法律英語TORT

1、Tort Law 侵權(quán)法侵權(quán)法概 念concept 英文中的“侵權(quán)法”(Tort Law)一詞有可譯為“民事?lián)p害賠償法”。它主要涉及侵犯他人的人身、財產(chǎn)、名譽、商業(yè)等方面權(quán)益的民事過錯行為。雖然這種過錯行為可能具有犯罪行為的性質(zhì)，但是侵權(quán)訴訟與刑事訴訟的目的截然不同。前者的主要目的是賠償受害人的損失，后者的主要目的是懲罰罪犯。The term tort law can be interpreted as a law for civil case infringement compensation.It is the breach of a duty that results in an inj

2、ury for which there is a remedy at law.A tort is an omission (failure to act) or a wrongful act (other than a breach of contract) against a person or his property. Here, the word “wrongful” implies a violation of one persons legal duty to another.Tort law is a form of civil law where private parties

3、 use the legal system to resolve disputes among themselves.Tort sometime can be comfused with crime. However,it remains big diferences between tort and crime.We use tort to describe a wrong aganist an individual.The purpose of torts is to compensate an injured party.While a crime is wrong aganist so

4、ciety as a whole,then you need criminal procedure to punish the criminal offender.概 念conceptIn a long time,Tort law is regarded as the essence of the common law .However,there is no strict and unified definition of Tort law.Considering pragmatic spirit in American law universe,we can see it is no ne

5、ed to give a precise definition to Tort law which has a long history and has been widely applied.侵權(quán)法一直以來被認為是普通法系中的脊髓所在，然而學界并沒有給侵權(quán)法一個嚴格、統(tǒng)一的定義，事實上，實用主義至上的美國法律界也不需要給歷史悠久且廣泛應(yīng)用的侵權(quán)法下定義。美國法學會會長美國法學會會長Willian L.Prosser的意見可供參考和理的意見可供參考和理解：解：“侵權(quán)法是一種對由于一個人因違反法律規(guī)定的責任而對侵權(quán)法是一種對由于一個人因違反法律規(guī)定的責任而對他人的人身或財產(chǎn)權(quán)益造成的損害提供救濟

6、的法律機制，他人的人身或財產(chǎn)權(quán)益造成的損害提供救濟的法律機制，其實質(zhì)是針對民事過錯行為的補償。其實質(zhì)是針對民事過錯行為的補償?！盬illian L.Prosser,the president of American Law Institute ,said,Tort law is a kind of legal mechanism,which provides remedies for damages about peoples body and their property because of the violation of legal inability.It is in nature

7、a compesation towards civil wrongs. 法律淵源 source of law判例為主，各州侵權(quán)法之間略有差異，判例的匯編、解釋可參考侵權(quán)法重述（Restatement of the Law of Torts）各州和聯(lián)邦也有為解決特別侵權(quán)問題而制定的成文法，比如1946年的聯(lián)邦侵權(quán)索賠法（Federal Tort Claims Act）A statute which removed the power of the federal government to claim immunity from a lawsuit for damages due to negl

8、igent or intentional injury by a federal employee in the scope of his/her work for the government. The FTCA permits recovery of money damages because of a negligent or wrongful act or omission by the Federal Government or an employee of the Federal Government while the employee was acting within his

9、/her scope of employment or office.Federal Tort claims Act（ FTCA ）聯(lián)邦侵權(quán)索賠法聯(lián)邦侵權(quán)索賠法基礎(chǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)base structure 美美國國侵侵權(quán)權(quán)法法故意侵權(quán) （Intentional Torts）過失侵權(quán) (Negligence)嚴格責任 (Strict Liability)抗辯理由(Defenses)故意侵權(quán)故意侵權(quán)（Intentional Torts） 美國侵權(quán)法中七大類故意侵權(quán)行為：毆打（毆打（Battery）威嚇（威嚇（assault）非法監(jiān)禁（False Imprisonment）精神傷害 （Intentional

10、 Infliction of Mental Distress）侵犯土地 （Trespass to Land）侵犯動產(chǎn)侵犯動產(chǎn) （Trespass to Chattels）侵占動產(chǎn)侵占動產(chǎn) （Conversion）毆打（毆打（Battery）威嚇（威嚇（assault）毆打（毆打（Battery）非法監(jiān)禁（False Imprisonment）威嚇（威嚇（assault）毆打（毆打（Battery）精神傷害 （Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress）非法監(jiān)禁（False Imprisonment）威嚇（威嚇（assault）毆打（毆打（Battery）

11、侵犯土地 （Trespass to Land）精神傷害 （Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress）非法監(jiān)禁（False Imprisonment）威嚇（威嚇（assault）毆打（毆打（Battery）侵犯動產(chǎn)侵犯動產(chǎn) （Trespass to Chattels）侵犯土地 （Trespass to Land）精神傷害 （Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress）非法監(jiān)禁（False Imprisonment）威嚇（威嚇（assault）毆打（毆打（Battery）侵占動產(chǎn)侵占動產(chǎn) （Conversion）侵犯

12、動產(chǎn)侵犯動產(chǎn) （Trespass to Chattels）侵犯土地 （Trespass to Land）精神傷害 （Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress）非法監(jiān)禁（False Imprisonment）威嚇（威嚇（assault）毆打（毆打（Battery）10毆打與威嚇Battery&AssaultBattery&AssaultBattery:日常英語中為“電池”之意，但在法律英語中意為“毆打”。事實上這個翻譯并不準確，因為“Battery”的外延比中文“毆打”更大，包括任何故意對他人人身進行傷害性（harmful）和冒犯性（offensive）

13、接觸的行為。Battery involves an unexcused harmful or offensive physical contact with another person. People may be held liable for battery if they intend to bring about such a contact, or if such a contact directly or indirectly results from their actions. If there is an attempted battery, but no actual c

14、ontact, that may constitute a tort of assault. Elements of Battery (3)構(gòu)成要件構(gòu)成要件A、Intent (identical to assault)Intent does not mean intent to harm, just means intent to touch in a way that could be construed as offensive or to create apprehension While contact is reqd for battery, intent does not have

15、 to be intent to touch it can be intent to put into apprehensionIntent is transferableB、Harmful or offensive touchingtouching can be:1. direct touching of victims body2. touching something connected to victim (victims hat)3. touching of object that sets in motion chain of events that eventually touc

16、hes victim (poisoning food, pulling chair out from under)4. indirect touching (ordering someone else to hit someone; Nancy Karrigan)unlike assault, an unconscious victim can be battered (apprehension of victim not reqd)C、No consent consent is not a defense, it is an element and therefore P has the b

17、urden to show he did not expressly or impliedly consentfor implied consent a reasonable person std is used (would a reasonable person have interpreted Ps actions to mean the contact was consented)consent can be inferred from social custom (playing tag)Attention：1.后果不是構(gòu)成要件，例如強吻原告也可以構(gòu)成“毆打”。2.一并保護人格權(quán)與人

18、身權(quán)，因此原告身體的范圍泛化到與原告人身相聯(lián)系的任何物品，例如強奪他人戴頭上之帽亦構(gòu)成“毆打”。3.冒犯性不是當事人的心理狀態(tài)，而是由陪審團通過被告的行為對其所表現(xiàn)出的意圖進行客觀的認定。13毆打與威嚇Battery&AssaultBattery&AssaultAssault：日常中作“襲擊”，軍事領(lǐng)域特指“突擊”，在法律英語中譯為“威嚇”，即“故意引發(fā)他人因合理的警覺到即將發(fā)生的Battery行為而產(chǎn)生的恐懼”。威嚇是毆打的前兆，是原告基于合理判斷，對即將到來的“毆打”行為的恐懼和警覺（apprehension）。Assault is the tort of acting intention

19、ally and voluntarily causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. There must be some act short of actually striking the other person. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary: an assault can take place with a toy gun, for example.Eleme

20、nts of Assault 構(gòu)成要素構(gòu)成要素1、D intends to cause harmful or offensive contact or to create apprehension (scare/intimidate)even if you point a gun at someone and dont really intend to fire it, that is apprehension and intent is still satisfied2、P is actually put into apprehension (P believes harmful conta

21、ct will occur), believing such action will occur imminently Ps apprehension is a subjective standard (not a reasonable person std; if P is easily scared, that doesnt matter, all that matters is that P was put into apprehension)The apprehension P suffers must be for himself and not a 3rd party (telli

22、ng someone you are going to kill their mother is not assault) Attention：1.被告對原告的威脅時即時的（imminent）,且可相信實現(xiàn)威脅也是即時的。2.威脅應(yīng)該是用過一定的動作表達出來，而非僅僅口頭恫嚇。3.原告的警覺必須建立在自身意識之上，即原告主動感覺到“毆打”的危險。侵犯動產(chǎn)與侵占動產(chǎn)Trespass to Chattels & Conversion侵犯動產(chǎn)：對他人所占有動產(chǎn)的干擾，被告通過某種故意行為造成原告所占有動產(chǎn)的滅失、毀壞、變形、移動或脫離控制等情況。侵占動產(chǎn)：被告長期將原告的動產(chǎn)完全置于自己的控制之下，

23、并且希望造成原告永久地失去失去對動產(chǎn)侵占的后果。Trespass was the most common tort used to define actions that infringe upon both real and personal property interests. To commit a trespass, one need not have the intent of conscious wrongdoing. Actual harm is not an essential element of this tort.Conversion occurs when a per

24、son intentionally exercises exclusive control over the personal property of another without permission. Conversion may be committed in a number of ways. Acquisition of property without justification is one way. This may be the result of theft or fraud, or even mistake if the continued possession is

25、serious.故意侵權(quán)的抗辯理由Defenses of the Intentional Torts美國侵權(quán)法中規(guī)定了九種故意侵權(quán)的抗辯理由（Defenses），也稱免責特權(quán)（Privileges）1.同意(Consent)2.告知后的同意(Informed Consent)3.正當防衛(wèi)、保護他人(Self-Defense/Defense of Others)4.保護財產(chǎn)(Defense of Property)5.奪回財產(chǎn)(Recovery of Property)6.緊急避險(Necessity)7.法律授權(quán)、管教、正當理由(Authority of law/Discipline/Just

26、ification)同意與告知后的同意Consent & Informed Consent同意是對他人行為的某種認可、允許、接受、肯定或是容任，只要不反對即可。形式不拘一格，默示亦可，意思不一致時法官依靠客觀的理性人標準（Reasonable Prudent Person）來判斷。告知后的同意是特別用于醫(yī)療領(lǐng)域的免責事由，美國法律要求醫(yī)生在實施診療前必須把具體的診療方案和所有可能由此引發(fā)的后果向病人作出充分且坦率的披露，只有病人在獲取了全完信息后表示出的同意，才能被稱為告知后的同意。如果醫(yī)生沒有告知病人或告知不完全，自行診療行為可能會構(gòu)成“毆打”（Battery）侵權(quán)。過失侵權(quán) (Neglig

27、ence)It is the unintentional causing of harm that could have been prevented if the defendant had acted as a reasonable and prudent (理智和謹慎)person. To win a suit of negligence, the plaintiff must establish:1. the existence of a duty of care,2. the breach of that duty,3. injury to the plaintiff,4. caus

28、ation between the negligent conduct and the injury. Causation here has two components: cause in fact(事實原因) and proximate cause（直接原因）. if he has not complied with his “duty of care” and ,has not acted as “a reasonable and prudent man”. 如果一個人沒有盡到“照看義務(wù)”，沒有象“一個理性且謹慎的人”那樣行事。過失過失palsgraf v. Long Island Ra

29、ilroad（帕斯格拉芙訴長島火車站案） A man running to board the defendants train seemed about to fall; a guard, one of the defendants employees, attempting to push him onto the train from behind, dislodged a package from the passengers arms. The package, unbeknown to anyone contained fireworks, which exploded when

30、they fell. The shock of the explosion made some scales at the other end of the platform fall down, hitting the plaintiff. Palsgraf sued the railroad, claiming her injury resulted from negligent acts of the employee. The trial court and the intermediate appeals court found for Palsgraf by verdict fro

31、m a jury, Long Island Rail Road appealed the judgment. 一九二四年八月的一個禮拜天，帕斯格拉芙（Palsgraf）太太和她的女兒正在紐約長島火車站的站臺上等待一輛從紐約去洛克威（Rockaway）海灘的火車。當火車站的兩個工作人員幫一位旅客登上一輛已開動的火車時，不小心碰掉了這位旅客攜帶的一個包裹。孰料包裹內(nèi)竟是煙花爆竹，掉在鐵軌上發(fā)生爆炸。爆炸的沖擊力將許多英尺外的一桿秤擊倒，砸在了帕斯格拉芙太太的頭上。受到傷害和驚嚇之后，帕斯格拉芙得了嚴重的口吃癥，雖經(jīng)治療，但仍未得到完全恢復(fù)。而那位攜帶煙花爆竹的旅客登上火車后去向不明，于是，帕斯格拉

32、芙訴長島火車站要求賠償。不幸的是紐約上訴法院（紐約州最高法院）推翻了下級法院做出的有利于帕斯格拉芙的判決，不僅認為她無權(quán)從鐵路公司獲得賠償，而且裁定她承擔鐵路公司的訴訟費用。帕斯格拉芙仍經(jīng)受著口吃、眩暈、頭痛和憤怒的折磨。 這是一個令人不可思議的案子。帕斯格拉芙無辜地被傷害，卻沒有得到任何賠償。 Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928), was a decision by the New York Court of Appeals (the highest state court in the New York

33、) written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a Supreme Court justice. Palsgraf is a landmark in tort law that helped establish the limitations of negligence with respect to scope of liability.Benjamin Nathan Cardozo (May 24, 1870July

34、 9, 1938) Associate Justice of the United States Supreme CourtShould the defendant be liable for the plaintiffs injury?Opinion of the court The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed Palsgrafs complaint, deciding that the relationship of the guards action to Palsgrafs injury was too indirect to mak

35、e him liable. Cardozo, writing for three other judges, wrote that there was no way that the guard could have known that the package wrapped in newspaper was dangerous, and that pushing the passenger would thereby cause an explosion. There was nothing in the situation to suggest to the most cautious

36、mind that the parcel wrapped in newspaper would spread wreckage through the station. If the guard had thrown it down knowingly and willfully, he would not have threatened the plaintiffs safety, so far as appearances could warn him.The court also stated that whether the guard had acted negligently to

37、 the passenger he pushed was irrelevant for her claim, because the only negligence that a person can sue for is a wrongful act that violates their own rights. Palsgraf could not sue the guard for pushing the other passenger because that act did not violate a duty to her, as is required for liability

38、 under a negligence theory.It is not enough for a plaintiff to merely claim an injury. If the harm was not willful, he must show that the act as to him had possibilities of danger so many and apparent as to entitle him to be protected against the doing of it though the harm was unintended.帕斯格拉芙一案的核心

39、問題在于火車站兩位工作人員的行為是否構(gòu)成對帕斯格拉芙的過失侵權(quán)，從而須由鐵路公司代為賠償帕斯格拉芙所受的傷害。在帕斯格拉芙案裁決之前，法院分析此類案件的標準是：首先考慮被告是否存在疏忽大意的過失（negligence）；其次判斷被告的疏忽大意的過失是否是造成原告?zhèn)Φ淖钪苯釉?proximate cause)。很明顯，由于被告的兩位工作人員在幫助那位攜帶包裹的旅客上車時的疏忽，碰掉包裹，引起爆炸，致帕斯格拉芙受傷。如果沒有兩位工作人員的疏忽，就不會有包裹落地，就不會有爆炸發(fā)生，也就不會有帕斯格拉芙的受傷。因此被告存在疏忽大意的過失，而且被告疏忽大意的過失是造成原告?zhèn)Φ淖钪苯釉颉１桓嫠坪鯌?yīng)

40、當為帕斯格拉芙所受的傷害承 擔責任。然而，卡多佐法官并不這樣認為。在此案的判決意見中，卡多佐寫道：一個正常的小心謹慎的人所感知的危險的范圍決定應(yīng)承擔責任的范圍（the orbit of the danger as disclosed to the eye of reasonable vigilance would be the orbit of the duty）。假如一個人在擁擠的人群中不小心碰了他旁邊的人，使得該人攜帶的炸彈落地爆炸，炸傷了周圍的人，承擔責任的應(yīng)該是攜帶炸彈的人而不是碰掉炸彈的人，因為后者在做這樣一個不經(jīng)意的舉動時根本就無法預(yù)料到有如此巨大的危險存在。再比如，一個人駕車在滿

41、是行人的街道上狂奔，無論后果如何，他的這一行為構(gòu)成疏忽大意的過失，因為任何一個正常的小心謹慎的人都能感知到這一行為對他人造成傷害的危險性。但是，同樣的行為發(fā)生在高速公路上或賽車場上，就可能不存在這樣的過失。合理感知的危險決定應(yīng)遵守的義務(wù)。在此案中，以當時的情形，誰也不會預(yù)料到這樣一個包裹的掉落會潛伏著對遠在站臺另一端的原告造成傷害的危險。如果被告的工作人員存在過失的話，該過失是對那位攜帶包裹的旅客的過失，而不是對原告的過失。帕斯格拉芙一案為美國法院分析疏忽大意的過失侵權(quán)行為確立了一個新的標準，即被告只對可預(yù)見的原告（foreseeable plaintiff）承擔責任。過失侵權(quán)的抗辯理由Def

42、enses of the Negligence介紹課文中出現(xiàn)的三種抗辯理由：一、原告過失（contributory negligence）：原告自己的過失行為對事故結(jié)果的發(fā)生有所助力（ Contributory ）a doctrine of common law that if a person was injured in part due to his/her own negligence (his/her negligence contributed to the accident), the injured party would not be entitled to collect

43、any damages (money) from another party who supposedly caused the accident. 使用此抗辯理由對原告而言很危險，一旦法院認定原告應(yīng)承擔部分過失責任，則原告會因此被剝奪一切收償?shù)臋?quán)利。因此，今天美國絕大部分法院出于對社會公平和對“不潔之手”（unclean hands）進行救濟的考慮，已經(jīng)正式廢棄原告過失。過失侵權(quán)的抗辯理由Defenses of the Negligence二、比較過失（comparative negligence）:通過比較原被告雙方的過錯在整體過失責任中所占的比例來分配損害賠償責任。A rule of l

44、aw applied in accident cases to determine responsibility and damages based on the negligence of every party directly involved in the accident. The rule under which negligence is measured by percentage, and damages are diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person seeking recovery.比較過失又可分為以下兩種。純比較過失（pure comparative negligence ）：法官完全按照原被告各自過錯比例來分配賠償責任。修正比較過失（modified comparative negligence ）:只有當原告的過錯在整個過失責任中的比例小于（或不大于）被告的過錯比例時，原告才能獲得賠償。過失侵