or substantially certainOB欧宝客户端下载

发布日期:2024-06-09 10:12    点击次数:76


A tort 侵权

A tort is by definition a legal wrong committed upon the person or property of another without justification or privilege that makes the defendant liable for damages occurring as a result of the conduct. Intentional torts are ones where the defendant desires to bring about a particular result. Negligence is the absence of due care, according to the circumstances. Strict liability is liability that does not depend on actual negligence or an intent to harm, but is based on the breach of an absolute duty to make something safe. Other tort causes of action include nuisance, defamation, interference with economic relations, and malicious prosecution.

Battery 殴打

A battery is an intentional contact with the person of another, either harmful or offensive, that is unconsented and unprivileged. An actor is subject to liability to another for the intentional tort of battery if: (1) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person; and (2) a harmful or offensive contact results. Intent, for purposes of establishing a battery, means either that the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act or that he knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially certain, to result from his act. Bodily harm includes any physical impairment of the condition of another’s body, or physical pain or illness.

Battery (Harmful Contact)伤害性的斗殴

In a battery action, the plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally caused a harmful or offensive bodily contact. A defendant intentionally causes such a contact if he acts with the desire to bring about that harm, or engages in action knowing that harm is substantially certain to occur. Intent, for purposes of establishing a battery, means either that the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act or that he knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially certain, to result from his act. 

Battery (Offensive Contact) 冒犯性的斗殴

Offensive means wrongful under all circumstances. A bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity. The fact that the victim finds the contact offensive is not determinative – a plaintiff must additionally show that the contact offends a reasonable' sense of dignity.

False Imprisonment 不法扣留

An actor is subject to liability to another for false imprisonment if: (1) he acts intending to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the actor; and (2) his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other; and (3) the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it. Confinement need not be physical, and it need not be stationary. 

Defenses to claims Consent 抗辩-应允

Consent, which is a willingness in fact for conduct to occur, is a defense to intentional torts. Consent may be manifested by action or inaction and need not be communicated to the actor. Thus, if words or conduct are reasonably understood by another to be intended as consent, they constitute apparent consent and are as effective as consent in fact. However, a defendant is entitled to rely on objective manifestations of consent. 

Justification 刚直事由

Justification includes self-defense, defense of others and the defense of personal property.

Privileges 特权

Privileges include necessity, parental privilege, and the qualified privilege of police and other peace officers.

Immunities 豁免

Immunities include judicial immunity, whereby judicial officers have absolute immunity from tort liability provided the acts are judicial in nature and within their jurisdiction and the actions are not in violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Incapacity is not a defense for intentional torts since every defendant is regarded as being capable of intent. However, superseding or multiple concurrent causes may relieve a tortfeasor’s liability.

Negligence -The duty漏洞-义务

A duty is a legal obligation that is owed or due to another and that needs to be satisfied or an obligation for which somebody else has a corresponding right. In negligence actions, if there is no duty, negligence cannot exist.

Duty can arise by: (1) voluntary assumption of duty on part of defendant; (2) statute; or (3) judicially determined under common law principles. The foreseeability of harm to another is a prerequisite to the determination of duty. 

Failure to Act 怠于推论

Generally, there is no duty to come to the aid of another. One exception to this no-duty rule is where some special relationship exists between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, an employer is liable for the failure to render assistance to an injured employee; a common carrier has such a duty to its passengers; an innkeeper has such a duty to his guests; a business invitor is liable for the failure to render assistance to a business invitee; a school has such a duty to its students; a jailor has such a duty to his prisoners; and a social invitor has such a duty to his guests.

Standard of care 戒备思意思务的范例

The standard of care in negligence cases is the duty to act reasonably so as to avoid harming others. Except in special cases prescribing a different standard of care, such as the standard for a minor or a skilled professional, the standard of care applicable in negligence actions is that the person must act as a reasonable adult in the circumstances. 

The Reasonably Prudent Person合理地严慎的东谈主

In determining whether a defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care, the jury would measure that conduct against the actions of a reasonable, prudent person engaged in a like activity. A reasonable, prudent person takes precautions to avoid foreseeable risks, even if those risks have rarely materialized. To determine what is reasonable or unreasonable conduct of this fictional reasonably prudent person, the fact-finder must look at all the circumstances, including the particular skills and attributes of the defendant. 

Other Special Classes (Children)  稀奇东谈主群(小孩)

In judging whether a child exercised reasonable care under the circumstances, the jury would measure the child’s conduct against that of a minor of like age, intelligence, and experience. A few jurisdictions apply the so-called 'tender years doctrine,' under which a minor of less than seven years of age cannot be found negligent. For example, a normal toddler does not foresee risks, particularly when engaged in an activity like chasing a ball – a normal adolescent does foresee such risks. However, if a child is engaged in adult activity (e.g. driving), the child has a duty to act as a reasonable adult would under the circumstances with respect to that activity.

Other Special Classes (Professional People) 稀奇东谈主群(专科东谈主士)

The elements which govern ordinary negligence actions are also applicable in actions for professional negligence. Specifically, the standard of care applicable in the law of professional negligence is that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. One of the factors relevant to the determination of what is reasonable care under the circumstances is the special knowledge or skills which a defendant possesses. 

Negligence Per Se 法律上确虽然漏洞

In a negligence action, a plaintiff must show: (1) a duty; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) causation that is both actual and proximate; and (4) damages. Under the doctrine of negligence per se, a statute can be used to substitute the duty of care. When a statute’s standard is substituted for the reasonably prudent person standard, the first two elements of duty and breach are established when the defendant breaches the statute. 

Custom 民俗习惯

Custom is relevant in a negligence action, but it is not determinative. Although keeping custom does not guarantee due care, not keeping custom usually constitutes negligence. For example, while compliance with industry custom is not dispositive, it can weigh against a finding of negligence. However, even if a defendant acts consistently with the standard of care currently applied in the industry, the defendant may be found negligent if the community standard was set too low. 

Rules of Conduct Derived From Statutes and Custom (Rescuers) 扶植东谈主包袱

When an actor takes charge of another who is helpless or unable to aid or protect himself, he is subject to liability to the other for bodily harm caused by: (1) the failure of the actor to exercise reasonable care to secure the safety of the other while within the actor’s charge; or (2) the actor’s discontinuing aid or protection, if by doing so he leaves the other in a worse position than when the actor took charge of him. 

Res Ipsa Loquitur事实自证

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits the jury to infer negligence if: (1) in the absence of negligence, the accident would not have occurred; (2) other causes are eliminated by the evidence; and (3) the thing that caused the injury is shown to have been under the exclusive control of the alleged wrongdoer. 


To succeed in a negligence case, the plaintiff must demonstrate duty, breach, causation, and injury. A person’s breach must be both the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. To establish a prima facie case on the issue of causation, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury.