or even his clo

28、thing; knocking or snatching anything from the plaintiffs body or touching anything connected with his person, when done in an offensive manner, is sufficient.”v The court says that “personal indignity” is the essence of battery, so it doesnt matter whether or not there was physical contact or injur

29、y. v 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”. v The court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and awarded damages to the pl

30、aintiff. 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 Imprisonment v False imprisonment is a restraint of a person in a bounded area without justification or conse

31、nt. v In false imprisonment, the defendant unlawfully acts to intentionally cause confinement or restraint of the victim within a bounded area. v Bounded Area: v The victim must be confined within an area bounded in all directions. v The bounded area can be, however, a large area, even an entire cit

32、y.v The plaintiff must be confined within definite physical boundaries. v Blocking of the plaintiffs 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. v Awareness of C

33、onfinement: v False imprisonment requires that the victim be conscious of the confinement at the time of imprisonment. v 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

34、confinement. v 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. v Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman, 461 S.W.2d 195 (1970)v Facts: Newman was admitted to the defendants nursing

35、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.v Issue: Did the nursing home falsely imprison Newman? If so, is the nursing home liable for punitive damages?v Held: Yes. The j

36、urys verdict was upheld, except the award was found excessive. v Rule: False imprisonment occurs when one person directly restrains another persons physical freedom without legal justification. Punitive damages can be awarded if the defendant intentionally violates the rights of the plaintiff.v Disc

37、ussion. This is a rather straightforward false imprisonment case. Plaintiff was even able to identify a contractual provision specifically demonstrating the Defendants knowledge that it acted in disregard of his rights. The relative simplicity of the case allows the Court to set forth the precise el

38、ements of the tort of false imprisonment.v Hardy v. LaBelles Distributing Co, 203 Mont. 263, 661 P.2d 35, 1983 Mont. v Facts. An employee of Defendant informed Defendant that Plaintiff, a recently hired temporary employee at Defendants jewelry department, had stolen a watch. The store manager invite

39、d Plaintiff into his office, claiming she was being given a tour as a new employee. v 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 no

40、t 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. v Issue. Was the jury wrong to find that Plaintiff had not been restrained against her will?v Held. No. The jurys verdict was upheld. The Court found that

41、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. v Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress v Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) exists when

42、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 . v Elements: v Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; v Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous; v Defendants act is

43、the cause of the distress; and v Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendants conduct.v Intent: v There are three possible types of culpability by Defendant: v (1) Defendant desires to cause Plaintiff emotional distress;v (2) Defendant knows with substantial certainty that P

44、 will suffer emotional distress; and v (3) Defendant recklessly disregards the high probability that emotional distress will occur.v Transferred intent: v The doctrine of transferred intent is not generally applicable in cases of intentional infliction of mental distress. v That is, if the defendant

45、 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 defendants attempt and becomes frightened), P will not usually be able to recover. v Immediate family present: v The main exception is that the

46、transferred intent doctrine is applied if: v (1) Defendant directs his conduct to a member of Plaintiffs immediate family; v (2) Plaintiff is present; and v (3) Plaintiffs presence is known to Defendant. Extreme and outrageous: Plaintiff must show that Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous,

47、i.e., Defendants conduct has to be beyond all possible bounds of decency. v Actual severe distress: v 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 di

48、stress resulted in bodily harm. v Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, 100 So.2d 396 (1958)v Facts: Plaintiff, a customer in Defendants store, inquired as to the price of a certain item. The employee responded that “if you want to know the price, youll have to find out the best way you can” becaus

49、e “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.v I

50、ssue. Was the trial court correct to find that the Plaintiffs allegations were insufficient to state an independent cause of action? v Held. Yes. The judgment was affirmed. v Rule: An action for intentional infliction of mental distress may lie if the distress is severe, or if an insult is suffered

51、by a patron/customer of a common carrier such as an employee of a hotel, theater, or telegraph office.v Analysis: The court asserts that a line should be drawn between emotional distress that is severe and distress that is not severe.v The line that the court chooses is that “there is liability only

52、 for conduct exceeding all bounds which could be tolerated by society”. v The court further determines that mere vulgar insults do not exceed such bounds.v Conclusion: The motion to dismiss is affirmed.v Taylor v. Vallelunga, 171 Cal.App.2d 107, 339 P.2d 910 (1959) (bystander claim) v Facts. Plainti

53、ff 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. v Taylor failed to allege that the Defendants knew she

54、 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 Taylors claim and Taylor appealed. v Issue. Did the trial court err in dismissing Taylors complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

55、v 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.v When a Defendant is not even aware of the Plaintiffs

56、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. Trespass v Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into 3 groups: v trespass to the person, v

57、trespass to chattels, and v trespass to land. v Trespass to the personv Most jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person: v assault; v battery; and v false imprisonment.v Trespass to chattelsv trespass to chattel is the intentional interference with a chattel in someone elses

58、possession. A person in constructive or actual possession of the chattel can assert this action. v One may commit trespass to chattel by either:v 1. Damaging anothers chattel, orv 2. Dispossessing another of a chattel.v Any intentional interference with a persons use or possession of the chattel is a trespass to chattel. v Thus if the defendant takes the chat