法律英语 TORT.ppt

Tort Law 过失侵权 (Negligence) It is the unintentional causing of harm that could have been prevented if the defendant had acted as a reasonable and prudent (理智和谨慎)person. To win a suit of negligence, the plaintiff must establish: 1. the existence of a duty of care, 2. the breach of that duty, 3. injury to the plaintiff, 4. causation between the negligent conduct and the injury. Causation here has two components: cause in fact(事实原因) and proximate cause（直接原因）. if he has not complied with his “duty of care” and ,has not acted as “a reasonable and prudent man”. 如果一个人没有尽到“照看义务”，没有象“一个理性且谨慎的人”那样行事。 palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad（帕斯格拉芙诉长岛火车站案） A man running to board the defendant’s train seemed about to fall; a guard, one of the defendant’s employees, attempting to push him onto the train from behind, dislodged a package from the passenger’s arms. The package, unbeknown to anyone contained fireworks, which exploded when they fell. The shock of the explosion made some scales at the other end of the platform fall down, hitting the plaintiff. Palsgraf sued the railroad, claiming her injury resulted from negligent acts of the employee. The trial court and the intermediate appeals court found for Palsgraf by verdict from a jury, Long Island Rail Road appealed the judgment. 一九二四年八月的一个礼拜天，帕斯格拉芙（Palsgraf）太太和她的女儿正在纽约长岛火车站的站台上等待一辆从纽约去洛克威（Rockaway）海滩的火车。当火车站的两个工作人员帮一位旅客登上一辆已开动的火车时，不小心碰掉了这位旅客携带的一个包裹。孰料包裹内竟是烟花爆竹，掉在铁轨上发生爆炸。爆炸的冲击力将许多英尺外的一杆秤击倒，砸在了帕斯格拉芙太太的头上。受到伤害和惊吓之后，帕斯格拉芙得了严重的口吃症，虽经治疗，但仍未得到完全恢复。而那位携带烟花爆竹的旅客登上火车后去向不明，于是，帕斯格拉芙诉长岛火车站要求赔偿。不幸的是纽约上诉法院（纽约州最高法院）推翻了下级法院做出的有利于帕斯格拉芙的判决，不仅认为她无权从铁路公司获得赔偿，而且裁定她承担铁路公司的诉讼费用。帕斯格拉芙仍经受着口吃、眩晕、头痛和愤怒的折磨。 这是一个令人不可思议的案子。帕斯格拉芙无辜地被伤害，却没有得到任何赔偿。 Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928), was a decision by the New York Court of Appeals (the highest state court in the New York) written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a Supreme Court justice. Palsgraf is a landmark