103 學年 暑期
課程名稱：（中文）
（英文）
美國侵權法
美國侵權法(英文授課)
American Tort Law
課程綱要
開課單位
科法所
永久課號
授課教師：江浣翠 Wan-Tsui Chiang
學分數
3
必/選修
選修
開課年級
*
先修科目或先備能力：（修課生背景及外文能力）
不必具備法律基礎知識，但應有良好的英文閱讀能力。
課程概述與目標：（學習目標與學習結果個別分點說明）
Welcome to Torts!!
Tort law, in simplified definition, consists of the rules governing civil suits for injuries caused
by wrongs to others. Tort cases are as varied as human activities that create risks of injury. In a
motoring society, vehicle accidents are ubiquitous. The product that explodes in someone’s face,
electrocutes its user, or cuts off a limb may become the subject of suit under a classification in tort
law, known as products liability. A doctor who provides substandard health care may face litigation
under the law of medical malpractice. A government that fails to give police protection to an
informant might be subject to tort liability for the revenge killing of that person. When an airplane
blows up, that occurrence may create a number of tort actions against defendants that include the
carrier, the maker of the craft, and governments, both foreign and domestic. Even the most mundane
of everyday incidents, including those literally in one’s own backyard, may be torts. Limbs fall from
one person’s tree onto a neighbor’s home. People slop and fall on oily substances on the supermarket
floor. It is the job of tort law to sort out the justice of these cases within the complex and sometimes
contradictory desires of the broad society, of various classes within society, and even of individuals
themselves.
This course explores intentional torts, negligent torts and strict liability torts. You need to finish
the weekly reading assignments before the weekly class. The reading assignments cover important
cases of Tort law. In the class, we will organize the basic principles of tort law based on those cases.
The Goals of this Course
1. Mastering the core concepts and doctrines of tort law and how to apply them to tort cases.
2. Being familiar with leading cases of tort law.
3. Practicing multiple- choice and essay questions of torts.
Expected Learning Outcomes
1. Students who achieve this course should master the core rules of doctrines of American tort
law.
2. Students should be able to illustrate the origin cases, public policies of those rules and how to
1
apply them to real cases.
3. Students are expected to present leading cases of American tort law fluently after they take
this course.
教科書（請註明書 推薦教科書、參考資料、預習書單：
名、作者、出版社、 MARSHALL S. SHAPO, PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW (2003).
VICTOR E. SCHWARTZ ET AL, PROSSER, WADE AND SCHWARTZ’S TORTS
出版年等資訊）
(2006)
課程大綱
單元主
題
講授
分配時數
內容綱要
講
授
1. Intentional Torts
2. Intentional Torts – Defenses and Privileges
3. Negligence-- Basic Principle of Negligence & The Prudent
Person Standard
4. Negligence- The Professional & Medical Malpractice
5. Negligence—Breach the Duty
6. Negligence –Causation-- Factual Causation- “But For”
Cause
7. Negligence –Causation- Proximate Cause
8. Negligence- More Duty Rules
9. Strict Liability & Vicarious Duty
10. Products Liability & Other Compensation System
11. Negligence- Defenses for Negligence & Immunity
12. Defamation
13. Misrepresentation & Invasion of Privacy
14. Damage
30
案例研
討
示
範
習
作
其
他
備
註
21
教學要點概述：
學期作業、考試、評量︰（評量目標符合那些項目，進行方式及配分比重需個別加以詳細
說明，學期中交待事項需事先寫入課程綱要，如何評量學習成果是否達成）
1. Attendance: 4%
If you cannot attend to any lecture, please email 映辰 and cc to me with your reasons
before the class time. If you have a reasonable cause for your absence, I will not deduct your
points of attendance. Otherwise, your points of attendance will be deducted due to your
absence. We have seventeen classes in this semester. I will not deduct your points of your
absence without on- time reasons for the first time. However, from the second time, I will
deduct 0.25 points of each absence without an on-time email with reasons.
2
2. Performance During the Lessons: 10%
Participation is important to this course. Please share your thoughts with the class and
give others your feedbacks after you hear their opinions. Everyone needs to contribute in
classes.
We will read about 100 cases in this semester. (Do not worry about the quantity. Most of
the cases are very short.) Therefore, each of you will need to be responsible for about 10
cases. You are supposed to give us a short introduction about your responsible cases and
answer some questions. Your performance of such introduction and answers count 10 points.
3. Three Case- Briefs with Your Thoughts about the Cases: 30%
You need to do three written case- briefs of your responsible cases in this semester with
your wonderful thoughts. Each of your briefs with thoughts should not be longer than two
A4 pages (12 Times New Roman/ single- space/ 1 inch margin).
You need to email your case- brief with your thoughts to me and cc to 筠媛 before
12:00AM of the date when the responsible case will be discussed. A late handed-in
assignment will not count points.
4. Final Exam: 56%
The format of the final exam will be confirmed later in the semester. Usually the final
exam will cover multiple- choice and essay questions. In this semester, you are allowed to
write your exam papers in Chinese. However, if you write your exam paper in English, I will
add 3 point to your total points.
How the tests are related to the expected learning outcomes:
American tort law is the fundamental legal course of the law school in the U.S. In order to
help students who have ambition to study in the U.S. in the future, the exam and the discussions
held in class will evaluate the student's ability to reach expected learning outcomes 1~3.
教學方法及教學相關配合事項(如助教、網站或圖書及資料庫等)
Reading assignments will be uploaded on e-campus
排定時間
師生晤談
地點
Saturdays 14:30-15:20PM
MB404
連絡方式
chiangwt@nctu.edu.tw
每週進度表
週
次
上課
日期
課程進度、內容、主題
Introduction
A. Introduction to the Course
1
B. The Map of Torts
An Overview of Modern Tort Liability.
3
C. How to Brief a Case
Intentional Torts
A. Introduction to Intentional Torts
B. Concept of Intent
1. Garratt v. Dailey 17-20
2. Rason v. Kitner 24
3. McGuire v. Almy 25-27
4. Talmage v. Smith 28-29
2
C. Battery
5. Wallace v. Rosen 30-34
6. Fisher V. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.35-36
D. Assault
7. I de S et ux v. W de S
37
8. Western Union Telegraph Co. Hill 37-39
E. False
9. Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman 40-41
Imprisonment
10. Parvi v. City of Jingston 42-44
11. Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing 44-46
Intentional Torts
A. Intentional
1. State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff 50-53
Infliction of
2. Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida 54-56
Emotional Distress
3. Harris v. Jones 57-60
4. Taylor v. Vallelunga 64-65
B. Trespass
3
5. Dougherty v. Stepp 66-67
6. Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co. 68-70
7. Herrin v. Sutherland 70-71
8. Rogers v. Board of Com’rs for Kent County72-73
9. Glidden v. Szybiak 75-76
10. CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. 77-81
C. Conversion
11. Pearson v. Dodd 81-84
Restatement – 85-90
Intentional Torts – Defenses and Privileges
1. Peters v. Menard, Inc. 61
2. Katko v. Britney 62-63
4
3. Brown v. Martinez 64
4. Surocco v. Geary74
5. Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Ins. Co., 75-76
6. Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. 78-79
Negligence-- Basic Principle of Negligence & The Prudent Person Standard
5
History- 131-133
1. Lubitz v. Wells 133
4
2. Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams 135-136
3. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl 138-139
4. Davison v. Snohomish County 139-141
5. Uninted State v. Carroll Towing Co. 141-143
144-145 ( Restatement)
6. Vaughan v. Menlove 145-147
7. Delair v. McAdoo 148-149
8. Trimarco v. Klein 150-153
9. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. 154-157
10. Roberts v. State of Louisiana 157-160
11. Robinson v. Lindsay 161-163
12. Breunig v. American Family Ins. Co. 165-167
Negligence- The Professional & Medical Malpractice
A. The Professional
1. Health v. Swift Wings, Inc. 168-170
2. Hodges v. Carter 173-175
3. Boyce v. Brown 177-180
6
4. Morrison v. MacNamara 181-184
5. Scott v. Bradford 185-189
6. Moore v. The Regents of the University of California 191-194
B. Medical
SAUL LEVMORE & CATHERINE M. SHARKEY, FOUNDATIONS OF TORT LAW 161-181
Malpractice
(2009).
Negligence—Breach the Duty
A. Proving and
1. Santiago v. First Student, Inc. 135-136
Evaluating Conduct
2. Thoma v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. 140-141
3. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright 143-144
4. The T.J. Hooper 145-146
7
B. Proving
5. Bryne v. Boadle 147-149
Unspecified
6. Cosgrove v. Commonwealth Edison Co. 153-154
Negligence- The
7. Giles v. City of New Heaven 156-159
Special Case of Res
8. Collins v. Superrior Air-Ground Ambulance Service 160-161
Ipsa Loquitur
8
Negligence –Causation-- Factual Causation- “But For” Cause
5
1. Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans Ry. Co. 259-261
2. Reynolds v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. 262-263
3. Krammer Service, Inc. v. Wilkins 267-268
4. Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. R.R. Co. 283-284
5. Summers v. Tice 285-286
6. Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories F287-290
Negligence –Causation- Proximate Cause
1.
In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Funess, Withy & Co., Ltd. 300-301
2. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Mots Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. 302-305
3. Overseas Tank (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. 306-308
4. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co308-316
9
5. Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp. 325-327
6. Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R. Co. 329-331
7. Fuller v. Preis 335-336
8. Kelly v. Gwinnell 344-347
9. Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co. 349-353
Negligence- More Duty Rules
A. Failure to Act
1. Hegel v. Langsam 417-418;
2. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California 432-435
B. Emotional Distrss
3. Daley v. Lacroix 450-454
4. Thing v. La Chusa 456-461
10
C. Unborn Children--
5. Endresz v. Friedberg 464-467
Wrongful Birth and
6. Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo 469-476
Wrongful Life
D. Premises Liability-
7. Salevan v. Wilmington Park, Inc. 482-483
Special Rules for
8. Sheehan v, St. Paul & Duluth Ry. Co. 485-487
Landowners
9. Barmore v. Elmore 489-491
10. Campbell v. Weathers 492-493
11. Rowland v, Christian 502-506
12. Pagelsdorf v. Safeco Inc. Co. of America 511-513
Strict Liability & Vicarious Duty
A. Animals
11
B. Hazardous
1. Rylands v. Fletcher
692-697
Activities
2. Indiana harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid Co. 702-710
C. Vicarious Duty
3. Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co. 461-464
4. Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke 465-467
5. Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital 468-471
6
6. District of Columbia v. Hampton 472-474
7. Pusey v. Bator 475-477
8. O’Banner v. McDonald’s Corp. 479-480
9. Puckrein v. ATI Transport, Inc. 481-483
Products Liability & Other Compensation System
A. Products
1. Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. (722-725)
Liability
2.Greenman v. Yuba Power products, Inc. (732-735)
3. Rix v. general Motors Corp. (740-742)
12
5. Anderson v. Owens- Corning Fiberglas Corp (757-760)
B. Works’
6. Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. 1195-1198
Compensation &
1202-1217 (2005).
Other
Compensation
System
Negligence- Defenses for Negligence & Immunity
A.
1. Butterfield v. Forrester 219-220
Contributory/Comparative
2. McIntyre v. Balentine, 592
Fault
13
B. Assumption of Risk
3.Seigneur v. National Fitness institute, INC. 601
C. Immunity
4. Freehe v. Freehe 622-624;
5. Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary’s 633-636;
6. Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education 637-640;
Defamation
1. Grant v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n 834-835
2. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 871-877
3. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps 907-911
4. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 915-921
14
Misrepresentation &
Invasion of Privacy
A.
1.Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank 1024-1025;
Misrepresentation
2. Richard v. A. Waldman and Sons, Inc. 1042-1045;
3. Ultramares Corp v. Touche, Niven & Co. 1056-1058;
4. Williams v. Rank & Son Buick, Inc. 1058-1060;
15
B. Invasion of
5. Hall v. Post 961-967
Privacy
6. Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co. 973-978
Damage
7
1. Martin v. United States 589-590
2. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell 604-613
3. Philip Morris USA v. Williams 614-615
16
Review
17
Final Exam
8