法律英语 TORT

1、Tort Law 侵权法侵权法概 念concept 英文中的“侵权法”(Tort Law)一词有可译为“民事损害赔偿法”。它主要涉及侵犯他人的人身、财产、名誉、商业等方面权益的民事过错行为。虽然这种过错行为可能具有犯罪行为的性质，但是侵权诉讼与刑事诉讼的目的截然不同。前者的主要目的是赔偿受害人的损失，后者的主要目的是惩罚罪犯。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.侵权法一直以来被认为是普通法系中的脊髓所在，然而学界并没有给侵权法一个严格、统一的定义，事实上，实用主义至上的美国法律界也不需要给历史悠久且广泛应用的侵权法下定义。美国法学会会长美国法学会会长Willian L.Prosser的意见可供参考和理的意见可供参考和理解：解：“侵权法是一种对由于一个人因违反法律规定的责任而对侵权法是一种对由于一个人因违反法律规定的责任而对他人的人身或财产权益造成的损害提供救济

6、的法律机制，他人的人身或财产权益造成的损害提供救济的法律机制，其实质是针对民事过错行为的补偿。其实质是针对民事过错行为的补偿。”Willian 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. 法律渊源 source of law判例为主，各州侵权法之间略有差异，判例的汇编、解释可参考侵权法重述（Restatement of the Law of Torts）各州和联邦也有为解决特别侵权问题而制定的成文法，比如1946年的联邦侵权索赔法（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 ）联邦侵权索赔法联邦侵权索赔法基础结构base structure 美美国国侵侵权权法法故意侵权 （Intentional Torts）过失侵权 (Negligence)严格责任 (Strict Liability)抗辩理由(Defenses)故意侵权故意侵权（Intentional Torts） 美国侵权法中七大类故意侵权行为：殴打（殴打（Battery）威吓（威吓（assault）非法监禁（False Imprisonment）精神伤害 （Intentional

10、 Infliction of Mental Distress）侵犯土地 （Trespass to Land）侵犯动产侵犯动产 （Trespass to Chattels）侵占动产侵占动产 （Conversion）殴打（殴打（Battery）威吓（威吓（assault）殴打（殴打（Battery）非法监禁（False Imprisonment）威吓（威吓（assault）殴打（殴打（Battery）精神伤害 （Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress）非法监禁（False Imprisonment）威吓（威吓（assault）殴打（殴打（Battery）

11、侵犯土地 （Trespass to Land）精神伤害 （Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress）非法监禁（False Imprisonment）威吓（威吓（assault）殴打（殴打（Battery）侵犯动产侵犯动产 （Trespass to Chattels）侵犯土地 （Trespass to Land）精神伤害 （Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress）非法监禁（False Imprisonment）威吓（威吓（assault）殴打（殴打（Battery）侵占动产侵占动产 （Conversion）侵犯

12、动产侵犯动产 （Trespass to Chattels）侵犯土地 （Trespass to Land）精神伤害 （Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress）非法监禁（False Imprisonment）威吓（威吓（assault）殴打（殴打（Battery）7/2/202210殴打与威吓Battery&AssaultBattery&AssaultBattery:日常英语中为“电池”之意，但在法律英语中意为“殴打”。事实上这个翻译并不准确，因为“Battery”的外延比中文“殴打”更大，包括任何故意对他人人身进行伤害性（harmful

13、）和冒犯性（offensive）接触的行为。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,

14、 but no actual contact, that may constitute a tort of assault. Elements of Battery (3)构成要件构成要件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, inte

15、nt does not have 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

16、 eventually touches 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 there

17、fore P has the burden 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.后果不是构成要件，例如强吻原告也可以构成

18、“殴打”。2.一并保护人格权与人身权，因此原告身体的范围泛化到与原告人身相联系的任何物品，例如强夺他人戴头上之帽亦构成“殴打”。3.冒犯性不是当事人的心理状态，而是由陪审团通过被告的行为对其所表现出的意图进行客观的认定。7/2/202213殴打与威吓Battery&AssaultBattery&AssaultAssault：日常中作“袭击”，军事领域特指“突击”，在法律英语中译为“威吓”，即“故意引发他人因合理的警觉到即将发生的Battery行为而产生的恐惧”。威吓是殴打的前兆，是原告基于合理判断，对即将到来的“殴打”行为的恐惧和警觉（apprehension）。Assault

19、 is the tort of acting intentionally 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 w

20、ith a toy gun, for example.Elements of Assault 构成要素构成要素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 appreh

21、ension (P believes harmful contact 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 hi

22、mself and not a 3rd party (telling someone you are going to kill their mother is not assault) Attention：1.被告对原告的威胁时即时的（imminent）,且可相信实现威胁也是即时的。2.威胁应该是用过一定的动作表达出来，而非仅仅口头恫吓。3.原告的警觉必须建立在自身意识之上，即原告主动感觉到“殴打”的危险。侵犯动产与侵占动产Trespass to Chattels & Conversion侵犯动产：对他人所占有动产的干扰，被告通过某种故意行为造成原告所占有动产的灭失、毁坏、变形、移动

23、或脱离控制等情况。侵占动产：被告长期将原告的动产完全置于自己的控制之下，并且希望造成原告永久地失去失去对动产侵占的后果。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 th

24、is tort.Conversion occurs when a person 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 mis

25、take if the continued possession is serious.故意侵权的抗辩理由Defenses of the Intentional Torts美国侵权法中规定了九种故意侵权的抗辩理由（Defenses），也称免责特权（Privileges）1.同意(Consent)2.告知后的同意(Informed Consent)3.正当防卫、保护他人(Self-Defense/Defense of Others)4.保护财产(Defense of Property)5.夺回财产(Recovery of Property)6.紧急避险(Necessity)7.法律授权、管教、正

26、当理由(Authority of law/Discipline/Justification)同意与告知后的同意Consent & Informed Consent同意是对他人行为的某种认可、允许、接受、肯定或是容任，只要不反对即可。形式不拘一格，默示亦可，意思不一致时法官依靠客观的理性人标准（Reasonable Prudent Person）来判断。告知后的同意是特别用于医疗领域的免责事由，美国法律要求医生在实施诊疗前必须把具体的诊疗方案和所有可能由此引发的后果向病人作出充分且坦率的披露，只有病人在获取了全完信息后表示出的同意，才能被称为告知后的同意。如果医生没有告知病人或告知不完全

27、，自行诊疗行为可能会构成“殴打”（Battery）侵权。过失侵权 (Negligence)It is the unintentional causing of harm that could have been prevented if the defendant had acted as a reasonable and prudent (理智和谨慎)person. To win a suit of negligence, the plaintiff must establish:1. the existence of a duty of care,2. the breach of that

28、 duty,3. injury to the plaintiff,4. causation between the negligent conduct and the injury. Causation here has two components: cause in fact(事实原因) 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”. 如果一个人没有尽到“照看义务”，没有象“一个理性且

29、谨慎的人”那样行事。过失过失palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad（帕斯格拉芙诉长岛火车站案） 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 c

30、ontained fireworks, which exploded when 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

31、 court found for Palsgraf by verdict from a jury, Long Island Rail Road appealed the judgment. 一九二四年八月的一个礼拜天，帕斯格拉芙（Palsgraf）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（Rockaway）海滩的火车。当火车站的两个工作人员帮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。孰料包裹内竟是烟花爆竹，掉在铁轨上发生爆炸。爆炸的冲击力将许多英尺外的一杆秤击倒，砸在了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，虽经治疗

32、，但仍未得到完全恢复。而那位携带烟花爆竹的旅客登上火车后去向不明，于是，帕斯格拉芙诉长岛火车站要求赔偿。不幸的是纽约上诉法院（纽约州最高法院）推翻了下级法院做出的有利于帕斯格拉芙的判决，不仅认为她无权从铁路公司获得赔偿，而且裁定她承担铁路公司的诉讼费用。帕斯格拉芙仍经受着口吃、眩晕、头痛和愤怒的折磨。 这是一个令人不可思议的案子。帕斯格拉芙无辜地被伤害，却没有得到任何赔偿。 Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928), was a decision by the New York Court of Appeals

33、(the highest state court in the New York) 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.B

34、enjamin Nathan Cardozo (May 24, 1870July 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

35、Palsgrafs injury was too indirect to make 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 si

36、tuation to suggest to the most cautious 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 wh

37、ether the guard had acted negligently to 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 d

38、uty to her, as is required for liability 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 t

39、hough the harm was unintended.帕斯格拉芙一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，从而须由铁路公司代为赔偿帕斯格拉芙所受的伤害。在帕斯格拉芙案裁决之前，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（negligence）；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(proximate cause)。很明显，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，致帕斯格拉芙受伤。如果没有两位工作人员的疏忽，就不会有包裹落地，就不会有爆炸发生，也就不会有帕斯格拉芙的受伤。因此被告

40、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。然而，卡多佐法官并不这样认为。在此案的判决意见中，卡多佐写道：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（the orbit of the danger as disclosed to the eye of reasonable vigilance would be the orbit of the duty）。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

41、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。再比如，一个人驾车在满是行人的街道上狂奔，无论后果如何，他的这一行为构成疏忽大意的过失，因为任何一个正常的小心谨慎的人都能感知到这一行为对他人造成伤害的危险性。但是，同样的行为发生在高速公路上或赛车场上，就可能不存在这样的过失。合理感知的危险决定应遵守的义务。在此案中，以当时的情形，谁也不会预料到这样一个包裹的掉落会潜伏着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，该过失是对那位携带包裹的旅客的过失，而不是对原告的过失。帕斯格拉芙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

42、（foreseeable plaintiff）承担责任。过失侵权的抗辩理由Defenses of the Negligence介绍课文中出现的三种抗辩理由：一、原告过失（contributory negligence）：原告自己的过失行为对事故结果的发生有所助力（ 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

43、 party would not be entitled to collect any damages (money) from another party who supposedly caused the accident. 使用此抗辩理由对原告而言很危险，一旦法院认定原告应承担部分过失责任，则原告会因此被剥夺一切收偿的权利。因此，今天美国绝大部分法院出于对社会公平和对“不洁之手”（unclean hands）进行救济的考虑，已经正式废弃原告过失。过失侵权的抗辩理由Defenses of the Negligence二、比较过失（comparative negligence）:通过比较原被

44、告双方的过错在整体过失责任中所占的比例来分配损害赔偿责任。A rule of law 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.比较过失又可分为以下两种。纯比较过失（pure comparative negligence ）：法官完全按照原被告各自过错比例来分配赔偿责任。修正比较过失（modified comparative negligence ）:只有当原告的过错在整个过失责任中的比例小于（或不大于）被告的过错比例时，原告才能获得赔偿