美国侵权法讲义

1TortLawOutlinePrimaryconcernw/torts–whetheronewhoseactionsharmanothershouldberequiredtopaycompensationfortheharmdoneGoalsofTortSystem-promoteefficient/safebehaviorthroughincentives/disincentives-makepeoplewhole;puttheminplaceasifaccidentwouldn’thaveoccurredThetortsystemhelpscompensatepeopleinareaswhereinsuranceandthegovernmentdoesnot.WhatisaTort?-personv.person,insteadofpersonv.state(civil,notcriminal)-compensationbeingsought-injuredpersonmustbringsuit,statewon’t-determiningliability,notillegality-createsincentivesforgoodbehavior-canprovidepunitivedamages-mostlyinstatecourtsNegligenceNegligence–failureofaDtotakereasonablecaretoprotectareasonableP.Elements:1.Dhadaduty2.Dbreachedthatduty/stdofcare3.Dcausedtheinjury(actualandproximate)4.Pwasinjured,therearelegallycompensabledamagesNegligence–conductwhichfallsbelowthestandardestablishedbylawfortheprotectionofothersagainstunreasonableriskofharmFormostnegligentactions,anactisnegligentonlyoftheactorfailstousereasonablecare.Anactorisreq’dtousereasonablecarethatareasonable,prudentpersoninhisposition,withhisinfoandcompetence,wouldrecognizenecessarytopreventanunreasonableriskofharmtoanother.-Note:reasonablecareistheordinarystandardofcarerequirement,thisstandardcanbealsobe“noduty”oraheightenedduty(discussedfurtherinstandardofcaresection).-Variouswaysfordeterminingreasonableactivityarealsodiscussedindetailinthe“standardsofcare”section(pg6)Tortsbecameandimportantandlargepartofthelawinthelate19thcenturyb/cthemachinescreatedbytheindustrialrevolutionledtoseveralunintentionalinjuries.-Priortotheindustrialrevolution,therewerenoexactrulesforstrictliabilityornegligence.Hammontreev.Jenner(pg3)CourtofAppealofCalifornia,1971Facts:-Jenner(D)runshiscarintoHammontree’s(P)shopwhenhehasaseizure-Psufferedpersonalinjuriesanddamagestohershop-DwastakingmedicineprescribedbydoctortopreventseizuresanddoctorsaidthatDwassafetodriveacar.2P’sArgument-PwantedtouseproductliabilityprecedenttoimposestrictliabilityonDCourt’sRuling-Courttreatsseizureasanunforeseeableactb/cDtookreasonablecaretopreventhimselffromhavingaseizures.-Courtdeclinestosuperimposethestrictliabilityofproductliabilitycasesupondriversunderthecircumstanceshere.-InnocentvictimwasnotcompensatedNotableExtras-TheDMVwasnotadefendanteventhoughitdidgivethedriverpermissiontodrive.Thisisb/cgovt.agencieshavebeentraditionallyimmunefromtorts.-TheMDthatapprovedDtodrivewasnotsuedb/citwasseenthattheforeseeableriskwasverybroadinthattherewasnocertainpersonthatwouldbeharmed.LitigationProcessTwobasesforthrowingoutcases1.lineoflegalreasoning2.insufficientfactsBurdenofProduction–includeallelementsandsupportedbyfacts(primafaciecase)BurdenofPersuasion–evidencestrongenoughtowincase-Note:Ifthereisnotdisputeoverfacts,thecasenevergoestoajuryb/cjuryisonlytrieroffact.VicariousLiabilityVicariousLiability–Liabilitythatasupervisorypartybearsfortheactionableconductofasubordinateorassociate.Onlyapplieswhentheemployeewasactingwithinthescopeofhisemploymentwhenthetortoccurred.-aka:respondentsuperiorPolicygoalsoftherespondentsuperiordoctrine-preventingfutureinjuries(makingcompaniesliableshouldforcethemtobemoresafeinthefuture)-assuringcompensationtovictims(companiesaremoreoftensolventthanindividuals)-spreadinglossescausedbyanenterpriseequitably(doesn’thurtthecompanyasbadasitwouldanindividual)Twotypesofrelationship1.Employer–EmployeeBirknerTest–criteriahelpfulfordeterminingifwhenanemployeeisacting“inthescopeofhisemployment”1.Employeemustbeabouttheemployer’sbusinessanddutiesassignedbyemployer2.Employee’sconductmustoccursubstantiallywithinthehoursandordinaryspatialboundariesofemployment3.employee’sconductmustbemotivated,atleastinpart,bythepurposeofservingtheemployer’sinterestAsk4questionstodeterminetheBirknertest1.Whatwasshedoing?2.Whywasshedoingit?3.Whenwasit?4.Wherewasit?32.Employer–IndependentContractorrelationshipnormallyNOTvicariouslyliable,except:1.employingcontractorfor“abnormallyorinherentlydangerousactivity”2.employingcontractorforsomethingthatisconsidereda“nuisance”3.non-delegableduty(ex.fixingyourbrakesoracitykeepingthestreetsingoodrepair)4.ifthecontractorwasactingwithit’sapparentauthority:(all3mustbepresent)1.arepresentationbythepurportedprincipal(employer)2.arelianceonthatrepresentationbyathirdparty3.achangeinpositionbythe3rdpartyinrelianceontherepresentationPolicy–principal(employer)shouldbeestoppedtodenyauthorityofanagentwhentheprincipalpermittedanappearanceofauthorityintheagentand,indoingso,justifieda3rdparty’srelianceuponthatappearanceofauthorityBorrowedServantDoctrine–ifanemployeewasperformingactforsomeoneelse,evenifwithinthenormaltimeandareaofregularemployment,theemployeeisdeemedtobeaborrowedservantofthepartyhewasactingforandthustheregularemployerisNOTliableforthosespecificactions.Christensenv.Swensen(pg18)SupremeCourtofUtah,1994Facts-Swensen(D),asecurityguardemployedbyBurns(alsoD)SecurityworkingataGenevaplant,tookanallowed15minutebreaktogotothecaféacrossthestreet.-Whileshewasdrivingback,shehitChristensent’s(P)motorcycle.Issue-WasDoperatingwithinscopeof