tort law

Neglience S b t c n, S ch nh ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ất cẩn ẩn ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.n

INTRODUCTION

Law # Fact: Khi x lý 1 v ki n ph i xem có lu t “law” đ đi u ch nh v ki nử dụng sai ụng ệt hại ản án, Phán quyết ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ỉ có ụng ệt hại này không, k đ n là có “fact” nào liên quan đ n v này hay không, đ áp d ngếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ụng ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ụng

“law” vào “fact” Jury sẽ coi bên v n đ “fact”, Chánh án sẽ coi bên v n đ “law”.ất cẩn ền tài phán ất cẩn ền tài phán

 Law: Ngu n g c c a Law (k t qu c a 1 cái gì đồm: ủa bồi ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ản án, Phán quyết ủa bồi ượp lệc coi là “legitimate” – EX: Constitutional law, Statutory law)

 Constitutional Law (Hi n pháp) (1 trong “legitimate” because it show howếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net society is organized and how politics systems are organized)

 Statutory Law/Court law (Đ o lu t, Đi n ch - văn b n lu t pháp do Qu cại ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ản án, Phán quyết ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

H i ban hành which is based on law makers)ội

 Administrative Law (hành chính): o Federal Agencies, Independent Regulatory Agencies, State and Local Agencies, Case Law and Common Law Doctrines o The Common Law Tradition o Early English Court (Court of Law and Remedies at Law, Court of Equity, Remedies in Equity, Equitable Maxims) o Legal and Equitable (pháp lý và công tâm) Remedies Today (EX:

Th ng bé không có legal capacity đ t o ra h p đ ng v r a xe Raằng ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ại ợp lệ ồm: ền tài phán ử dụng sai toà, th ng bé thi u legal nh ng trong trằng ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ư ườngng h p này bên kia đã đ tợp lệ ại đượp lệ ợp lệc l i ích b t chính nên ph i d a vào equitable đ x Theo đó,ất cẩn ản án, Phán quyết ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ử dụng sai

Toà phán r ng có h p đ ng gi a th ng bé nh ng h p đ ng này làằng ợp lệ ồm: ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ằng ư ợp lệ ồm: voidable contract)

 Legal (H p pháp):ợp pháp): Tuy nhiên có r t nhi u v n đ , legalất cẩn ền tài phán ất cẩn ền tài phán không th đi u ch nh h t Khi ông Chánh án trong phòng x ,ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ỉ có ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ử dụng sai ng giám sát v m t legal ổn phận ền tài phán ặc không là lỗi

 Equitable 1 (Công bình, công tâm, h p lý):ợp pháp): R ng h n legalội ơng tích, thiệt hại

 The Doctrine of Stare Decisis: Controlling Precedent, Legal Stability

 Stare Decisis and Legal Reasoning: Basic Steps in Legal Reasoning: 1.

Schools of Legal Thought: Natural Law, Positivist, Historical, Legal Realism Classifications of Law:

 Civil Law: Trách nhi m c a ngệt hại ủa bồi ườngi đi ki n ph i ch ng minh đ đòi đệt hại ản án, Phán quyết ứng ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ượp lệc ti n b t đ n nh h n (thu c t lu t: cá nhân – cá nhân) Ch c n ch ngền tài phán ền tài phán ẹ ơng tích, thiệt hại ội ư ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ỉ có ầm ứng minh s vi c đó x y ra và ch ng minh l i c a bên b đ n h n m c 50% -ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ệt hại ản án, Phán quyết ứng ỗi hay ủa bồi ị, kháng nghị ơng tích, thiệt hại ơng tích, thiệt hại ứng

“b ng ch ng vằng ứng ượp lệt tr i” là có th th ng (ph n trăm l n h n là th ng chội ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ầm ớ tố ơng tích, thiệt hại ứng không c n 100%), trách nhi m ch ng minh thu c v nguyên đ nầm ệt hại ứng ội ền tài phán ơng tích, thiệt hại

 Criminal Law: Trách nhi m ch ng minh đ ngệt hại ứng ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ườngi ta tù n ng h n Côngởng quyền như ặc không là lỗi ơng tích, thiệt hại t đ ng ra ki n (thu c công lu t: cá nhân – nhà nứng ệt hại ội ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ướ tốc) C s đ nh t i ph iơng tích, thiệt hại ởng quyền như ị, kháng nghị ội ản án, Phán quyết là 100% nên c n t i 12 Jury (ch c n 1 trong 12 Jury vote không có t i thìầm ớ tố ỉ có ầm ội sẽ là không có t i)ội

How To Find Primary Source of Law:

 How to Read and Understand Case Law

 Procedural Rules (Quy t c t t ng)ắc tố tụng) ố tụng) ụng) : Stages of litigation 2 (hiring attorneys 3 , fees-fix, hourly, contingency, settlement considerations)

 Pretrial Procedures: o The Fleadings (Complaint, Service of Process 4 , Summons, Default Judgment, Method of Service, Defendant's Response-Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counter Claims) o Dismissal and Judgment before Trial (Pretrial Motion, Motion to Dismiss, Strike, Judgment on the Pleadings, To Compel Discovery, Summary Judgment)

1 Sẽ đ ượp lệ c s d ng khi b t c khi nào th y 1 phe đ t đ ử dụng sai ụng ất cẩn ứng ất cẩn ại ượp lệ c nh ng l i b t chính (có th legal nh ng ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ợp lệ ất cẩn ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ư untrust)

2 Quá trình tranh t ng ụng

3 Thuê lu t s ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ư

4 Thủa bồi t c t ng đ t ụng ại o Discovery 5 (Discovery Rules, Depositions, Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Documents Object, and Entry upan Land, Request for Examination, Request for Admissions) (Có 3 cách đ discovery: (i) h i qua h i l i, (ii) questionaire, (iii) witness)ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ỏi qua hỏi lại, (ii) questionaire, (iii) witness) ỏi qua hỏi lại, (ii) questionaire, (iii) witness) ại o Electronic Discovery (e-evidence, metadata) o Pretrial Conference o Right to Jury Trial

 T giai đo n kh i ki n, t i giai đo n Discoveryừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ại ởng quyền như ệt hại ớ tố ại 6 , t i giai đo n x án, t i giaiớ tố ại ử dụng sai ớ tố đo n Jury làm verdict, verdict g m liable and not liable, n u là liable thì b t đ nại ồm: ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán bao nhiêu

The subject of torts: is civil lawsuits in which one person alleges that another person perpetrated some harm Personal injury, medical malpractice, and defamation are all subjects of torts.

The subject matter of torts: is broad and fundamental Frequently invoked claims that can serve as a basic for a lawsuit can be categorized as torts Someone punches you? That’s a tort – it’s called battery A careless driver loses control and drives over your lovingly hewn shrubbery? That’s a tort – it’s called negligence.

PERSONAL INJURIES AND PROPERTY DAMAGE

Tort and Crime: Đ C GIÁO TRÌNHỌC GIÁO TRÌNH

 Wrong to Individual or Wrong to the Public (safety)

Torts and Contract: Đ C GIÁO TRÌNHỌC GIÁO TRÌNH

 Who are bound?-in contract, by consent-in tort, by the operation of law-in contract by breach-in tort by violating the standard of care as imposed by society

In the U.S., largely a Matter of State Common Law (judge-made law precedents) But modernly, also involves federal or state legislation (eg no fault law)

Public Policy and the Costs of Accidents: Đ C GIÁO TRÌNHỌC GIÁO TRÌNH

 Minimize costs by aiming at reducing future accident

 Danger of impeding the economic growth

THREE CATEGORIES OF TORT LIABILITY

From strict liability to fault-fair compensation-economic consideration, there are three categories of tort liabilty:

 Intentional 12 inflicted injuries: The concept of intent: "purpose personal desire to produce a certain result" (có m c đích gây h i, mu n h u quụng ại ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ản án, Phán quyết x y ra theo ý mình); or "ản án, Phán quyết knowledge-actor is substantially certain that a particular result will occur" (dù không có m c đích gây h i, nh ng v nụng ại ư ẫn bi t khi làm hành đ ng đó sẽ gây h i mà v n làm, nghĩa là bi t r ng nó sẽếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ội ại ẫn ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ằng x y ra) (EX – knowledge: Bi t r ng khi say rản án, Phán quyết ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ằng ượp lệu không th lái đển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ượp lệc xe và có th gây tai n n nh ng v n làm)ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ại ư ẫn

 Failure to exercise reasonable care 13 : o Negligence 14 : Failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances 15 Conduct which creates unreasonable risk of harm.

If a risk is reasonable perceived, the actor must exercise due care 16 to prevent the risk from coming to fruition o Recklessness (li u lĩnh không màng h u qu )ều lĩnh không màng hậu quả) ật liên bang không có Torts ả) : "extreme lack of care" ( u t c c đ ) + "conscious indifference to a known risk ofẩn ản án, Phán quyết ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ội serious harm" o Contributory Negligence 17 , Comparative Negligence 18 ,

12 Intentional: Có ch ý ủa bồi

13 Care: S c n tr ng ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ẩn ọng, bổn phận

14 Negligence: Ch nh ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net m ng, b t c n – Đây là l m “mistake” nh h n l i “fault” nh ng đôi khi “mitstake” ản án, Phán quyết ất cẩn ẩn ầm ẹ ơng tích, thiệt hại ỗi hay ư là l i “fault” ỗi hay

15 Vi ph m “reasonable care” trong tr ại ường ng h p bu c ph i x x cho đúng ợp lệ ội ản án, Phán quyết ử dụng sai ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

Tiêu chu n chung ẩn chung : “unreasonable” thì “neglegence”, “reasonable” thì “không neglegence”

16 Due care: s c n tr ng ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ẩn ọng, bổn phận

17 Contributory Negligence: B t c n đóng góp ất cẩn ẩn  Không ai b t đ n ai h t ền tài phán ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net

18 Comparative Negligence: B t c n đ i chi u ất cẩn ẩn ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net 

19 Comparative Fault: L i đ i chi u ỗi hay ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net o Assumption of Risk (ch p nh n r i ro)ấp nhận rủi ro) ật liên bang không có Torts ủi ro)

 Strict liability (trách nhi m tri t đ )ệm triệt để) ệm triệt để) ể bị đơn thắng : Liability without fault (lacking one of: foreseeability of injury or blameworthy conduct (ch u trách nhi m khiị, kháng nghị ệt hại có h u qu , không quan tâm đ n l i, s c n tr ng, lu t, hay s ch nhận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ản án, Phán quyết ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ỗi hay ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ẩn ọng, bổn phận ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net m ng) (EX: Chó pitbull c a A c n ch t con mèo c a B – ch có con chóản án, Phán quyết ủa bồi ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ủa bồi ỉ có pitbull m i “strict liability” còn nh ng con chó khác thì v n ph i ch ngớ tố ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ẫn ản án, Phán quyết ứng minh “negligence”)

[?] S khác nhau v “intent” gi a criminal law and civil law?ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ền tài phán ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại

 In the case of criminal law: each crime needs to prove a specific intent

 In the case of civil law: each tort case doesn't have to have specific intent [?] Categories of Issues?

 Issue regarding Law: không có tranh ch pất cẩn

L u ýưu ý : Ch có th s d ng 1 trong 2 “intent” ho c “negligence”ỉ có ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ử dụng sai ụng ặc không là lỗi

L u ýưu ý : s ch nh m ng → tai n n → VI C XÁC Đ NH Y U T L I CHÍNH PH Iự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ản án, Phán quyết ại ỆC XÁC ĐỊNH YẾU TỐ LỖI CHÍNH PHẢI ỊNH YẾU TỐ LỖI CHÍNH PHẢI ẾU TỐ LỖI CHÍNH PHẢI Ố LỖI CHÍNH PHẢI ỖI CHÍNH PHẢI ẢI XÉT T B N CH T NGUYÊN NHÂN D N Đ N THI T H I EX: A: không có b ngỪ BẢN CHẤT NGUYÊN NHÂN DẪN ĐẾN THIỆT HẠI EX: A: không có bằng ẢI ẤT NGUYÊN NHÂN DẪN ĐẾN THIỆT HẠI EX: A: không có bằng ẪN ĐẾN THIỆT HẠI EX: A: không có bằng ẾU TỐ LỖI CHÍNH PHẢI ỆC XÁC ĐỊNH YẾU TỐ LỖI CHÍNH PHẢI ẠI EX: A: không có bằng ằng lái; B ch nh m ng; B không th y đèn đ nên đ ng A → Nguyên nhân t s ch nhển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ản án, Phán quyết ất cẩn ỏi qua hỏi lại, (ii) questionaire, (iii) witness) ụng ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net m ng c a B; Vi c A không có b ng lái không liên quan t i tort vì vi c không cóản án, Phán quyết ủa bồi ệt hại ằng ớ tố ệt hại b ng lái là m i quan h v i nhà nằng ệt hại ớ tố ướ tốc ch không ph i m i quan h gi a A và Bứng ản án, Phán quyết ệt hại ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại nh Tort.ư

CONSEQUENCES

 Scope of Liability: liability extended to a larger class of persons and to award greater compensatory damages in cases involving high culpability.

 Punitive or Exemplary Damages: Only awarded in egregious cases with purpose to deter future conducts (ch dùng trong trỉ có ườngng h p quá qu c)ợp lệ

 Defenses: Availability of contributory negligence and assumption of risk

(trong trườngng h p có “contributory negligence” có th dùng cái này đợp lệ ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net bi n h cho mình đ gi m b t thi t h i ph i ch u)ệt hại ội ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ản án, Phán quyết ớ tố ệt hại ại ản án, Phán quyết ị, kháng nghị

 Respondeat Superior (ngưu ýời trên chịu trách nhiệm cho người dưới –i trên ch u trách nhi m cho ngị đơn thắng ệm triệt để) ưu ýời trên chịu trách nhiệm cho người dưới – ưu ýới –i d i – lo i trách nhi m di truy n – th gánh)ại trách nhiệm di truyền – thế gánh) ệm triệt để) ều lĩnh không màng hậu quả) ế gánh) : "Let the master answer" or

"look to the one higher up employer's negligence" - vicariously liable for tortious actions 20 of others-An employée's strict liability conduct may be imputed 21 to an employer if acts occur within the scope of employment

(Ngường ất cẩni c p trên ch u “vicarious liability”ị, kháng nghị 22 cho ngường ất cẩni c p dướ tối (employee này ph i under control c a employer) trong trản án, Phán quyết ủa bồi ườngng h p ngợp lệ ường ất cẩni c p dướ tối còn trong “scope of employment”) Tuy nhiên, không ki n “independentệt hại contractor” 23 v “respondeat superior”ền tài phán

 Insurance Coverage: Almost all liability insurance excludes from coverage harms intentionally inflicted by the insured Plantiffs mostly frame claims on negligence, recklessness, strict liability issues

 Immunities (Mi n tr )ễn trừ) ừ) : "Sovereign Immunity" (không đượp lệc ki n v chệt hại ền tài phán ủa bồi quy n) + "Spousal Immunity" (không đền tài phán ượp lệc ki n nhà nệt hại ướ tốc) + "Parental Immunity" (không đượp lệc ki n cha m ) + "Charitable Immunity" (khôngệt hại ẹ đượp lệc ki n các t ch c thi n nguy n (H i ch th p đ )) + "Federal Tortệt hại ổn phận ứng ệt hại ệt hại ội ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ỏi qua hỏi lại, (ii) questionaire, (iii) witness)

Claims Act" (không đượp lệc ki n theo FTCA)ệt hại

 Workers' Compensation (B i thồi thường tai nạn lao động – 1 tai nạn ưu ýời trên chịu trách nhiệm cho người dưới –ng tai n n lao đ ng – 1 tai n nại trách nhiệm di truyền – thế gánh) ộng – 1 tai nạn ại trách nhiệm di truyền – thế gánh) trong lúc làm vi c cho ông ch ):ệm triệt để) ủi ro) Special statutory scheme, faultless compensation for the employees, except for cases of injuries by intentional tortious acts (Trườngng h p bình thợp lệ ườngng thì ai ki n cũng đệt hại ượp lệc, nh ng trongư quá trình lao đ ng thì b o hi m đ n (v i m c đích b o v an sinh c aội ản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ớ tố ụng ản án, Phán quyết ệt hại ủa bồi ngườngi đi làm) không tính l i, tr trỗi hay ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ườngng h p có “intentional”)ợp lệ

 Statute of Limitation (Th i hi u)ời trên chịu trách nhiệm cho người dưới – ệm triệt để) : Statutes bars commencement of lawsuits after expiration of a certain period of time.

 Bankruptcy (Phá s n, đả) ưu ýợp pháp):c ph t n luôn – không ph i “reorganize”)ấp nhận rủi ro) ợp pháp): ả) : nói v i Toà ch còn nhiêu đó không còn gì h n, không tr ti n n i n a, cáiớ tố ỉ có ơng tích, thiệt hại ản án, Phán quyết ền tài phán ổn phận ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại thi u nhi u h n cái có, xin khai phá s n + (7 năm làm l i cu c đ i 1 l n,ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ơng tích, thiệt hại ản án, Phán quyết ại ội ờng ầm khai bankruptcy 1 l n) [EX] n 100k nh ng ch có 50k có quy n xin Toàầm ợp lệ ư ỉ có ền tài phán

“khai phá s n” + discharged liabilityản án, Phán quyết 24 + đây là “phá s n cá nhân, cá th -ản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net personal bankruptcy” Ch còn Mỹ, không có VN nh ng VN cho phépỉ có ởng quyền như ởng quyền như ư công ty khai phá s n khi công ty không tr n n i n a nh ng khai phá s nản án, Phán quyết ản án, Phán quyết ợp lệ ổn phận ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ư ản án, Phán quyết

VN không ph i ph t n luôn mà là “reorganize”. ởng quyền như ản án, Phán quyết ất cẩn ợp lệ

20 Tortious actions: Hành vi gây h i ại

21 Impute: gán t i cho ng ội ường i khác

22 Vicarious liability: Trách nhi m th gánh ệt hại ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net

23 Independent contractor: Nhà th u đ c l p ầm ội ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

24 Trách nhi m gi i thích ệt hại ản án, Phán quyết

THE CONCEPT OF INTENT

State of Mind About Results:

 Intent (ie Purpose or knowledge) is a state of mind about consequences or result

 D'S mental state about acts which precede the result, as well as the undering motive

 Eg false imprisonment require proof of intent to confine, conversion, intent to affect personal property

 Proof of intent to harm is not a prerequisite to intentional tort liability.

 The necessary "intent" is the "intent to make contact"

 D's mistake is irrelevant (held responsible for intentional trespass to chattel when D mistook P's dog for a wolf when shooting it (The result of the wrong was the impact of the bullet, was intended, and not the result of the inadvertence Rationale: the policy of the law as toward two parties equally blameless, the loss should be placed on the party who made the mistake and intended the result (Case: See Ranson v Kitner, 31 III.App.241 (1988))  trong v này, không ai có fault, nên b t đ n ngụng ền tài phán ườngi có mistake (mistake dù có reasonable thì cũng là mistake)

 Caveat: What about mistake by police in shooting at innocent victims? Use the law of privilege as justification against claim

 [Caselaw: McGuire v Almy, 8 N.E.2-760], D (mental case) struck and injured P (her nurse) Court reject D's argument that D's intent, a product of insanity should not be held against D Here, policy consideration (both parties are equally blameless, D has the deep pocket resources, the intent is

25 Insanity (n): s điên lo n ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ại the same for a sane person should the case be reversed)  bà không ch uị, kháng nghị trách nhi m vì b b điên ệt hại ản án, Phán quyết ị, kháng nghị

 Court decided for P based on (a) deterrence policy, (b) D'sdeep pocket 26 - the loss should be borne by the one who can bear it, and (c) fault is not a major factor and equally shared by both.

 If D aims to shoot just to frighten P, but hit P anyway, the intent to "hit" is transferred, and there's liability for battery Same as when D intended to shoot at A, but missed A and hit B instead, the intent to hit A is transferred to B (see Keel v Hainline, pg 19).

 The doctrine of transfer intent as applied to third party is not on strong footing (intent to harm a particular P is only fictional when applying the transfer concept) In real practice, it's preferable to invoke the concept of negligence when suing in similar case-in consideration of insurance coverage as applied to D)

 Also note: Court held that if the intended result is privileged, there's no liability Same as in the case if D's conduct was not wrongful in the first place (Also check on transfer intent in criminal law)

LIABILITIES FOR THE TORTS OF MINOR CHILDREN

 (i) Yes if child has assets 28 If assets are insufficient, P may have to wait until child reaches majority However, D may resort to bankruptcy.

 (ii) Issue of judgment resulting from intentional battery may not extinguish in bankruptcy (note: bk is ok for all torts except joe cases dealing with fraud, or injuries willfully and maliciously inflicted on D)

 (iii) Many states have created limited statutory exceptions to the common law rule that parents or guardians are not vicariously liable for torts committed by minor children All have limits in the maximum amount liable.

 (iv) Parents are liable if proving the course and scope of relationship (like employer-employee)

26 D'sdeep pocket: ti n nhi u ền tài phán ền tài phán

27 Intent chuy n t n n nhân này sang n n nhân khác ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ại ại

28 Assests (n): tài s n ản án, Phán quyết

 (v) Parent may be liable for primary negligence theory of failure to control a child with known dangerous tendencies (require exercising reasonable care)

 N u parents nuôi con kh ng c n th n thì ph i ch u trách nhi m v i nh ngếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ổn phận ẩn ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ản án, Phán quyết ị, kháng nghị ệt hại ớ tố ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại gì con gây ra (parents ki n parents)ệt hại

 Minor ch ch u trách nhi m v i hành vi c a mình khi hành vi đó quá qu tỉ có ị, kháng nghị ệt hại ớ tố ủa bồi

TYPES OF INTENTIONAL TORTS

 Intentional personal torts (Xâm ph m thân th ):ại trách nhiệm di truyền – thế gánh) ể bị đơn thắng (1) battery 30 , (2) assault 31 , (3) false imprisonment 32 , and (4) outrage 33 (also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress, or "IIED"), and

 Intentional property torts (Xâm ph m tài s n)ại trách nhiệm di truyền – thế gánh) ả) : (1) trespass to land 34 ,

(2) trespass to chattels 35 , and (3) conversion 36

BATTERY

Battery is the intentional, unconsented 38 , harmful or offensive touching 39 of another P must prove to make out a prima facie case (Các y u t c n có trongếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ầm đ n kh i ki n v Battery – đây là các y u t c n có trong đ n kh i ki n chơng tích, thiệt hại ởng quyền như ệt hại ền tài phán ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ầm ơng tích, thiệt hại ởng quyền như ệt hại ứng không ph i có các y u t này là th ng ki n):ản án, Phán quyết ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ệt hại

 Intent (purpose or knowledge) to make contact (or transfer intent)

 Offensive (i.e unreasonable) or harmful touching of the plaintiff's person or effects; and (EX: Đ ng vô g y ch ng n n làm ngụng ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ại ườngi ta té )

29 Intertional tort không có forseeability

32 Giững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại trái phép

33 C tình gây đau đ n v tinh th n ớ tố ền tài phán ầm

34 Xâm l n đ t đai/b t đ ng s n ất cẩn ất cẩn ất cẩn ội ản án, Phán quyết

35 Xâm ph m đ ng s n ại ội ản án, Phán quyết

36 Bi n ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net th , chuy n h ủa bồi ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ướ tố ng, can thi p quá nhi u ệt hại ền tài phán

37 hành hung, b o hành (hành vi va ch m hay đ ng vào c th ng ại ại ụng ơng tích, thiệt hại ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ường i khác v i ch ý ớ tố ủa bồi gây xúc ph m) ại

38 Không có s thu n tình ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

39 Đ ng ụng ch m gây h i và xúc ph m ại ại ại

 3 types of damages: nominal (danh d ), compensatory (đ n bù), punitiveự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ền tài phán (ph t d n m t, ph t v ) ại ằng ặc không là lỗi ại ại  d a trên t n th t c a n n nhân, đự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ổn phận ất cẩn ủa bồi ại ượp lệc quy ra b ng ti nằng ền tài phán

Battery: "an intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive touching of a person”

 The touching does not need to be direct

 Knowing with substantial certainty that a person would be harmfully or offensively touched ok

 Intent is also satisfied where the defendant intended only a near miss Injuries are required for compensation, but some harmless touchings are quite reprehensible (e.g, spitting), a large award of punitive damages might well be justified.

 A battery s committed when a person intentionally does: (1) an act result in bodily contact causing physical pain or injuries, or (2) an act resulting in bodily contact a reasonable person would deem insulting or offensive

No "intent to injure" required Victim's contemporary awareness of incident is not necessary

[?] What is touching? What accounts for consent? Read pg 22

ASSAULT

Assault: when D intentionally creates in the P a well-grounded apprehension 41 of imminent, unconsented 42 , bodily contact.

Prima Facie Case Elements are:

 Intent (purpose or knowledge) to cause apprehension (or transfer intent)

 Present apparent ability to cause contact

 A threatening gesture by the defendant and,

 Well-rounded apprehension of imminent, unconsented contact

Both Assault and battery are traceable back to trespass to person.

40 Đe doại hành hung (hành vi có ch ý hăm doa d a kh i thúc s hãi b đ th ủa bồi ọng, bổn phận ơng tích, thiệt hại ợp lệ ị, kháng nghị ản án, Phán quyết ương tích, thiệt hại ng tr c c n) ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause  n n nhân ại bi t ho c ph i bi t, có c m giác s hãi vì s p b t n h i Khác v i battery là assault ch a có ch m vô ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ặc không là lỗi ản án, Phán quyết ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ản án, Phán quyết ợp lệ ị, kháng nghị ổn phận ại ớ tố ư ại ng ường i đó.

41 Dự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause c m ản án, Phán quyết

42 Không thu n tình ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

Assault: "is defined as the intentional creation of an immediate apprehension of a harmful or offensive touching Like battery, assault does not require an injury as part of the prima facie case Also like battery, the intent requirement is nonspecific Intending to hit someone, but actually missing, qualifies as intent for the purpose of establishing battery.

An assault is committed when a person does: (1) an act intended to put another in fear of physical pain or injury, or (2) an act intended to put another in fear of physical contact which a reasonable person would deem insulting or offensive, and the victim reasonably believes that the act may be carried out immediately.

THE TORT OF OUTRAGE (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

Prima Facie Case Elements are: (1) intent (2)extreme and outrageous conduct 43 (3) causation 44 (4) result in severe mental distress 45

 Fright and shock at the time of an accident; humiliation (e.g.due to disfigurement or disability, unhappiness and depression over inability to lead one's prior ife (work, sport, sexual relation); anxiety about the future; anger

 Stand-by case: only in limited circumstances (usually immediate family members)

Outrage (or Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress):

 the intentional or reckless infliction, by extreme and outrageous conduct, of severe emotional distress.

 the conduct has to be extreme and outrageous.

 the emotional distress experienced by the plaintiff must be severe

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Protect freedom from detention or restraint from movement:

43 Hành vi m o ph m quá m c ại ại ứng

44 Nguyên nhân, h u qu , m i quan h nhân qu ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ản án, Phán quyết ệt hại ản án, Phán quyết

45 Sự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause đau bu n v tinh th n quá m c ồm: ền tài phán ầm ứng

46 Gi ng ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ường i trái phép – không có s đ ng tình c a n n nhân trong 1 kho ng th i gian nào đó ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ồm: ủa bồi ại ản án, Phán quyết ờng

 prima facie case: (1) Intent to confine (2) unconsented detention within a boundary (3) apparent lack of reasonable exit (4) use of unreasonable force, threat of force, assertion of legala authority by D, and (5) harm to the plaintiff or knowledge by the plaintiff of the confinement

 Must prove intent, otherwise under negligence

False Imprisonment: “Intentional confinement - experienced or harmful-of a person to a bounded area"

An actionable confinement can be accomplished by physical force, threat of physical force, or improper claim of legal authority For instance, overzealous store security guards can accrue liability for false imprisonment by making improper assertions of legal authority in detaining persons suspected of shoplifting.

TRESPASS TO LAND

Trespass To Land protect a possessor's interest in exclusive possession of land

 Prima facie case: (1) Intent on the part of D to be present; and unconsented physical presence on, under, or above the land of another.

 State of mind is not relevant Honest mistake by the D is irrelevant

Basic legal concept re ownership & possession which yield to recognizable torts arose from the concept of possession

 an intentional physical invasion of a person's real property.

 real property is land along with anything built on or affixed to the land, as well as the subsurface below and the airspace above to a reasonable distance

 no injury is necessary Touching a physical portion of the land is not even necessary, though may result in no compensatory damages (1$1)

 the defendant does not need to have the specific intent to trespass. (implied consent is a defense)

Recap: The P has the burden of proof to satisfy you reasonably from the evidence: (1) P has title to, or own land, or (2) P was in possession of land, or (3)

P was in possession of land by adverse possession, and that the D intentionally,

47 Xâm ph m đ t đai/b t đ ng s n ại ất cẩn ất cẩn ội ản án, Phán quyết and with force trespassed on the P's land without consent (force is implied by law, however peaceably), and (5) P was damaged by D's entry.

Possible defense: P failed to make a prima facie case in that: (1) D did not go on land (2) P did not have possession (3) P had no beneficial use of the land entered by D (4) D has no intent to intrude, non-volitional entry (5) D did not cause the intrusion D has a defense to P's claim in that: (1) P consented to D's trespass, (2) D has privilege to enter because of necessity, to abate a nuisance, or to retake the land by force

TREPASS TO CHATTEL

Trespass To Chattek protect a possessor's interest in freedom from minor intentional interference with personal property (vs conversion for major interference)

 Prima facie case: (1) Intent on the part of D to affect the chattel; and (2) minor interference by a dispossession, b use, or, c.inter-meddling; and (3) in the absence of dispossession, proof of damage in the form of: a. substantial loss of use or b impairment of condition, quality, or value

P owns, or having legit possession of the chattel, tangible or intangible

An intentional interference with plaintiff's chattel by use, intermeddling, or dispossession

Except for D's act, P would still have possession of the chattel

Requirement for trespass to chattels is stricter than for trespass to land, a mere touch will not qualify, nor will merely picking the item up.

As time went on the idea of interfering with another person's right to possess personal property merged with the idea of theft, a criminal law concept, resulted in a different tort: conversion

48 Xâm ph m đ ng s n ại ội ản án, Phán quyết

CONVERSION

10.1 MAJOR INTERFERENCE: DIFFERENT FROM TRESPASS TO CHATTEL IN THE MATTER OF DEGREE.

Definition: Conversion is an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the full value of the chattel to another.

Consider the following factors: (i) extent and duration of the dominion, (ii)

D's intent to assert right in fact inconsistent with true owner, (iii) good faith, bad faith 50 , (iv) extent and duration of the resulting control, (v) harm done to the chattel, and (vi) the inconvenience and the expense caused.

10.2 THIEVES, DEFRAUDERS 51 , AND BONA FIDE PURCHASER

A Thief is liable for conversion, same as a defrauder who passed bad check As to purchasers of goods:

 A bona fide purchase (BFP) receives no title if buys from a thief, even having paid full value, because the thief has "void" title to deliver Thus the BFP may be held liabale for conversion by the true owner (Ngườngi ngay tình có th ch u trách nhi m v “conversion” b i ngển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ị, kháng nghị ệt hại ền tài phán ởng quyền như ườngi ch th t s ; vàủa bồi ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause không b ki n v “thief” mà b ki n v dùng đ ngị, kháng nghị ệt hại ền tài phán ị, kháng nghị ệt hại ền tài phán ồm: ườngi khác quá lâu mà ch a đư ượp lệ ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ồm:c s đ ng ý c a ch th t s )ủa bồi ủa bồi ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

 A BFP who buys goods from another who acquired the goods through fraud may not be sued for conversion by the original owner because good faith purchase, as a matter of law, cuts of the original's equitable right to rescind That is to say, the defrauder passes along title, albeit "voidable title", and the good faith purchase by the BFP extinguishes any outstanding rights which a prior owner might have had to void the transaction

 One who purchases from a defrauder with notice of the prior fraud is not a BFP and obtains no better rights than the defrauder, may be jubject to conversion

49 bi n th ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ủa bồi , can thi p quá nhi u ệt hại ền tài phán (khía c nh dân s c a t i tr m c p bên hình s , chi m d ng c a ng ại ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ủa bồi ội ội ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ụng ủa bồi ường i khác làm c a riêng) ủa bồi

50 Good faith: thi n ý ệt hại

Bad faith: không thi n ý ệt hại

51 Kẻ l a g t, k gian l n ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ại ẻ ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

Special rules (commercial convenience) aim to protect those who are needed in our society to receive and hold goods on a temporary basis:

 Bailee without notice that chattel is lost or stolen is not liable for conversion (N u ngếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ườngi nh n ký g i không bi t đ ng s n mình đang gi bận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ử dụng sai ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ội ản án, Phán quyết ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ị, kháng nghị m t ho c b đánh c p thì không có trách nhi m v i “conversion”)ất cẩn ặc không là lỗi ị, kháng nghị ệt hại ớ tố

 Bailee without notice of other claims, redelivers the chattel to its bailor is not liable for conversion even the bailor is not the rightful owner (Ngườngi nh n ký g i đ a l i đ ng s n cho ngận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ử dụng sai ư ại ội ản án, Phán quyết ườngi ký g i, không có trách nhi m v iử dụng sai ệt hại ớ tố

“conversion” m c dù ngặc không là lỗi ườngi ký g i không là ngử dụng sai ườngi ch th t s )ủa bồi ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

 Bailee who redelivers a chattel to the true owner is not liable to the actual bailor for conversion (ngườngi nh n ký g i đ a l i đ ng s n cho ngận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ử dụng sai ư ại ội ản án, Phán quyết ườngi chủa bồi th t s , không ch u trách nhi m đ i v i ngận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ị, kháng nghị ệt hại ớ tố ườngi ký g i th t s vử dụng sai ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ền tài phán

 Bailee with knowledge or reason to know that bailor has no right to deliver the chattel becomes liable for receiving the goods (ngườngi nh n ký g i bi tận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ử dụng sai ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net r ng ngằng ườngi ký g i không có quy n ký g i, sẽ ph i ch u trách nhi m v t iử dụng sai ền tài phán ử dụng sai ản án, Phán quyết ị, kháng nghị ệt hại ền tài phán ội

 Balee with notice of multiple claims to the chattel is under absolute duty to redeliver it to the true owner (N u có nhi u ngếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ườngi ký g i thì ngử dụng sai ườngi nh nận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ký g i có nghĩa v ph i chuy n đ ng s n cho đúng ngử dụng sai ụng ản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ội ản án, Phán quyết ườngi ch th t s ).ủa bồi ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause Bailee may avoid this dilemma by depositing the goods in court, and let it decide

The amount damage recovered is the market value of the chattel at the time of the conversion.

In case the value increases (e.g lottery tickets turn out to be winners), tortfeasor would not benefit.

Usually, no demand for return before suit is needed if possession is wrongful. However, if the goods was initially obtained legitimately, a demand must be made before action will lie.

52 Ng ường i nh n ký g i ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ử dụng sai

CONSENT

“Violent non fit injuria – to one who’s willing, no wrong is done”

Points: *Consent = Assumption of Risk = Comparative Negligence Sometimes bar recovery completely, sometimes just partially.

Types of consent: Normally consent is not treated as a defense (where D has the burden of proof!), but as a prima facie issue with burden of proof rest with P (except in trespass to land) There three types of consent: *(A) Actual Consent 54 : or “consent in fact” typically manifested by words, affirmative action, or by silence/ inaction 55 Note: actual consent is a valid bar to recovery even it is not communicated to D (Không c n cái consent đó t i tay defendant, không c nầm ớ tố ầm defendant hi u)! (e.g X tells 7 7 can swim in pool 7 swims in pool not hearingển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net what X said, trespass action against 7 fails.] * (B) Apparent Consent 56 : What is apparently? The rule “OBJECTIVE MANIFESTION” 57 i.e a reasonable person would have understood the plaintiff’s conduct to indicate willingness [e.g woman raises hand in vaccine case] *(C) Implied Consent 58 : in reality, there’s no consent at all, just the emergency (medical) situation requiring action which recognized by the court.

Capacity to Consents: Lack of capacity to consent emerges when a person possesses insufficient mental capacity to consent to any thing [In Davis v Butler, college initiation pressed D into 3 days of continuous binge drinking resuling in death] Lack of capacity may also arise from infancy, agedness, or medical disability.

Scope of Consent: to be effective, consent must apply to the conduct, or substantially similar to the conduct, or could be implied [consent to fist fight, not

53 BI N ỆC XÁC ĐỊNH YẾU TỐ LỖI CHÍNH PHẢI H VÀ Đ C MI N Ộ VÀ ĐẶC MIỄN ẶC MIỄN ỄN

54 Sự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause đ ng ý có th t ồm: ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

55 “Actual consent” or “consent in fact” đ ượp lệ c bi u l qua l i nói, hành vi có tính kh ng đ nh, ho c im l ng ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ội ờng ẳng định ị, kháng nghị ặc không là lỗi ặc không là lỗi

56 Sự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause đ ng ý bi u l ra ngoài ồm: ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ội

57 Bi u ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net l m t cách khách quan ội ội

58 Sự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause đ ng ý theo ki u ng m hi u ồm: ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ầm ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net consent to using knife, BUT, consent to pick up things may impliely consent to entry upon land to carry out the picking)

Consent Based on Mistake: will be invalidated if P has misconception in granting consent For this the law requires D to have induced the misconception.

If it is unilateral mistake on P, or mutual mistake by both P and D, either be irrelevant to issue of consent The rule is loss should falls on the one who makes the mistake  Types of mistakes: (i) mistake as to the nature or essential character of the act itself or (ii) mistake which relates to the collateral matters. (1.eg P was given a piece of chocolate candy which turrs out to be poisonous. Fraud in the factum invalidate consent Consent is invalid, but only if the mistale was known to the D.) (2 Mistake relates to collateral matters, eg a pgolo consent to have sex with a woman in exchange for money that turns out to be counterfeit, subsequent action for battery will be barred because the gigolo was fully aware of the nature of invasion and was mistaken only with regard to the collateral matter of the validity of the money, which presumably was his reason for consenting)

Consent and Duress: NOT effective if it is given under duress (usually not economic duress).

Consent to a Criminal Act: Some courts hold that consent to a criminal act is not valid to bar a lort action However, recent rulings suggest validity of consent depends on the purpose of the statute (See udson x Croft)

PRIVILEDGES AND DEFENSES – IN GENERAL

Malters such as sell-defense, defense of others, defense of property, recapture of chattels, and public and private necessity fall within the general calegory of delenses and privileges They are issues which must be pleaded by the D, or else they are not part of the case If the D raises the defense or privilege in a timely fashion and successfully carries the burden of proof, tort liability will be totally or partlially precluded [NOTE: ATIRMATIVE DEFENSE and BURDEN of PROOF]

SELF-DEFENSE

The privilege of sell protection can be invoked by anyone except the aggressor. The person must reasonably believe that the force used is reasonable under the circumstances for protection If the actor is reasonably mistaken as to the necessity of using force or the degree of force required, the privilege is still valid [cases involving confronlation with deadly force, the disparity in sice of the

59 Quy n ền tài phán t v ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ệt hại parly ) Self-defenses does not permil retaliation Insulting words which do not raise to the level of assault are insufficient to trigger self-defense

(Ngườngi nào là defendant thì có quy n t v )ền tài phán ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ệt hại

(Ch đỉ có ượp lệ ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ệt hạic t v 1 cách v a đ )ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ủa bồi

DEFENSE OF OTHERS

Defense of others may be invoked by anyone who reasonably believes that force is necessary lo protect another from physical harm If privilege applies, there's no liability BUT, if the other has no right to sell defense, the intervene nor may be liable (courts split on cases with reasonable mistakes causing intervention) The question of reasonability depends le.g case where a bystander took a boy and drove him several miles to a police station for throwing snow balls at passing by vchicle Defense act was unreasonable because there's other ways which is less severe to stop the boy from throwing snow balls at cars.)

DEFENSE OF PROPERTY

A possessor can use reasonable force [BUT never deadly force 61 , unless also in defense of threat against the person] in defense of challels or properly.

A reasonable mistake as to the necessity for using force does nol vitiate the privilege [homeowner shoots at a burglar believing him to be armed with dangerous weapon, no liability) But a mistake-even reasonable as to whether the intruder is privileged to enter, destroys the privilege to defend property [private necessity: dangerous storm ]

A possessor cannot do indirectly what he's not allowed to do directly (dangerous traps, electrical traps, mines]

A possessor's privilege to eject a person from property is restricted Imay not exposed the person to unreasonable physical danger

(Không đượp lệc đánh đ i tính m ng ngổn phận ại ườngi khác đ b o v tài s n c a mình)ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ản án, Phán quyết ệt hại ản án, Phán quyết ủa bồi

RECAPTURE OF CHATTELS

No force is reasonable until a demand for the chatlel is made.

Fresh pursuil is require "reasonable force is ok

60 B o ản án, Phán quyết v ng ệt hại ường i khác

61 Deadly force (n): l c gây ra ch t chóc ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net

62 Quy n ền tài phán đòi l i tài s n ại ản án, Phán quyết

No deadly force is allowed except to defend lite or limb Since chattel has been taken, to recover it exposes the actor to all risks of being mistaken, except when the mistake is induced by P.

A default on a typical (non-fraudulent) conditional sale [such as installment purchases of household goods] does not justify assertion of recapture privilege [if peaceful entry is insutficient, sellers must report to the authority] Đu i l y đ l i ph i là đu i ngay l p t c sau khi ngổn phận ất cẩn ồm: ại ản án, Phán quyết ổn phận ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ứng ườngi ta cướ tốp đ mìnhồm:

Không đượp lệc dùng súng, dao đ đòi nển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ợp lệ

PRIVILEGE TO DETAIN FOR INVESTIGATION

Common law and statutory privilege permit shopkeepers to: detain temporary

*in or near their store *one reasonably suspected of theft for purposes of reasonable investigation If request to remain has been made and refused,reasonable force can be used to detain Can't use deadly force unless for self- defense The privilege permits only reasonal investigation, not for coercing confession The privilege extends to employees of the possessor

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NECESSITY

A privilege of necessity exists if it is apparent necessary lo invade the interest of the plaintiff in order to prevent greater harm It's public necessity if the protected class is the public itself, or involving whole lot of people Under common law rule (which have been abolished in some jurisdictions), public necessity is complete and there will be no liability for damages inflicted When public interest is not involved, the privilege is private necessity and D will be liable unless the necessity concerns, and for the benefit of R lunless P expressly forbids such action]

A privilege is NFVFR greater than the necessity (a fircfighter cannot forcibly take somcone's car in order to get to the firc if the that person offers to give him a ride there.]

RECAPTURE OF GOODS ON THE LAND OF ANOTHER

Three Rules allowing a possessor to recaplure challel on land of another:

(1) goods came upon land through wrongful conduct of the landowner for with landowner's knowledge of wrongful conduct of another party], then the

63 Đ c ặc không là lỗi mi n gi đ tra h i ễn trừ chủ quyền ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ỏi qua hỏi lại, (ii) questionaire, (iii) witness) possessor may enter at a reasonable time, reasonable manner, and may use reasonable force to recover the goods, even in absence of fresh pursuit,

(2) If goods came upon land through force of nature, or were wrongtully placed there without the landowner's knowledge or consent, there is a privilege of private Necessity allowing the possessor to enter upon land to retrieve the goods NOTE: the person asserting the privilege will be liable for all the actual damages caused therein.

(3) If the goods came upon land of another with the consent or through the fault of the possessor, here is no privilege to enter Going in under this circumstance will result in liability for trespass upon land.

RECAPTURE LAND

Only a minority of jurisdiction allow one who has legal right to immediate possession of land to attempt retaking possession by reasonable, non deadly force [not California] Otherwise, person has to resort to legal means States have inexpensive remedy under forcible entry and detainer" [law on unlawful detainer]

EX: Trườngng h p thuê nhà, không đóng ti n nhà, thì ch nhà không đợp lệ ền tài phán ủa bồi ượp lệc quăng đ c a ngồm: ủa bồi ườngi thuê ra ngoài vì ngườngi thuê không ph i ăn c p, ăn tr m, và ngản án, Phán quyết ội ườngi thuê ch có “possession” ch không ph i “ownership” nh landlord, c 2 bên đ uỉ có ứng ản án, Phán quyết ư ản án, Phán quyết ền tài phán có “consideration” trong “contract”, nên n u có gì thì ra toà gi i quy t Thêm n a,ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ản án, Phán quyết ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại nghĩa v tr ti n b vi ph m không đụng ản án, Phán quyết ền tài phán ị, kháng nghị ại ương tích, thiệt hạing nhiên d n đ n k t qu l y l i nhàẫn ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ản án, Phán quyết ất cẩn ại (lúc này quy n chi m h u nhà v n n m trong ph m vi quy n c a ngền tài phán ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ẫn ằng ại ền tài phán ủa bồi ườngi thuê).

N u landlord làm v y thì b “trespass to land”.ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ị, kháng nghị

UNLAWFUL CONDUCT

Some states hold unlawful conduct is total bar to recovery if (1) serious violation [not minor like driving without driving license, and (2) injury is direct result of such violation (some states bars recovery for injuries when driver was under influence of alcohol or while committing felony.

 làm negate cái claim c a mình đi, làm cho mình không có quy n đòi ngủa bồi ền tài phán ườngi ta n a vì unlawful conduct là hành vi trái pháp lu t mà lu t này có m c đích c mững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ụng ất cẩn hành vi c a mình (EX: mình u ng rủa bồi ượp lệu khi lái xe là vi ph m lu t thì cãi khôngại ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause đượp lệc)

64 Hành vi b t h p pháp ất cẩn ợp lệ

PRIVILEGE TO DISPLINE OR ARREST

Parents and teachers are privileged to use reasonable force to discipline children How much force? Depend on jurisdiction This is highly regulated area.

GENERAL JUSTIFICATION

Mostly based on the general inquiry into whether D's conduct was acceptable under the circumstances In determining the existence of privilege, be consider of:

(1) The need for D to protect persons and property, (2) the D's duty to aid in apprehending wrongdoers; (3) The manner and place of occurrence, and (3) the feasibility of other alternative course of action

JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON DAMAGES

P bears the risk of non-persuasion on the issue of damages P must object to jury instruction to the jury in a timely manner as it may not be raised on appeal unless error is first brought to the attention of the trial judge while it still can be corrected.

 Trách nhi m thu c v nguyên đ n, nguyên đ n ph i đ a ra “issue” và ph iệt hại ội ền tài phán ơng tích, thiệt hại ơng tích, thiệt hại ản án, Phán quyết ư ản án, Phán quyết thuy t ph c “Jury”.ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ụng

Types of damages: (i) economic damages such as compensation on past and future loss wages, (ii) non-economic damages such as physical and mental pain and suffering, (iii) diminish reputation, medical expenses, (iv) actual damages 65 ,(v) nominal damages 66 , (vi) punitive damages 67

REMITTITUR AND ADDITUR

Motion for remittitur 69 : request to lower damage amount due to excessive verdict [based on the guideline of "maximum recovery rule  “Remittitur” thu cội v b đ nền tài phán ị, kháng nghị ơng tích, thiệt hại

Motion for additur 70 : request to increase the amount deemed too low in the verdict  “Additur” thu c v nguyên đ nội ền tài phán ơng tích, thiệt hại

PAIN AND SUFFERING

"per diem arguments (the money value of pain and suffering calculated based on divided units according to the duration minutes, hours , e.g a penny a minute of suffering.-.10c/minute translates to $52,560 per year).

65 Thi t ệt hại h i th c t ại ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net

66 Thi t ệt hại h i danh d ại ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

67 Ph t ại v , ph t d n m t ại ại ằng ặc không là lỗi

68 Xin gi m án, và xin tăng án ản án, Phán quyết

69 Ki n ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ngh gi m án ị, kháng nghị ản án, Phán quyết

70 Ki n ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ngh tăng án ị, kháng nghị

Ki n v “pain” v “objective manifestion”ệt hại ền tài phán ền tài phán 71 thì sẽ d th ng h n “subjectiveễn trừ chủ quyền ơng tích, thiệt hại manifestion” 72

Ability to engage in enjoyable activities such as sports, travel, even sex

Loss of the legal right to spousal services, company, affection, including sex.

One spouse's action for loss of consortium is an action distinct from other spouse's own injuries However in almost all jurisdiction, loss of consortium must be tried together with the principal action NOTE: Action for loss of consortium subjects to all available defenses under the principal action, such as contributory or comparative negligence.

Many jurisdictions allow parents to recover medical expenses on the behalf of children Some jurisdiction allow parents to recover loss of companionship of their children A few jurisdiction permit child to recover los of consortium based on parent's injury Some courts have permit recover this loss for sibling of injured one.

 Khi th c hi n lo i “damage” này thì ph i ch ng minh c p đôi này là vự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ệt hại ại ản án, Phán quyết ứng ặc không là lỗi ợp lệ ch ngồm:

 Có nh ng ti u bang, v ch ng không c n k t hôn v n là v ch ng Tuyững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ợp lệ ồm: ầm ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ẫn ợp lệ ồm: nhiên, cũng có vài trườngng h p ch là b nhau 2 3 năm tr xu ng thì khôngợp lệ ỉ có ồm: ởng quyền như là v ch ngợp lệ ồm:

 Mu n ki n lo i damage này thì cause of action v i dính v i cái fauseệt hại ại ớ tố ớ tố

 Đôi khi cha m cũng có quy n ki n v damage này n u cha m khôngẹ ền tài phán ệt hại ền tài phán ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ẹ đượp lệc con yêu thương tích, thiệt hạing và ngượp lệ ạic l i con cũng có th ki n khi m t tìnhển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ệt hại ất cẩn thương tích, thiệt hạing c a cha mủa bồi ẹ

VI SOME COURTS ALLOW AWARD FOR MEDICAL MONITORING

Cost of periodic medical check ups in the future

71 S th hi n 1 cách khách quan ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ệt hại

72 Sự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause th hi n 1 cách ch quan ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ệt hại ủa bồi

73 Heidonic: c m xúc h ản án, Phán quyết ưởng quyền như ng th - thiên v mental ụng ền tài phán

74 T n ổn phận th t v “nghĩa v chăn g i gi a v và ch ng” – VN không có lo i t n th t này ất cẩn ền tài phán ụng ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ợp lệ ồm: ại ổn phận ất cẩn

VII THE COLLATERAL-SOURCE RULE

Holds that a plaintiff's recovery from the defendant shall not be diminished because plaintiff has received benefits covering some aspect of damages from a person's own resource (such as self medical Insurance), or from one acting on defendant's behalf (or from a joint tortfeasor) [sources such as veteran, medi-Cal, health insurance, gratuitous nursing services, etc.] IHelfend v Southern California Rapid Transit District, 465 P.2d 61 (Cal.1970) (SATL 3d ed., p.189)

 Ph n nào có b o hi m thì sẽ không đ n ph n đó Tuy nhiên, có m t s bangầm ản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ầm ội không có Rule này B o hi m cho ngản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ườngi không có b o hi m đ đ n ngản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ượp lệ ạic l i mình thì “issue” v n là “liability”ẫn

P may not recover for damages aggravated 76 which could have been avoided by exercise of reasonable care after the legal wrong was committed by the D [e.g P. refuses to take medicine post injury] [Duty to Mitigate Damages] (có th khôngển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net đượp lệc đ n bù các kho n mà lẽ ra đã có th đền tài phán ản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ượp lệc cover n u nh trếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ư ướ tốc đó có sự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ngăn ch n k p th i t bên b thi t h i)ặc không là lỗi ị, kháng nghị ờng ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ị, kháng nghị ệt hại ại

[Caveat: The Restatement of Tort: No bar to recovery unless the degree of fault by P is as great as D's The mitigation requirement seems to apply to negligence action and not to intentional tort actions] (t t c avoidable consequences ruleất cẩn ản án, Phán quyết apply cho negligence, strict liability, recklessness mà không áp d ng choụng intentional tort) In comparative jurisdictions, the P's failure to mitigate damages is treated as a form of "fault" and may reduce recovery in action based on negligence, recklessness, and strict liability

Traditionally, personal injury did not include any allowance for prejudgment interest The longer the case is dragged out, the more advantages to the D who has the use of the money Now most courts, or by statutes, the D may risk courts allow calculating pre-judgment interest on top of the damages awarded.

75 Quy lu t h u qu có th tránh đ ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ượp lệ c

77 L i ợp lệ ích tr ướ tố c phán quy t c a Toà ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ủa bồi

X SURVIVAL ACTION AND WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS 78

At common law, tort actions end with the death of claimants This also applied to right of survivors to sue for death of love ones This rule did not apply for contract, or property claim litigation Modern statute all allow survivor to sue for recovery for losses sustained by the deceased [such as pain and suffering - pre-impact terror in plane crashes cases, even just for a short period of time], and also separate action for losses (support and affection) as the result of death [except defamation]

 N u ch t ngay, ch t trong tích t c, ch t ngay l p t c thì không có survivalếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ứng action Ch t 1 giây 2 giây v n có survival action Đây là d ng bài dếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ẫn ại ướ tố ạii d ng ki nệt hại t ng theo statutory law # case law Case law không có d ng này, gi ng civil law,ụng ại lu t thành văn đận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ượp lệ ạic t o d ng thành.ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

Loss of the legal right to spousal services, company, affection, including sex.

One spouse's action for loss of consortium is an action distinct from other spouse's own injuries However in almost all jurisdiction, loss of consortium must be tried together with the principal action NOTE: Action for loss of consortium subjects to all available defenses under the principal action, such as contributory or comparative negligence.

Many jurisdictions allow parents to recover medical expenses on the behalf of children Some jurisdiction allow parents to recover loss of companionship of their children A few jurisdiction permit child to recover los of consortium based on parent's injury Some courts have permit recover this loss for sibling of injured one.

 Khi th c hi n lo i “damage” này thì ph i ch ng minh c p đôi này là vự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ệt hại ại ản án, Phán quyết ứng ặc không là lỗi ợp lệ ch ngồm:

 Có nh ng ti u bang, v ch ng không c n k t hôn v n là v ch ng Tuyững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ợp lệ ồm: ầm ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ẫn ợp lệ ồm: nhiên, cũng có vài trườngng h p ch là b nhau 2 3 năm tr xu ng thì khôngợp lệ ỉ có ồm: ởng quyền như là v ch ngợp lệ ồm:

 Mu n ki n lo i damage này thì cause of action v i dính v i cái fauseệt hại ại ớ tố ớ tố

 Đôi khi cha m cũng có quy n ki n v damage này n u cha m khôngẹ ền tài phán ệt hại ền tài phán ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ẹ đượp lệc con yêu thương tích, thiệt hạing và ngượp lệ ạic l i con cũng có th ki n khi m t tìnhển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ệt hại ất cẩn thương tích, thiệt hạing c a cha mủa bồi ẹ

SOME COURTS ALLOW AWARD FOR MEDICAL MONITORING

Cost of periodic medical check ups in the future

71 S th hi n 1 cách khách quan ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ệt hại

72 Sự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause th hi n 1 cách ch quan ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ệt hại ủa bồi

73 Heidonic: c m xúc h ản án, Phán quyết ưởng quyền như ng th - thiên v mental ụng ền tài phán

74 T n ổn phận th t v “nghĩa v chăn g i gi a v và ch ng” – VN không có lo i t n th t này ất cẩn ền tài phán ụng ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ợp lệ ồm: ại ổn phận ất cẩn

THE COLLATERAL-SOURCE RULE

Holds that a plaintiff's recovery from the defendant shall not be diminished because plaintiff has received benefits covering some aspect of damages from a person's own resource (such as self medical Insurance), or from one acting on defendant's behalf (or from a joint tortfeasor) [sources such as veteran, medi-Cal, health insurance, gratuitous nursing services, etc.] IHelfend v Southern California Rapid Transit District, 465 P.2d 61 (Cal.1970) (SATL 3d ed., p.189)

 Ph n nào có b o hi m thì sẽ không đ n ph n đó Tuy nhiên, có m t s bangầm ản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ầm ội không có Rule này B o hi m cho ngản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ườngi không có b o hi m đ đ n ngản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ượp lệ ạic l i mình thì “issue” v n là “liability”ẫn

AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES RULE

P may not recover for damages aggravated 76 which could have been avoided by exercise of reasonable care after the legal wrong was committed by the D [e.g P. refuses to take medicine post injury] [Duty to Mitigate Damages] (có th khôngển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net đượp lệc đ n bù các kho n mà lẽ ra đã có th đền tài phán ản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ượp lệc cover n u nh trếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ư ướ tốc đó có sự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ngăn ch n k p th i t bên b thi t h i)ặc không là lỗi ị, kháng nghị ờng ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ị, kháng nghị ệt hại ại

[Caveat: The Restatement of Tort: No bar to recovery unless the degree of fault by P is as great as D's The mitigation requirement seems to apply to negligence action and not to intentional tort actions] (t t c avoidable consequences ruleất cẩn ản án, Phán quyết apply cho negligence, strict liability, recklessness mà không áp d ng choụng intentional tort) In comparative jurisdictions, the P's failure to mitigate damages is treated as a form of "fault" and may reduce recovery in action based on negligence, recklessness, and strict liability

PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST

Traditionally, personal injury did not include any allowance for prejudgment interest The longer the case is dragged out, the more advantages to the D who has the use of the money Now most courts, or by statutes, the D may risk courts allow calculating pre-judgment interest on top of the damages awarded.

75 Quy lu t h u qu có th tránh đ ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ản án, Phán quyết ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ượp lệ c

77 L i ợp lệ ích tr ướ tố c phán quy t c a Toà ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ủa bồi

SURVIVAL ACTION AND WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS

At common law, tort actions end with the death of claimants This also applied to right of survivors to sue for death of love ones This rule did not apply for contract, or property claim litigation Modern statute all allow survivor to sue for recovery for losses sustained by the deceased [such as pain and suffering - pre-impact terror in plane crashes cases, even just for a short period of time], and also separate action for losses (support and affection) as the result of death [except defamation]

 N u ch t ngay, ch t trong tích t c, ch t ngay l p t c thì không có survivalếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ứng action Ch t 1 giây 2 giây v n có survival action Đây là d ng bài dếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ẫn ại ướ tố ạii d ng ki nệt hại t ng theo statutory law # case law Case law không có d ng này, gi ng civil law,ụng ại lu t thành văn đận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ượp lệ ạic t o d ng thành.ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

Wrongful death statutes recently created causes of action for benefit for a class of persons left behind by the deceased Some states, recovery in wrongful-death action is limited to pecuniary losses [such as income benefits that the survivors lost as the result of death However, most states now permit recovery in a wrongful death action of the value of lost companionship, society advise, and guidance and of amounts for grief and other forms of emotional distress.

The CALCULATION of "pecuniary" loss generally proceeds by determining the amount of support the decedent would have provided to P [the decedent's high or low income will determine the amount of loss] [some courts even allow recovery the amount of inheritance of P should the deceased did not die]

LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY

If P was employed with fixed income, loss of earning would base on income If

P was unemployed, the calculation would based on reduced earning capacity [will base on circumstantial evidence] [factors such as age, health, personal habits, smoking ] Calculation of future earning always reduced to present value.

 B thị, kháng nghị ương tích, thiệt hạing nên kh năng ki m ti n b gi m (# wage)ản án, Phán quyết ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ị, kháng nghị ản án, Phán quyết

INFLATION

Split authority on this issue (Phân chia th m quy n)ẩn ền tài phán

78 S s ng và cái ch t sai trái ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net

79 M t ất cẩn kh năng ki m ti n (khác v i ti n l ản án, Phán quyết ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ớ tố ền tài phán ương tích, thiệt hại ng “wage”)

TAXATION

The amount of the award is not taxable under Fed law However, any interest, dividends on the lump sum award are taxable

 án phí không đóng thu , nh ng s ti n l i t án phí thì ph i đóng thuếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ư ền tài phán ờng ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ản án, Phán quyết ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net

PUNITIVE DAMAGES [ALSO CALLED EXEMPLARY DAMAGES]

The purpose is not compensatory, but to punish the D When the wrong is morally culpable, or actuated by evil and reprehensible motives 81 Departing from contrary precedent, courts have held that they have the power to require additur where the amount of award from lower courts deemed insufficient [for deterrence purposes in case of flagrant conducts Read case on pg 72 on this topic.] Most jurisdictions required award of compensatory damage before allowing punitive damage Most high punitive damage awards are reversed on appeal Some jurisdictions prohibit punitive damages Most have statutory limitation on the amount and there has been many constitutional challenges to allowing this kind of damages [See Gryc v Dayton-Hudson Corp for elements of punitive damages]

80 Ph t ại v , Ph t d n m t ại ại ằng ặc không là lỗi

81 M c đích ph t là ch dùng đ th uy, đ cho ng ụng ại ỉ có ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ị, kháng nghị ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ường i khác s khi hành vi có tính đ i b i, t m b y, ác ý g n ợp lệ ồm: ại ầm ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ầm nh đi t i “criminal” ư ớ tố

NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION

The most general cause of action that is available for accidents is negligence. Motor-vehicle accidents, slip-and-falls 82 , and most kinds of medical malpractice are negligence cases There are five elements to the cause of action for negligence.

General rule (CÓ THI): A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case for negligence by showing: (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of due care 83 ,

(2) the defendant breached that duty, and that breach was (3) an actual cause 84 and (4) a proximate cause 85 of (5) an injury to the plaintiff's ion or physical property.

 Nghĩa là, b đ n n nguyên đ n b n ph n chăm sóc, mà nh ng trách nhi mị, kháng nghị ơng tích, thiệt hại ợp lệ ơng tích, thiệt hại ổn phận ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ệt hại này ph i đản án, Phán quyết ượp lệc foreseeable, ph i n m trong “danger zone” mà D ph i ch u tráchản án, Phán quyết ằng ản án, Phán quyết ị, kháng nghị nhi m (Có danger zone, có foreseeability), nghĩa là ph i n m trong s mệt hại ản án, Phán quyết ằng ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ườngng tượp lệng c a D “the way of thinking”, mà D có th control.ủa bồi ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net

Negligence thay đ i theo t ng th i đi m, th i gian, t ng lo i v vi c (hôm nayổn phận ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ờng ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ờng ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ại ụng ệt hại là negligence, ngày mai ch a ch c là negligence)ư

NEGLIGENCE DEFINED

Negligence is conduct which poses an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

Elements of a cause of action for negligence: duty, breach, causation, damage (some actual losses must occur before breach is actionable-nominal damage cannot be recovered)

82 Đ t ặc không là lỗi v chu i ỏi qua hỏi lại, (ii) questionaire, (iii) witness)

83 Phản án, Phán quyếti có “due care”

84 “Negligence” ph i là lý do chính gây ra t i n n ản án, Phán quyết ại ại

85 Hệt hại qu , có s liên h t i cái defendant có th foresee đ ản án, Phán quyết ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ệt hại ớ tố ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ượp lệ c Ph i foresee thì m i proximate cause ản án, Phán quyết ớ tố

THE CONCEPT OF DUTY

Duty as a manifestation of a "value judgment-policy” 86 which subject to the limited-duty rules [e.g as exemplified in the case of falling to aid another who's in peril; injuries sustained on D’s premises.]

CASE QUAN TR NG: General rule based on [Palsgraft v Long Island RailroadỌC GIÁO TRÌNH Co." freed pg 76.] Showing two ways of defining negligence (1) Dissenting opinion given orthodox view of "universal negligence- every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts which may unreasonably threaten the safety of others vs (2) Majority (4-3/opinion stating that lacking a

"without foreseeability factor, there could be no duty ta obry This is a limited definition of "relational negligence-where a duty runs only to those who are within the foreseeable ambit of danger-a risk is reasonably to be perceived, then there is a duty to be obeyed.

Concept of "proximate cause"-"danger zone"-"matter of policy” The CENTRAL CONCERN IS NOT with duty BUT with whether the D's conduct has breached the duty that was owed to the P (i.e whether the D has acted unreasonably)  Nghĩa là n u D có hành vi unreasonable thì ph i có trách nhi m v i P.ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ản án, Phán quyết ệt hại ớ tố

Translation of foreseeability and perceivable risk: the burden of proving negligence (the foreseeability of harm and failure to exercise care) lies with the plaintiff The mere fact that an accident has occurred and that harm has resulted is not sufficient basis for the imposition of liability under negligence principles[Read Cohen v Petty, where the driver of a car was stricken ill, causing the crash.The key issue is foreseeability for negligence be established]

THE NEGLIGENCE BALANCING TEST

What is the required degree of foreseeability before there is a duty to exercise care (đ ng ý là ph i có foreseeability nh ng m c đ foreseeabilityồi thường tai nạn lao động – 1 tai nạn ả) ưu ý ức độ foreseeability ộng – 1 tai nạn là bao nhiêu) (i.e what degree of foresight is sufficient to require preventive action, before there is a duty to the plaintiff)

The fact that there is a remote possibility (possibility không đ , ph i làủi ro) ả) remote possibility) of personal and property injury damage is not ordinarily enough (when the possibility of harm to P is too small-for negligence to lie, harm must be 'not merely possible, but PROBABLE)

86 Có th thay đ i theo t ng ng ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ổn phận ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ường i

As the gravity of harm increases, the apparent likelihood of its occurrence may be correspondingly less for duty to lie.

One of the factors in the balancing consideration is in weighing the burden to bear in avoiding the risk

Negligence inquiry also take into account of utility of D's conduct and availability of alternatives (TORT 5/12/2023 (1) PHÚT TH 52)Ứ 52)

Consideration of technology advance and change in circumstances, conduct once considerable may naw deemed negligent

THE REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD

Conduct of a reasonable person 88 may be established in any of the following 4 standards:

(1) ad hoc basis Whether a particular D acted reasonably under the circumstances of the particular case.

(2) stand of reasonability may be established by judicial decisions Later cases which deviated require findings of D acting unreasonably and breaching on the part of D

(3) standard of conduct may be defined in statutes through legislative body

(4) even if legislative enactment does not expressly establish standard (e.g. criminal statute re driving while under influence) court may find the legislation is adequately calls for appropriate behaviors.

Note: Bona fide to the best of judgment is not a defense to D's judgment Good faith is not enough.

Note: A reasonable person is not a super coutious person But facts which are known to most people within a geographical are imputed to a person, even coming from a different place Thus, city dweller on vacation in Ben Tre would know that overhanging sau rieng may drop on their head! Or you may expect fishbone in a fish disk, and not expect to find one in the beef bowl.

The existence of an emergency does not change the standard of care E.g In Young v Clark, 814 P.2d 364 (Colo 1991), emergency leading to a rear-end

87 M i ỗi hay “nhóm đ i t ượp lệ ng” sẽ có tiêu chu n riêng ẩn

88 Reasonable person: ng ường i bi t truy lý ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net collision was caused by actions of unknown drivers several cars ahead, D was entitled to a jury instruction on emergency and the verdict for D (instruction: a person through no fault of her own, is placed in a sudden emergency, is not chargeable with negligence ) A few states have abolish this rule giving emergency instruction to the jury Even if the D is entitled to emergency instruction, the jury may still find that D acts unreasonably (follow too close, sudden swerve to avoid to avoid hitting object on roadway.)

Physical handicap is a relevant circumstance, but doen not change standard of care (e.g a blind person walking on a public street.

Jehovah Witness case involving refuse to allow blood transfusion Held to be relevant factor, but does not change the standard of care

Xác đ nh đị, kháng nghị ượp lệc xác xu t c a trendất cẩn ủa bồi

Xác su t cao bi n thành possibleất cẩn ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net

Children standard is more subjective than the ordinary reasonable-person standard The rule is: "children are normally to to be judged on a special standard, namely whether their conducts measures up to the level of care that would be execised under the similar circumstances by a child of like age".

The maximum age children's standard has been applied is 17, some court apply a non-adult standard only for children below 14 A number of jurisdiction has set a category of a "rebuttable presumption" in favor of child capacity to commit negligence (for children between 7-14 for children under 7, deemed incapable of committing negligence)

Gen Rule: "Permanently insane persons are liable for their torts No allowance is made for the fact that actors is more excitable, less intelligent, more careless, or poorer judgment The mental deficiency or insanity is disregarded" HOWEVER, the gen rule us subject to qualification of sudden incapacity NOT under actor's control, or sudden insanity It's umfair to hold the actor responsible for case of

89 Khi m ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net năng, khi m l c ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause sudden heart attack, epileptic seizures not anticipated by D [here, there's no deterrence value if we hold the actor responsible!]

A few courts holds that if one is unable to control one’s action (as opposed to

“understand” the nature and the consequence of one's act), liability may not be imposed Most jurisdictions hold that an actor's mental deficiency is always relevant to the issue of contributory negligence In case if a plaintiff's actions are completely devoid of reason, a court may rule that there is no contributory negligence as a matter of law.

 Theo tiêu chu n c a ngẩn ủa bồi ườngi điên Ngườngi điên kinh niên ph i ch u tráchản án, Phán quyết ị, kháng nghị nhi m cho hành vi c a mình Ngệt hại ủa bồi ườngi điên b t thình lình không ch u trách nhi mất cẩn ị, kháng nghị ệt hại cho hành vi c a mình.ủa bồi

5.6 SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE, TRAINING, OR SKILL

Higher standard of care required within established body of special knowledge and clearly recognized standards of performance (professional like doctor, lawyer ) People belong to this group subject to the standard of care defined with reference to this group Clients should not have to wonder whether a certain lawyer or doctor possess the skill required of an ordinary member (not average) of the group.

On greater experience, the general rule is it does not change the standard of care But, a professional who claims to be a specialist having greater skill than ordinary member of a profession like certified specialist in certain field, orthopedic for instance) must conform to a higher standard of care.

In absence of an express agreement, a professional does not impliedly guarantee a successful result E.g., as a lawyer, you only guarantee: 1 possess the minimum degree of leaning, skill, and ability ordinarily possessed by other lawyers 2 will exercise personal best judgment, and 3 will pursue the cause with reasonable care and diligence Unsuccessful result does not imply negligence.

An attorney owes duty of care to anyone who becomes a client Obligation(limited nature) may also extend to prospective client [who Just engage in preliminary discussion with a view toward entertaining a formal relationship.Some jurisdiction (not all) hold duty of care also extends to Intended third party beneficiary (such as those who would benefit under the will drafted by the attorney A duty may extend to person who foreseeably rely on the documents provided by the attorney, such as opinion letter issued to non-client.

In malpractice claim against counsel in prior criminal proceeding, court require defendant to prove innocent of the crime charged.

Lawyer must refer client to a specialist if, under the circumstances, a reasonably careful lawyer would do so.

In malpractice case, P must prove the lawyer breach the applicable standard of care resulted in damage-error in litigation [e.g if an atty fails to file within the period of statute of limitation, P must establish not only that the deadline was missed, but that had the statute not run, P would have prevailed in the underling action (this coomomly referred to as "litigation within litigation", trial within a trial"]

Expert witness 90 is usually required for a course of conduct to be proven negligent in malpractice cases Lay testimony alone would not be sufficient for a highly technical within the parties' expertise However, when negligence is grossly apparent (such as physician leaving surgical instrument within patient's body after surgery, you don't really need expert to prove negligence.

In malpractice claims, traditionally courts follow the "same community" rule. Modern courts have move away from this requirement, allowing out of area experts to testify, especially in medical malpractice are where local doctors may refuse to testify against their peers In legal malpractice case, court not usually allow out of area testimony Argument against this is based on each state's practice of having their own admission and practice rule standard However, a national standard may logically be applied in certain nationalized fields, such as patent law

JUDGE-MADE STANDARD OF CARE

There are 3 alternative ways for determining what conduct is reasonable:

 Established by legislative enactment which expressly or implicitly provides for civil liability [e.g landlord/tenant statutel] 

 Adopted by the court based on a legislative enactment which does not expressly or implicitly provide for civil liability 

 Established by judicial decision without reliance on legislation CAVEAT: This judge-made standards of conduct may sometimes prove too inflexible to be of much use.

NEGLIGENCE BASED ON VIOLATION OF STATUTE

Negligence as a matter of law if found an act violates a statutory provision Need to check on the following inquiries: Did the statute set the standard of care? Was there an excuse for the violation? What is the procedural effect for the violation? Was the violation causally relate to P's damage? Is recovery barred by available defense?

7.1 STATUTES INTENDED BY LEGISLATURE TO SET STANDARD OF CARE

If the statute expressly provides that a violation of it shall result in civil liability[e.g commercial lessors are required to equip rental space with smoke detectors and states that non-compliance gives an injured tenant "the right to maintain an action for actual damage" suffered as a consequence of the violation.]

If a legislative enactment fails to provide expressly for civil liability, a court may nonetheless find that an intention to do so is mr in the statute.

7.2 STATUTE ADOPTED BY COURT TO SET STANDARD OF CARE

Court may [discretionary] adopt a statutory requirement as standard of care even in cases where the statute is silent on this issue The essential inquiries are: whether P is within the class of person the statute intended to protect, and whether the harm is of the type that was intended to prevent [e.g Pelkey v. Brennan, 13 year old roller skating in Rink where statute prohibit kids under 16 to attend after 7:00PM)

Violation of the law is not ordinarily considered relevant evidence, and therefore not admissible.

7.3 THE EFFECT OF AN UNEXCUSED VIOLATION OF STANDARD-SETTING STATUTE

There are three schools of thought:

 negligence per se: ie negligent in itself or "as a matter of law [eg statute requires driving with lights on in the night Without excuses given by the statute, jury must find D's negligent.

 prima facie negligence: I.e violation of statute raises a presumption of negligence that may be rebutted by showing of adequate excuses If there's no excuse, the jury must find D's negligent.

 some evidence of negligence: unlike in per se and prima facie cases, even if the violation of statute is unexcused, the jury is free to decide the reasonableness of D's conduct The violation of statute is merely some evidence of negligence for the jury to consider.

An actor's excused violation is not negligence A violation is excused when:

 the violation is reasonable because of childhood, physical incapacitation

 the actor did exercise due care but was unable to cope with the situation

 the actor neither knows or should know of the factual circumstances that render the statute applicable (e.g tail light of car unexpectedly burned out )

 violation is due to the confusion way the statute was presented to the public

 compliance with the statute poses greater risk

Compliance with statute does not necessarily establish D acts reasonably. Sometimes, precautions beyond the statute minimum may be required (e.g safe speed during storm vs compliance with minimum speed limit posted.

7.6 STATUTE ALLOWING NO EXCUSE OR DEFENSE 91 i.e imposing a form of strict liability, 4 classes:

 Setting minimum age for employment in certain hazardous occupations

 Prohibiting sale of adulterated foods

 Specifying requirements for the safety of employees, tenants, or patron of business open to the public, or

 Prohibiting the sale to minors of firearms and other articles

SPECIAL STANDARD OF CARE

D (con't) Attempt to distinguish between slight negligence, ordinary negligence, gross negligence.

Note: Automobile Guest Statutes in more than half of states (to avoid none paying passenger suing driver) requiring aggravated negligence as a prerequisite for liability This law proves not workable, widely held to be unconstitutional, or legislative repealed The two justifications: ((1)protection of hospitality and (2) prevention of collusive lawsuits] have been largely rejected by courts However, courts are limited to the following options: 1 applying the law for the instant case, but criticizing it on legal and policy grounds; 2 applying the law to the instant case, but raise doubts whether it will survive constitutional scrutiny; 3. Decline to enforce the law unless it is repass by the legislature (radical option).

91 Có nh ng đi n lu t mà dính vào là kh i defense và kh i excuse ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ỏi qua hỏi lại, (ii) questionaire, (iii) witness) ỏi qua hỏi lại, (ii) questionaire, (iii) witness)

EVIDENCE OF CUSTOM

Evidence of custom is admissible on issue of reasonable conduct, except in extreme case where a custom is negligent as a matter of law (e.g habitual jaywalking in contravention to statute)

Conformance with custom raises an inference of reasonableness, but may be rebutted by other facts E.g despite custom of walking on the left facing the street may be rebutted by facts showing the right has wider shoulder Note: proof of adherence or departure from custom is not an indispensable part of a negligence case For case ruled in favour of following custom, see Low y Park

CIRCUMSTRANCIAL EVIDENCE

In contrast with direct evidence (evidence of disputed facts), circumstantial evidence involves one or more other facts from which the existence or none existence of the fact at issue may be inferred Circumstantial evidence may win out, see Godard v Boston (banana-dried out or fresh- peel case) The fact that the

D acted unreasonably, and therefore negligent, may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence, or by a combination of both [eg eye witness of the archbishop that no one crossed the sandlot may normally convincing, but not as believable as to circumstantial evidence of fresh footprints in the sand] [in

92 Bị, kháng nghị đ n thi u n nguyên đ n 1 trách nhi m ph i đàng hoàng x lý h p lý ơng tích, thiệt hại ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ợp lệ ơng tích, thiệt hại ệt hại ản án, Phán quyết ử dụng sai ợp lệ

93 Bị, kháng nghị đ n vi ph m trách nhi m đó ơng tích, thiệt hại ại ệt hại

94 Sự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause vi ph m đó gây ra “actual cause” ại

95 Hệt hại qu , có s liên h t i cái defendant có th foresee đ ản án, Phán quyết ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ệt hại ớ tố ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ượp lệ c Ph i foresee thì m i proximate cause ản án, Phán quyết ớ tố banana peel case, the condition of the banana at the time of slip and fall could serve as circumstantial evidence of how long it has been sitting on the floor No direct evidence needed).

Note: in case involving issues of notice of dangerous condition, notice is required (whether actual or constructive-i.e fishbone) only if the dangerous condition is out of ordinary-e.g wet floor condition while the cleaning lady is working in view at the time of the fall, absent warning sign

III RES IPSA LOQUITUR 96 (CÓ THI)

Elements: this doctrine means "the thing speak for itself" "tu the minh ly

(found in tort law) giving rise to the inference or presumption of negligence One kind of case of circumstantial evidence, in which the jury may reasonably infer both negligence and causation from the mere occurrence of the event and the D's relation to it" This eases the plaintiff of the burden of having to prove by giving inference of something (some jurisdictions even allow presumption) showing D's negligence, despite in absence of evidence of how the D actually behaved.

Exclusive control: is necessary but not always required Need showing exclusive at the time the accident takes place, not all time.

Superior Knowledge: influencial but not always required, and

Rebuttability: prevailing view: due care evidence does not preclude reliance on res ipsa logquitur doctrine, see Cox v Northwest (pg 109), because crash still remained wholly unexplained (ok for the jury to consider but NOT sufficient for a 'directed verdict'.) IT IS only in those instances where P does not and cannot know how the accident occuured that there is a need to employ the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Specific Allegation or Proof (KHÔNG THI): where P, in P's complaint, alleges negligent act on the part of D., is P precluded from also relying on the res ipsa doctrine? Courts differ widely from yes to no.

Fault on the part of Plaintiff: issue of comparative or contributory negligence in relation to the doctrine of res ipsa lo loquitur on the part of P In old time, for res ipsa loquitur to apply, the P has to prove that the negligence which caused the injury was more likely than not tributable to the D, rather than P Modernly, no need.

96 Tự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause th minh lý, t đ a ra lý lẽ t i sao ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ư ại

Applying against multiple D: the appendectomy case- P sustained injury to shoulder, pg 111 Court allow raising issue of res ipsa to each D, and let each tried to rebut the presumption but all D were liable as a team.

Procedural Effects: 3 schools of thought: (1) majority: the doctrine creates only inference of negligence This satisfies P's burden of production and will find negligence on the part of D This will allow a possible directed verdict for P (2) minority: raises the presumption of negligence and shift the burden of production of evidence or the burden of persuasion to D If there's no evidence to rebut P's allegation, the burden falls on D to prove with a preponderance of evidence that D's not negligence (3) shifting the burden of proof going forward D will be in the position having to reveal the information.

 Ngườngi ch ng là ngứng ườngi có responsibilities ph i ch ng, “direct evidence” làản án, Phán quyết ứng quan tr ng nh t, “circumstancial evidence” suy đ nh t v t th A ra B Cọng, bổn phận ất cẩn ị, kháng nghị ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net

Ngường ị, kháng nghịi b ch ngứng

Ngường ượp lệi đ c ch ngứng

B n 2 viên đ n, ch 1 viên đ n trúngại ỉ có ại

Ngườngi b n không trúng thì not liable

IV SPOILIATION OF EVIDENCE (KHÔNG THI)

THE BUT-FOR TEST

Causation is divided into two very different aspects: Factual causation and proximate or legal causation

 Factual causation 97 : is what actually occurred, focus on whether D's conduct in fact caused injury to P One way to meet this requirement is to show that "but for" the D's conduct, harm would not have occurred (sau ch “but for” là factual)ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại

 Proximate causation 98 : concerned with issue of policy; it ask whether, even when there is a factual-cause relationship between the D's act and P's injury, there is good reason that the D should not be held liable The test for proximate causation is foreseeability (its fair to hold D liable for harm that should have been foreseen and avoided) See William, out of gas case (l pận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause lu n c a các th m phán là proximate)ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ủa bồi ẩn

 Mu n b t đ n, thì ph i có causation mà causation g m factual vàền tài phán ản án, Phán quyết ồm: proximate Ph i có c 2 causation thì m i b t đ n đản án, Phán quyết ản án, Phán quyết ớ tố ền tài phán ượp lệc Factual ph i có, n uản án, Phán quyết ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net factual không có thì ph i có proximate N u factual có mà proximate không có thìản án, Phán quyết ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net không b t đ n đền tài phán ượp lệc Nghĩa là, ph i có proximate thì m i b t đ n đản án, Phán quyết ớ tố ền tài phán ượp lệc Ch m iỉ có ỗi hay m i quan h nhân qu th c t i thì không đ đ b t đ n, ph i có thêm m i quanệt hại ản án, Phán quyết ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ại ủa bồi ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ản án, Phán quyết h nhân qu pháp lý.ệt hại ản án, Phán quyết

Trong đ , sau ch “but for” là “factual causation”.ền tài phán ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại

N u nguyên do t nhi u phía, thì các phía đ u ph i ch u trách nhi m, dù 1 bênếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán ền tài phán ản án, Phán quyết ị, kháng nghị ệt hại đã đ damage.ủa bồi

[EX] Đ ng xe đèn đ , ông A đ ng B ụng ỏi qua hỏi lại, (ii) questionaire, (iii) witness) ụng  factual là ông A đ ng B do vụng ượp lệt đèn đ ,ỏi qua hỏi lại, (ii) questionaire, (iii) witness) nh ng proximate là ông A đ ng B do vư ụng ượp lệt đèn đ nh ng vì lý do khác.ỏi qua hỏi lại, (ii) questionaire, (iii) witness) ư

Even if the requirements of the but-for rule are not met, factual causation is established if two or more causes concur in bringing about the harm, and either

97 M i quan h nhân qu ố tụng) ệm triệt để) ả) th c t i ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ại

98 legal cause – m i quan h nhân qu pháp lý ệt hại ản án, Phán quyết one alone would have been sufficient to cause the result Anderson case: 2 fires, one set by D, one of unknown origin resulted in P's property was destroyed.

A P is not required to establish factual causation with absolute certainty It is sufficient that D's conduct is "more likely than not", see Reynold, Kramer andSaelzler

THE "LOSS OF CHANCE" DOCTRINE

Because D's conduct must "more likely than not" have cause harm to P, it is important to consider what qualifies as "harm"

Some courts hold that loss the chance to cure a disease or other medical problem qualifies as harm

While large number of jurisdictions have accepted loss-of-chance rule in medical malpractice case, several have rejected it In substitute, these courts talk about "liability for increase risk of harm", which is similar, but not identical.

MULTIPLE FAULT AND ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY (KHÔNG THI)

Normally, P must prove causation by a preponderance of evidence However, there are cases where that burden is eased, or shifted to D (e.g res ipsa loquitur, by inference or presumption, aiding P in proving breach of duty and causation). One group falls under the heading "multitude of fault and alternative liability": Summers v Tice Two Ds fired at the same time, causing P losing an eye Court held it's unreasonable to require P to prove which D caused the injury The burden of proof on the issue of who shot shifted to the Ds Each would be held liable unless prove that he's not responsible for the harm Under this, the burden of proof shift only in cases where it is shown that all Ds are negligent.

CONCERTED-ACTION LIABILITY

Suit may be maintained against a person who stood in a particular relationship to the wrongdoer A person who encourage or otherwise aided in the misconduct of the primary actor, could be held fully responsible for the resulting injury The extent participation is a question of fact for the jury to determine Two basic forms of concerted-action liability: A CIVIL CONSPIRACY (concerted action by agreement], include (1) an agreement between two or more persons, (2) to participate in unlawful act in an unlawful manner, (3) an injury is caused by an

99 Chỉ có c n n m s lý thuy t, không c n nh case ầm ơng tích, thiệt hại ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ầm ớ tố unlawful overt act performed by one parties to the agreement; (4) which overt act was done pursuant to and in furtherance of the common scheme B AIDING-

AND-ABETTING: include (1) the party whom D aids must perform a wrongful act that causes injury; (2) Ds must be generally aware of his or her role as part of an overall illegal or tortious activities at the time assistance is provided, and (3) D must knowingly and substantially assist the principal violation.

JOINT ENTERPRISE: another form of concerted action Joint Ent Can include a partnership (1) an agreement, express or implied, among the members of the group; (2)a common purpose to be carried out by the group; (3) a community of pecuniary interest in that purpose, among the members; and (4) an equal righto a voice in the direction of the enterprise, which give an equal right of control

INCITEMENT 100 : (incitement of tortious conduct) Words frequently play significant role in establishing the predicate for concerted-action liability such as the theory of tortious "incitement" (caveat on issue of first amendment) For tortious "incitement" to arise, P has to establish that the publication went beyond advocacy and amounted to incitement, and that incitement was directed to imminent action Liability rest on the determination of clear and present danger test.

APOLICY DECISION ON FAIRNESS

If tortious conduct which meets the requirement of factual causation is not also a proximate cause of the harm, there is no tort liability.

Proximate cause is an aspect of tort law which tend to limit liability based on the premise that justice often requires that one should not automatically be held liable for all of the consequences of one's action, particularly if the result is unexpected The Restatement of Torts termed proximate cause as the "scope of liability”

THE DIRECT-CAUSATION AND FORESEEABILITY VIEWS

There are two perspectives on how best to decide when to limit liability: direct-causation view and the foreseeability view.

 Direct-causation paradigm: liability extends to any harm flows in an unbroken stream from actor's tortious conduct, no matter how unforeseen the harm may have been at the time the act occurred (when the damage is directly traceable to the negligent act See Polemis case) Today, some jurisdiction follows this view, stating that "proximate cause is one that produces an injury through a natural and continuous sequence of events unbroken by any effective Intervening cause."

 In contrast, in the foreseeability paradigm, other courts found that current ideas of "justice" argued against saying that a venial (slight) act of negligence, an actor should be liable for all direct consequences, however foreseeable and grave-see Wagon Mound

MODIFIED FORESEEABILITY

 Dùng đ xác đ nh proximate causation (t l p lu n c a các Th m phán màển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ị, kháng nghị ừ điển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ủa bồi ẩn ra)

Modern view favors a modified foreseeability, L.e “a tortfeasor need only foresee the broad outline of the harm in order to be held responsible:

 First It's never necessary for D to foresee the identity of the particular P It is enough if there is a danger of harm to the class of person for which P is a member.

 Second The D need not anticipate the precise manner of the occurrence (e.g gun to child is negligent whether fire when triggered or fire when drop) NOTE: the result must be within the risk created by the D's conduct, if not, there's no liability.

 IN SUMMARY: current prevailing views:

 The P must fall within the class of persons foreseeably endangered by D's conduct

 The broad outline of the harm must be foreseeable but the details need not be anticipated by D.

 The result must fall within the scope of the risk that make D's conduct negligent or otherwise tortious

 Foresight of remote possibility of harm may be sufficient

 In personal injury cases, some physical harm is foreseeable is ok No need for the full extent of injury to be foreseeable

 Foresight of the complete extent of harm is not required, but need "same general sort expectation

 In rare case, proximate cause may be disregarded if the injury is too tenuous and too remote to require D pay compensation

SUPERSEDING CAUSATION (QUAN TR NG NH T) ỌNG NHẤT) ẤT)

Distinguish intervening and superseding causes:

 “Intervening cause 101 " is a force which comes into play AFTER the tortious act has occurred and actively contributes to the production of the harm for which recovery is sought E.g strong wind arises after the negligent conduct of D which caused the fire and contribute to the damage of P's home (EX: Đ t l a nử dụng sai ướ tống th t, t t l a nh ng còn nhóm nhén l a, gióị, kháng nghị ử dụng sai ư ử dụng sai th i làm bùng cháy nhà c a P, P ki n D, D nói n u không có gió thì sẽổn phận ủa bồi ệt hại ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net không có thi t h i x y ra ệt hại ại ản án, Phán quyết  trong trườngng h p này gió là intervening causeợp lệ

101 Nguyên nhân can thi p, nguyên nhân ngăn gi a ệt hại ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại

(intervening ph i không có foreseeability) (Khác v i nguyên nhân chínhản án, Phán quyết ớ tố gây ra thi t h i, vì n u nguyên nhân chính gây ra thi t h i là gió, thì Dệt hại ại ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ệt hại ại không c n b i thầm ồm: ườngng)

 "Superseding cause" 102 is also an intervening cause which strong enough to prevent the antecedent tortious conduct from being a proximate cause of related injury In this case, it cancels the antecedent actor's liability for the subsequent harm Again, this raises the issue of foreseeability: [If either (a) the intervening force (heavy rain) or (b) the harm which ultimately ensues (the destruction of the cottage) is reasonably foreseeable, the actor's liability for the subsequent consequences of antecedent tortious conduct is not superseded In other words, if the intervening force is foreseeable, it must be guarded against If the force is not foreseeable, but the ultimate damage should be anticipated, the intervening force is irrelevant.

End result within the risk (foreseeable end result): See derdiarian case

Foreseeable Intervening Acts do not break the chain of proximate causation: See Kimble's case The roof blown off.

Exception to the General Rule: There are 2 exceptions to the general rule stating that "an intervening cause does not preclude a finding of proximate causation if either the new force or the end result is foreseeable" (1) if the D's conduct in no way increases the risk of harm (like the rule in factual causation, e.g D causes accident, traffic stop, then lightning strike, here D's conduct does not multiply chances of harm to P); and (2) Even if ultimate harm is foreseeable, liability is superseded by intervention of unforeseen criminal or intentionally tortious conduct (e.g accident, P falls off bike, thief uses occasion to rip off neck lace, D's not responsible for the ultimate loss of the neck lace.

Intervening Criminal or Intentionally Tortious Conduct: Require opportunity to anticipate harm before held liable (girl raped in bad corner of apt complex, liable because there was prior crimes happened there, would not be liable if there was no prior incidents.) see Nixon case See also Watson pg 137

"Normal" Developmenta: See Marshall v Nugent pg 138

102 Nguyên nhân ngăn ch n không cho phép mình nghĩ l i đ u tiên là tác nhân chính th c gây thi t h i c a ặc không là lỗi ỗi hay ầm ứng ệt hại ại ủa bồi plaintiff  đ ượp lệ c dùng đ defendant có th đ ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ượp lệ c gi m nh , ho c mi n trách nhi m b i th ản án, Phán quyết ẹ ặc không là lỗi ễn trừ chủ quyền ệt hại ồm: ường ng

The Rescue Doctrine: 2 rules: * normal rescue efforts do not break the chain of proximate causation, and *an injured rescuer's claim against the creator of the peril cannot usually be frustrated by claims of lack of proximate causation, [ordinary rescue efforts, and the risk that they will produce harm to the rescuer or the imperiled victim, are risks that are foreseeable as a matter of law as a result of the tortious conduct of the one who created the peril Note Altamuro case pg 139-140.

RESTATEMENT, SECOND, OF TORT SEC 402A

WHO IS A SELLER? Manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers of new products

(questionable on non-manufacturer sellers who are not responsible for the existence of defects should not be strictly liable (some states have legislation restricting to just negligence) Question on strict liability for commercial used products (courts are split on this) Restatement 3rd, limits the liability of a commercial seller of a used product to harm caused by negligence.

PRODUCT VS SERVICE: Provider of services rather than mere sellers exempted from strict liability (e.g pharmacies) Also note "blood shield laws" to protect blood bank.

UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE PRODUCTS: Exemption made for the unavoidable unsafe products like prescription drugs.

TYPES OF DEFECTS: manufacturing defects; design defects; and failure to warn.

MANUFACTURING DEFECT

Strict liability means P need not show that D act unreasonably.

P just have to show defect

Problems with proving defect after product has left manufacture's hand

DESIGN DEFECT

 Bàn v “s an toàn” c a s n ph m, không bàn v x u đ p Đây là strictền tài phán ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ủa bồi ản án, Phán quyết ẩn ền tài phán ất cẩn ẹ liability nên không có foreseeability nh ng khi so sánh v “đ an toàn” thì v nư ền tài phán ội ẫn c n foreseeability.ầm

More difficult because P must prove the plan was no good The central issue is whether the "product is safe enough" when in reality there is no perfect safety.

103 Sự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause sai sót trong quá trình s n xu t ản án, Phán quyết ất cẩn

104 Sự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause sai sót trong quá trình thi t k ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net

This requires the factfinder to compare the actual product with a "hypothetical product"

NOTE: the utility of the product is balanced against its danger IN FACT, not a foreseeable danger See Larson's court

FAILURE TO WARN

Under Product Liability, a strict liability action may based on failure to warn A warning of danger may be inadequate if the warning does not: (1) specify the risk, (2) disclose the reason for warning: or (3) reach foreseeable users [issue: adequacy of the warning Compliance with Federal regs give rise to presumption of adequacy and may entitle D to a summary judgment.

If Padmits to not have read the inadequate warning cannot recover under failure to warn theory [Read pg 218]

 Plaintiff mu n ki n ph i ch ng “warn” c a ngệt hại ản án, Phán quyết ứng ủa bồi ườngi ta không đ ủa bồi

Warantee 106 c a contract ch không ph i tortủa bồi ứng ản án, Phán quyết

THE THIRD RESTATMENT, AND THE DEFINITION OF "DEFECT

Read bottom part of page 218

DAMAGE TO THE PRODUCT ITSELF

See East River Steamship Turbine self damaged, Statute has run on contract warranty so the buyer attempted to sue under product liability Court found no tort causation existed.

THESTATE-OF-THE ART DEFENSE

Issue: "the danger condition was not known at the time the product was sold."

No warning was possible given the technology at the time Courts are split on this.

105 Thi u ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net s c nh báo ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ản án, Phán quyết

106 Sự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause b o đ m ản án, Phán quyết ản án, Phán quyết

REFORM OF PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW

TORT

Tort is conduct that harms other people or their property It is a private wrong against a person for which the injured person may recover damages, i.e. monetary compensation The injured party may sue the wrongdoer (tortfeasor) to recover damages to compensate for the harm or loss incurred.

The conduct that is a tort may also be a crime 107

Some torts require intent before there will be liability and some torts require no intent In other words, in some cases, there is liability for a tort even though the person committing the tort did not have any intent to do wrong.

There are basically three types of torts: intentional torts, torts based on negligence and strict liability torts.

An intentional tort is a civil wrong that occurs when the wrongdoer engages in intentional conduct that results in damage to another Striking another person in a fight is an intentional act that would be the tort of battery Striking a person accidentally would not be an intentional tort since there was not intent to strike the person This may, however, be a negligent act Careless conduct that results in damage to another is negligence 108

The intent element of these torts is satisfied when the tortfeasor 109 acts with the desire to bring about harmful consequences and is substantially certain that such consequences will follow 110 Mere reckless behavior, sometimes called

107 hành vi gây ra vi ph m dân s cũng có th gây ra t i trong hình s (EX: đánh b đ u ch y máu, thì ại ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ội ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ầm ản án, Phán quyết trong hình s có t i v gây th ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ội ền tài phán ương tích, thiệt hại ng tích )

108 Hành vi vô ý gây ra thi t h i cho ng ệt hại ại ường i khác là “negligence”

109 Ng ường i gây h i, k gây l i ại ẻ ỗi hay

110 Đ ng ồm: nghĩa v i “purpose” + “knowledge” ớ tố willful and wanton behavior, does not give rise to the level of an intentional tort 111

If a person commits an intentional tort, this means that he intentionally violated a legal duty 112 he owed to the victim This is different from a negligent tort, in which the tortfeasor violated the duty that every member of society has to exercise reasonable care in their actions with others.

The distinction between an intentional tort and a negligent tort is important for several reasons First, if an individual wants to sue for an intentional tort, he must prove that the tortfeasor acted with "intent." This is a separate legal requirement that the plaintiff must fulfil, in addition to proving all the other facts of the case and proving actual damage.

Strict liability, sometimes called absolute liability, is the legal responsibility for damage 113 , or injury, even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent - the injured party is not required to prove fault-liability is strict An example of strict liability is injury caused by wild animals in the care of the tortfeasor; because the tortfeasor owns tigers, the tortfeasor is responsible for any injury, without the need for the injured party to prove negligence.

1.3 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CRIMES AND TORTS

A crime is a wrong arising from a violation of a public duty 114 A tort is a wrong arising from the violation of a private duty 115 Again, however, a crime can also constitute a tort For example, assault is a tort, but it is also a crime A person who is assaulted may bring criminal charges against the assailant and may also sue the assailant for damages under tort law An employee's theft of his employer's property that was entrusted to the employee constitutes the crime of embezzlement as well as the tort of conversion 116 The police may prosecute a

111 Hành vi b t c n quá đ không thu c “intentional tort” ất cẩn ẩn ội ội

112 Legal duty có nhi u d ng Trong negligence, legal “due care – society expect cá nhân khi đ i x l n ền tài phán ại ởng quyền như ử dụng sai ẫn nhau, khi vi ph m nghĩa v ph i due care trong tr ại ụng ản án, Phán quyết ường ng h p nh t đ nh thì ph i b i th ợp lệ ất cẩn ị, kháng nghị ản án, Phán quyết ồm: ường ng” Trong intentional tort, legal duty đ ượp lệ ọng, bổn phận c g i là legal duty.

113 Đây là trách nhi m pháp lý, là pháp lu t đ t đ b t ng ệt hại ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ặc không là lỗi ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ường i đó ch u trách nhi m, không ph i trách ị, kháng nghị ệt hại ản án, Phán quyết nhi m cá nhân, nên không c n h u qu , không c n ch ng minh l i v n ph i b i th ệt hại ầm ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ản án, Phán quyết ầm ứng ỗi hay ẫn ản án, Phán quyết ồm: ường ng.

114 Gi a ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại cá nhân – nhà n ướ tố c

115 Gi a ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại cá nhân – cá nhân

116 Employee l y c p tài s n c a employer (bi n th , chuy n h ất cẩn ản án, Phán quyết ủa bồi ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ủa bồi ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ướ tố ng, can thi p quá m c) (EX: cô thu ngân ệt hại ứng xài ti n vì m c đích cá nhân) ền tài phán ụng crime, and the offender is imprisoned N u employer mu n đòi l i ti n thì d nếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ại ền tài phán ẫn đ n c nh sát n u cô y không h p tác.ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ản án, Phán quyết ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ất cẩn ợp lệ

MAIN TYPES OF TORTS: TRESPASS AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT

A trespass is an unauthorized action with respect to a person or property.

A trespass to the person consists of any contact with someone's person for which consent was not given This is technically described as a battery An assault would be a situation where a plaintiff reasonably believed a battery upon his person was about to be committed An example of an assault would be where one person swings his fist at another person If the person made contact, this would be an assault and battery A defense to assault and battery would be in cases of self-defense.

A trespass to land 117 involves going on or above the property of another without permission A trespass can also involve the unpermitted use of the airspace of another's property as well as actually going on the actual property. However, this rule has been modified to allow the flight of aircraft above the land as long as it does not interfere with the proper use of the land.

A trespass to personal property is the use of someone's property without the person's permission A conversion occurs when personal property is taken by a defendant and kept from its true owner without permission of the owner 118 Conversion is the civil side of the crime of theft The concept is based on the tortfeasor converting something to their own use It also requires an intention to deprive 119 the true owner of their ownership-so if you put a mobile in your pocket thinking it was yours it would not be conversion.

False imprisonment 120 involves detaining a person without that person's consent It can take the extreme form of kidnapping or the less extreme form of detaining a shopper for suspected shoplifting without reasonable grounds.

117 Khi lái xe l m vô đ a bàn c a ng ầm ị, kháng nghị ủa bồi ường i khác, v n đ ẫn ượp lệ c xem là trespass to land vì có intent, không quan tâm có đi l c hay không ại

118 Làm cho ng ường i khác m ất cẩn t c h i s d ng đ c a chính h cũng là trespass to personal property ơng tích, thiệt hại ội ử dụng sai ụng ồm: ủa bồi ọng, bổn phận

120 N u nh ch đó có th d dàng thoát đ ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ư ỗi hay ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ễn trừ chủ quyền ượp lệ c thì không b ki n v false imprisonment Uy hi p v tinh ị, kháng nghị ệt hại ền tài phán ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ền tài phán th n, uy hi p s nh c nhã cũng là false imprisonment ầm ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ụng

A defense to false imprisonment would be consent of the detainee, or if a store owner had reasonable grounds to believe that the detainee was guilty of shoplifting (shopkeeper's privilege) This privilege allows a store owner (or his employee) to detain a suspected shoplifter based on reasonable suspicion for a reasonable time.

A customer was shopping at the handbag counter of the defendant's store She did not make any purchase and left the store When she was a few feet outside the store, an employee of the store tapped her lightly on the shoulder to attract her attention and asked her if she had made any purchase When she inquired why, the employee asked, "What about that bag in your hand?" The customer said that it belonged to her and she opened it to show by its contents that it was not a new bag The employee gave the customer a "real dirty look" and went back into the store without saying a word The customer then sued the store for false imprisonment Was the store liable? No Judgment would be for the store There was no false imprisonment because there was no actual.

MAIN TYPES OF TORTS: NEGLIGENCE AND MALPRACTICE

Negligence is a failure to follow the degree of care that would be followed by a reasonably prudent person in order to avoid foreseeable harm A person can be negligent if he or she acts with less care than a reasonable person would use under similar circumstances.

Bob drove a car on a country road at 35 miles an hour The maximum speed limit was 45 miles an hour He struck and killed a cow that was crossing the road. The owner of the cow sued Bill for the value of the cow Bill said that since he was not driving above the speed limit, there could be no liability for negligence Was this defense valid? No A person must at all times act in the manner in which a reasonable person would act under the circumstances The fact that Bill was driving within the speed limit was only one of the circumstances to consider The weather or the condition of the road may have made it unreasonable to drive at

35 miles an hour Driving slower than the speed limit does not in and of itself prove that the driver was acting reasonably.

The reasonable person standard varies in accordance with the situation The degree of care required of a person is that which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances This does not necessarily mean a degree of care that would have prevented the harm from occurring The elements required to establish negligence are: the presence of duty; a voluntary act or failure to act (an omission) that breaches the duty; proximate causation of harm; and damage (i.e., the breach of duty causes harm to the plaintiff) 121

Torts involve duties created by law Just because someone is hurt does not mean that someone else must pay for the harm There must have been a duty which has been breached A plaintiff will not be allowed to recover from a defendant if the defendant did not breach a duty that was owed to the plaintiff. For example, if a burglar breaks into my house and trips over an item of furniture,

I am not liable to the burglar because I had no duty to him However, if a guest in my house trips over a piece of furniture, I may have a duty to that guest The breach of duty must result from a voluntary act or failure to act.

In order for someone to be legally responsible for damage, it is necessary to show that the wrongful act was the proximate cause of the harm The injury must be shown to be the natural and probable result or consequence of the alleged act of negligence The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligence proximately caused the Plaintiff's injury There may be more than one proximate cause of an accident.

The final element of negligence is damages A plaintiff may recover monetary damages to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses such as lost wages and medical expenses A plaintiff may also recover non-economic losses such as for pain and suffering The former are claimed on a normal accounting basis, and the latter are at the discretion of the judge.

Malpractice is a failure by a physician or other professional to use the skill and care that other members of their profession would use under similar circumstances When an accountant, doctor, attorney, or some other professional contracts to perform services, there is a duty to exercise skill and care.

121 Trong 1 v ki n t ng dân s , ph i nghĩ actual causes, nh ng ch a đ ph i có thêm proximate cause và ụng ệt hại ụng ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ản án, Phán quyết ư ư ủa bồi ản án, Phán quyết cu i cùng là damage

122 tác nghi p b t chu n, làm vi c sai kỹ thu t ệt hại ất cẩn ẩn ệt hại ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause  dùng reasonable standard c a nh ng ng ủa bồi ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ường i chung cùng

NUISANCE

Nuisance is a civil wrong, consisting of anything wrongfully done or permitted that interferes with or annoys others in the enjoyment of their legal rights It is anything that annoys or disturbs the free use of one's property or that renders its ordinary use or physical occupation uncomfortable A nuisance is anything that interferes with the rights of citizens, the enjoyment of their property, or their comfort It is to be noted that an unreasonable interference with another person's use and enjoyment of his/her property is determined by the injury caused by the condition and is not determined by the conduct of the party creating the condition.

A nuisance is differentiated from a trespass to land 124 A trespass is an invasion of a person's interest in the exclusive possession of their land whereas a nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of the land and does not require interference with the possession.

A person injured by a nuisance can recover damages in an action at law for tort Similarly, damages can also be recovered for injury resulting from the legal use of a property, if such use substantially damages the property of another.

Nuisances are divided into different subheads such as nuisances per se 125 , public 126 or common nuisances, private nuisances, etc.

A public nuisance exists when an act or condition is subversive of public order or constitutes an obstruction of public rights In other words, a public nuisance involves an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public In order to constitute a public nuisance, it is not necessary that it affects the whole community It is a public nuisance if the injury or annoyance affects the people of a local neighborhood Public nuisances always arise out of unlawful acts Therefore, acts that are lawful or authorized by a valid statute, or which the public convenience demands, cannot be a public nuisance.

A public nuisance can constitute either a crime or may be the subject of a civil action by public officials or private individuals At common law, the term "public

123 Qu y ất cẩn nhi u ễn trừ chủ quyền

124 Trespass to land là xâm ph m quy n s h u đ t đai Trong khi đó, Nuisance là ánh sáng, âm thanh, ại ền tài phán ởng quyền như ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ất cẩn xâm ph m s h ại ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ưởng quyền như ng d ng c a mình (s an bình, s an nhiên, s yên tĩnh ) trên đ t c a mình ụng ủa bồi ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause ất cẩn ủa bồi

125 Khi th y ch “per se” nghĩa là t mình gây ra ất cẩn ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ự luận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause

126 Public nuisance ch x y ra khi nhà n ỉ có ản án, Phán quyết ướ tố c không cho phép đ làm chuy n đó ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ệt hại nuisance" covers a variety of minor criminal offenses that interfer, for example, with the public health, safety, morals, peace, or convenience Public nuisances include for example, a manufacturer who has polluted a stream and might be fined and be ordered to pay the cost of cleanup Public safety nuisances include shooting fireworks in the streets or storing explosives.

A private nuisance is a civil wrong that affects a single individual or a definite number of persons in the enjoyment of some private right which is not common to the public In other words, a private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the private use and enjoyment of one's land Examples include interference with the physical condition of the land, disturbing the comfort of its occupants, or threatening injury or disturbance in the future.

Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream, or an underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures, e.g, a landowner burning plastic and old tyres so that the smell and smoke affect his neighbours.

DEFAMATION

Defamation is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual The law of defamation protects a person's reputation and good name against communications that are false and derogatory. Defamation consists of two torts: libel and slander 128 Libel consists of any defamation that can be seen, most typically in writing Slander is a form of defamation that consists of making false oral statements about a person which would damage that person's reputation.

If I spread a rumor that my neighbor has been in jail and this is not true, I could be held liable for slander A person is liable for the defamation of another In order to prove defamation, the plaintiff must prove:

128 Cách th c truy n bá t i này làm 2 ph n: ứng ền tài phán ội ầm

 Truy n bá b ng ch (truy n đ n, đăng báo ) thì là “libel” ền tài phán ằng ững hành vi gây thương tích, thiệt hại ền tài phán ơng tích, thiệt hại

 Truy n bá qua mi ng thì là “slander” ền tài phán ệt hại

 that a statement was made about the plaintiff's reputation, honesty or integrity that is not true

 there was publication to a third party (i.e., another person hears or reads the statement) 129 ;

 and the plaintiff suffers damage as a result of the statement 130

Public figures have a more difficult time proving defamation Politicians or celebrities are understood to take some risk in being in the public eye and many of them profit by their public personal A celebrity must prove that the party defaming them knew the statements were false, made them with actual malice 131 (intent to harm), or was negligent in saying or writing them Proving these elements can be an uphill battle However, an outrageously inaccurate statement that's harmful to one's career can be grounds for a successful defamation suit,even if the subject is famous For example, some celebrities have won suits against tabloids for false statements regarding their ability to work, such as an inaccurate statement that the star had a drinking problem.

MAIN TYPES OF TORTS: STRICT LIABILITY

Strict or absolute liability is the legal responsibility for damage or injury, even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault In order to prove strict liability in tort, plaintiff needs to prove only that the tort happened and that the defendant was responsible for the act or omission In the case of strict liability in the USA, neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions is a valid defense A common example of strict liability is imposing product liability in the case of defectively manufactured products.

Strict liability applies especially in cases involving hazardous or dangerous activities.

Generally, liability based on a tort only arises where the defendant either intended to cause harm to the plaintiff or in situations where the defendant is negligent However, in some areas, liability can arise even when there is no intention to cause harm or negligence For example, when a contractor uses dynamite which causes debris to be thrown onto the land of another and

129 Ph i có ng ản án, Phán quyết ường i th 3 nghe, n u không có ng ứng ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ường i th 3 nghe thì ch có th ki n ng ứng ỉ có ển check từ tiếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ệt hại ường i kia v t i s nh c ền tài phán ội ỉ có ụng ch không v t i lăng m ứng ền tài phán ội ại

130 Ph i ản án, Phán quyết có “damage”

131 Ph i ản án, Phán quyết có “ác ý” damages a landowner's house, the landowner may recover damages from the contractor even if the contractor was not negligent and did not intend to cause any harm Basically, society is saying that the activity is so dangerous to the public that there must be liability However, society is not going so far as to outlaw the activity.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Vicarious liability is the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate 133 It is the responsibility of a third party who has the right, ability or duty to control the activities of a violator Typically liability flows from the relationship of master and servant The relationship includes the power to direct the servant in the execution of the duties of his/her employment, and to control the acts that no injury is done to third persons An employer can be held vicariously liable for an employee's tortious act against the person or property of a third party in a transaction of the employer's business If a negligent act is committed by an employee acting within the general scope of her or his employment, the employer will be held liable for damages For example, if the driver of a gasoline delivery truck runs a red light on the way to a gas station and strikes another car, causing injury, the gasoline delivery company will be responsible for the damage if the driver is found to be negligent.

Respondeat Superior (ngườngi trên ch u trách nhi m cho ngị, kháng nghị ệt hại ường ướ tối d i – lo i tráchại nhi m di truy n – th gánh): "Let the master answer" or "look to the one higherệt hại ền tài phán ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net up employer's negligence" - vicariously liable for tortious actions 134 of others-An employée's strict liability conduct may be imputed 135 to an employer if acts occur within the scope of employment (Ngường ất cẩni c p trên ch u “vicarious liability”ị, kháng nghị 136 cho ngường ất cẩni c p dướ tối (employee này ph i under control c a employer) trong trản án, Phán quyết ủa bồi ườngng h p ngợp lệ ường ất cẩni c p dướ tối còn trong “scope of employment”) Tuy nhiên, không ki nệt hại

“independent contractor” 137 v “respondeat superior”ền tài phán

132 Trách nhi m gánh th cho ng ệt hại ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net ường i khác, trách nhi m liên đ i ệt hại ớ tố

133 Ng ường i trên ch u trách nhi m cho ng ị, kháng nghị ệt hại ường ướ tố ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net i d i n u ng ường i trên control ng ường ướ tố i d i, và ng ường ướ tố i d i đang trong “scope of employment” gi ng “Respondeat Superior”

134 Tortious actions: Hành vi gây h i ại

135 Impute: gán t i cho ng ội ường i khác

136 Vicarious liability: Trách nhi m th gánh ệt hại ếng anh pháp lý: Tudienluat.net

137 Independent contractor: Nhà th u đ c l p ầm ội ận, chắc chắn có chương overview, factual cause