the tenantOB欧宝官方入口

发布日期:2024-06-09 11:00    点击次数:71


But for and Substantial Causes 要不是/践诺原因

In a negligence action, there are two types of causation that must be proven by the plaintiff. The first type of causation is causation in fact, and the second type is proximate cause. Causation in fact is often known as but for causation. That is, but for the defendant's negligent conduct, the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred. Causation in fact does not require that the defendant's negligent conduct be the only cause of the plaintiff's conduct, but that it be a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. 

Harms Traceable to Multiple Causes 可记挂的多种原因的伤害

There are several doctrines that permit the jury to find a defendant liable when the plaintiff cannot directly meet the causation requirement. The market share liability doctrine permits the jury to apportion damages based on the market shares of manufacturers of a defective product. But virtually all courts have held that this doctrine is available only if the manufacturers’ defective products are fungible in relation to their capacity to cause harm. 

Multiple Tortfeasors Including Joint and Several Liability 多个侵权东谈主/连带包袱

If a plaintiff's harm results from two independent acts or events, either alone being insufficient to cause the plaintiff's harm, the courts have taken the position that where the defendant's negligent act unites with another event, the defendant's negligence will be considered the cause of at least part of the harm. If the other actor is also negligent, the defendants will be held jointly and severally liable.

Limitations on liability 包袱截至

In a negligence action, a defendant is liable only if his conduct was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Intervening actors or events that produce harm different in kind from that which one would normally anticipate may break the chain of causation and lead a court to conclude that the defendant’s acts are not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. In evaluating whether intervening acts break the chain of causation, courts typically analyze both their foreseeability and their degree of dependence on the defendant’s negligence.

Remote or Unforeseeable Causes – Rescuers 不成碰见的因果/施舍东谈主

Liability typically extends only to individuals within the zone of risk. Liability also typically extends only to foreseeable hazards. For example, courts have long held that injuries sustained when running from danger are foreseeable. They have also held that danger invites rescue. The wrong that imperils life is a wrong to his rescuer. In contrast, if an actor’s conduct creates a recognizable risk of harm only to a particular class of persons, the fact that it causes harm to a person of a different class, to whom the actor could not reasonably have anticipated injury, does not render the actor liable to the persons so injured. Thus, a tortfeasor who is responsible for an altogether unexpected type of injury usually escapes liability.

Legal or Proximate Cause 法律或近因

Even when a defendant is negligent, for him to be found liable, his conduct must have such an effect in producing the harm as to lead a reasonable person to regard it as a cause. The chain of causation may be broken by intervening actors or events that produce harm different from the harm normally anticipated. An intervening cause can lead a fact-finder to conclude that the defendant’s acts are not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. 

Adherence to Statutory Standard

Adherence to a statutory standard does not insulate a tortfeasor from liability. Although the unexcused violation of a statutory standard of care is negligence per seOB欧宝官方入口, the converse is not true – an actor who has complied with all statutory standards may still be found negligent if his conduct is not reasonable under the circumstances. In judging whether an actor’s conduct is reasonable, the trier of fact will consider the burden of taking precautions as compared to the risks inherent in the actor’s conduct and the probability that those risks will materialize.

Eggshell Skull 蛋壳脑袋递次

A tort defendant takes his victim as he finds him – when an actor’s tortious conduct causes harm to a person that, because of a preexisting physical or mental condition or other characteristics of the person, is of a greater magnitude or different type than might reasonably be expected, the actor is nevertheless subject to liability for all such harm to the person. Thus, the victim with an eggshell skull who suffers injuries greatly in excess of those that a normal victim would suffer is entitled to recover for the full extent of his injuries. 

Claims against Owners and Occupiers of Land 地皮主东谈主或占有东谈主包袱

Under common law, the tenant, and not the landlord, was responsible for protecting those entering the property from unreasonable risk of harm. However, modern courts have found that landlords may be liable to tenants under certain conditions: (1) a landlord must exercise reasonable care in maintaining the premises in a safe condition; (2) a landlord has the duty to take reasonable precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties; and (3) a landlord is also liable for negligently repairing property, or for failing to repair property that is under his control. 

Attractive-Nuisance Doctrine 保护儿童免受危急物品伤害原则

The standard of care owed to child trespassers is dictated by the attractive nuisance doctrine. This doctrine imposes a special duty of care on the land occupier with respect to conditions that involve a risk of harm to children who are unable to recognize the danger themselves. In order to qualify as a child trespasser, a child must be so immature as to be unable to recognize the danger involved. 

Claims for Mental Distress Not Arising From Physical Harm Other Intangible Injuries 精神伤害

Emotional distress is recoverable under an intentional or negligent theory. Although early cases typically denied recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress to a plaintiff who experienced no physical contact or injury, today virtually all American jurisdictions have abandoned this approach – a plaintiff who is within the zone of danger created by the defendant and who suffers a physical manifestation of emotional distress occasioned by a threatened injury may recover in virtually all states. In evaluating claims for emotional distress resulting from accidents involving other individuals, American jurisdictions have taken two different approaches. Some disallow recovery unless the plaintiff was herself within the zone of danger. Thirteen jurisdictions follow the zone-of-danger approach.

Employees and Other Agents 老板和其它代理

Under the principle of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for the tortious actions of his employee that are within the scope of the tortfeasor’s employment. However, employers are not responsible for the intentional torts of their employees unless: (1) the conduct is for the direct benefit of the employer; or (2) force is authorized in the employment (e.g. bar bouncer). A principal will sometimes be liable for torts committed by its agents even if the conditions of respondeat superior liability (i.e. an employer/employee relationship and conduct within the scope of employment) are not satisfied. For example, a principal can be liable if the principal was negligent or reckless in the selection of the agent. 

Independent Contractors and Nondelegable Duties  零丁的左券方或不成转让的义务

An independent contractor is one who, by virtue of his contract, possesses independence in the manner and method of performing the work he has contracted to perform for the other party to the contract. Independent contractors are usually paid by the job instead of receiving ongoing salaries; the individual who hires an independent contractor typically does not supervise the contractor’s activities or retain a right to control his activities. Typically, one who employs an independent contractor is not vicariously liable for the contractor’s acts or omissions. 

Contributory Negligence and Comparative Negligence 羼杂裂缝/比拟裂缝

At common law, if the jury found the plaintiff’s negligence to be a cause in fact and proximate cause of his injuries, the plaintiff could not recover from the defendant. This all-or-nothing approach was frequently criticized; it has now been abandoned by virtually all states. Under the modern comparative negligence approach, if the jury finds that two or more parties are negligent, it apportions fault between them.

Strict liability Abnormally Dangerous Activities-严格包袱/荒谬危急的行动

Courts are divided as to whether legal fireworks displays should be classified as abnormally dangerous and thus subject to strict liability. Courts that have classified fireworks displays as abnormally dangerous have tended to focus on the fact that fireworks are much like blasting, and that a high risk of serious personal injury or property damage is created. Furthermore, no matter how much care pyro-technicians exercise, they cannot entirely eliminate the high risk inherent in setting off powerful explosives such as fireworks near crowds. 

Abnormally Dangerous Activities 荒谬危急的行动

The modern doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities derives from Fletcher v. Rylands which holds that a defendant will be liable when he damages another by a thing or activity unduly dangerous and inappropriate to the place where it is maintained, in the light of the character of that place and its surroundings. Today, the determination of whether an activity is unduly dangerous, and thus subject to strict liability, is generally governed by factors outlined in the Restatement of Torts. Under the First Restatement, strict liability applied to an ultra-hazardous activity. Under the Second and Third Restatements, strict liability applies to an abnormally dangerous activity. 

Claims against manufacturer坐褥商包袱

One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused. Strict products liability imposes absolute liability on a manufacturer or retailer of a defective product that results in injury to any foreseeable plaintiff. However, a strict-liability products action is only available against those who are in the business of selling products for use or consumption by the public. 

Manufacturing Defect 居品劣势

A strict products liability claim may be based on the theory of a manufacturing defect on the basis that the product differs from others manufactured and it is more dangerous than if made properly. A strict products liability action may be brought against a manufacturer of the product, a manufacturer of a component part, a vendor, or anyone else in the chain of distribution.

Manufacturing Defect (Food Products) 居品劣势

One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused. Products that fail to meet the producer’s own specifications are typically described as having a manufacturing defect. In the case of food products, the presence of a harmful ingredient is generally considered a manufacturing defect “if a reasonable consumer would not expect the food product to contain that ingredient.” In order to recover for injuries sustained because of a manufacturing defect, a plaintiff need not show that the producer was negligent. A producer is strictly liable whenever the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product.

Defenses to Strict/Prod Liability 严格包袱/居品包袱的抗辩

Defenses to strict liability claims include comparative negligence and assumption of risk. In such cases, the plaintiff's recovery would be reduced pursuant to comparative fault principles to the extent that the plaintiff is guilty of culpable conduct in:

misusing the product;

failing to discover the defect;

failing to perceive the danger, or otherwise failing to avert his injuries or damage in the exercise of reasonable care. In addition, if a risk of the product is inherent, it cannot be a manufacturing or design defect if the product conformed to the producer’s specifications and those specifications could not be altered.