商法2015春季下發(fā)演示用tort law

【第14章內(nèi)容簡介Ch14Tortliabilityfordefectivegoods缺陷產(chǎn)Negligenceliability過失責(zé)ThedutyofcareThescopeandinfluenceofLordAtkin’sManufacturerProductTheultimateconsumerThelimitsofthedutyofcarePureeconomiclossrarelygivesrisetoadutyofcare單Theclaimantmustprovebreachofduty必須證明Theclaimantmustproveconsequentialdamage必TheConsumerProtectionAct1987(PartI)消費(fèi)者Thedifferencebetweenfaultandstrictliability過錯(cuò)責(zé)ThemainprovisionsofPartIoftheConsumerProtectionAct19871部分的主要規(guī)定Whomaysue?s2(1)誰可以Methodsofsupply:s46提品的方Potentialdefendants:s2Themeaningof‘product’s1Defectivemeansdangerouss3Actionabledamages5Causationandliabilitys DefencesTimelimitsTheimpactoftheConsumerProtectionAct1987消費(fèi)§Negligence注意義務(wù)=過失/不注§Dutyofcare注意義務(wù):aundertakinganactivityorcourseofbehaviourowesadutynottoharmanyreasonablyexpectedtobecausedloss/damageasaResult§Neighbourprinciple鄰人原則-僅對與其相當(dāng)接近的人負(fù)有注意義務(wù):formulatedinDonoghuevbyLordAtkinindicatingthatthedefendantonlyowesadutyofcaretoswithsufficientproximitytohimorher.§Ultimateconsumer最終消費(fèi)者:anydirectlyindirectlyharmedbyadefectiveproductor§Reasonableforeseeability合理的預(yù)見可能性:limitsthescopeofdutyofcareasthisisowedonlywhenitisreasonabletoanticipatedamagetotheClaimant.§Proximity接近直接性緊密性:asufficientlycloserelationshipmustexistbetweenclaimantanddefendantatthetimethedangerousbehaviouroccurredforadutyofcaretoexist.§Publicinterest一般人的利益-關(guān)于特件的對是否存在注意義務(wù)的司法判斷的社會效果之一:benefitofpeopleingeneral.Influentialonthecourtsdecisiontopermit/refuteadutyofcare.§Pureeconomicloss-非源于侵權(quán)所致人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害的經(jīng)濟(jì)上的損失:lossofmoneyalone,notarisingfromalinjurytotheclaimantordamagetootherproperty.）§Consequentialeconomicloss從屬的經(jīng)濟(jì)上的損失-源于（從屬于/所致人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害的經(jīng)濟(jì)上的損失:financiallossresultingfrominjurytothe）and/ordamagetosomepropertyotherthanthedefective§Strictliability嚴(yán)格責(zé)任/無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任-只需證明告損害的存在(無需證明了注意義務(wù)):cansucceedmerelyonproofthatthetortiousbehaviouroccurredandthatdamageresulted.§Faultliability過錯(cuò)責(zé)任:mosttortactionsrequiretheclaimanttoprovethatthedefendantwasatfault,i.e.actedintentionally,carelesslyorwithoutreasonableforesight.§Producer制造商/EUEU國的進(jìn)口商:manufacturer/ProcessorImporter:firstpartytoimporttheproductintoanEUcountryfromanon-EUcountry.§Product產(chǎn)品:coversawidevarietyofgoods,includingagriculturalproduce,utilitieslikewaterandgas,andeven§Defective（產(chǎn)品）缺陷:goodsdangerousphysicallytoIntroductiontoTortLaw【課堂講解Whatisatort?的含Negligence過Dutyofcare注意義Breachofdutyofcare注意義Causalityandremotenessofdamage因果關(guān)系和損害Defencestonegligence過失的抗CPA1987消費(fèi)者保WhatisatortAtortisatypeofcivilwrong.Itisabreachofalegaldutyoraninfringementofalegalrightwhichgivesrisetoaclaimfordamages.Intortnoprevioustransactionorcontractualrelationshipneedexist.TheclaimintortisbasedonthegenerallawofdutiesandTortisdistinguishedfromotherlegalItisnotabreachofcontract,wheretheobligationwhichisallegedtohavebeenbreachedaroseunderanagreementbetweentwoparties.Itisnotacrime,wheretheobjectofproceedingsistopunishtheoffenderratherthancompensatethevictim.Negligenceisthebreachofalegaldutytotakecare,whichresultsindamagetoanother.Thetermnegligenceisusedtodescribecarelesslycarryingoutanactandbreakingalegaldutyofcareowedtoanothercausingthemlossordamage.Tosucceedinanactionfornegligencetheclaimantmustprovethat:Thedefendanthadadutyofcaretoavoidcausinginjury,damageorlossTherewasabreachofthatdutybytheInconsequencetheclaimantsufferedinjury,damageorTestyourunderstandingWhichoneofthefollowingisnotanessentialelementofthetortofnegligence?AdutyofcareowedtotheAbreachofthedutyofAnintentiontocauselossorLossorinjurycausedbythedefendant’s[C]ThethreeelementsofthetortofnegligenceDutyofcare:ItappliesinsituationswhereanindividualowesadutyofcaretosomeoneBreachofdutyofcare:theclaimantmustshowthedefendantfailedtotakethecarewhichareasonablewouldhavedoneinthecircumstances.Resultantloss:theremustbearesultantloss,financialorotherwise,beforethetortofnegligencecanbeapplied.IntentiontocauseharmisnotaprerequisiteDutyofThebasicrule-The'neighbourprinciple'DonoghuevStevenson[1932]AC562(HL)Concerning:dutyofcare;neighbourprincipleFacts–MrsDonoghueandafriendvisitedacafé.MrsDonoghue’sfriendboughtherabottleofgingerbeer.Thebottlewasmadeofopaqueglass.WhenfillingMrsDonoghue’sglass,theremainsofa posedsnail–whichhadsomehowfounditswayintothebottleatthefactory–floatedout.MrsDonoghuedevelopedgastroenteritisasaresultLegalprincipleSinceMrsDonoghuehadnotboughtthebottleofgingerbeerherselfshecouldnotmakeaclaimincontractuponbreachofwarranty.Shethereforebroughtanactionagainstthemanufacturerofthegingerbeer.TheHouseofLordshadtodecidewhetheradutyofcareexistedasamatterof§TheHouseofLords:Themanufacturerowedheradutytotakecarethatthebottledidnotcontainforeignbodieswhichcouldcauseheralharm.–amanufacturerofgoodsowesadutyofcaretotheirultimateconsumer.§Moreimportantly,thecaseestablishestheneighbourprinciplewhichdetermineswhetherthedefendantowesadutyofcareinanysituation.LordAtkin:Youmusttakereasonablecaretoavoidactsoromissionswhichyoucanreasonablyforeseewouldbelikelytoinjureyourneighbour.Who,then,inlawismyneighbour?TheanswerseemstobeswhoaresocloselyanddirectlyaffectedbymyactthatIoughtreasonablytohavetheminmycontemtionasbeingsoaffectedwhenIamdirectingmymindtotheactsoromissionswhicharecalledinquestion.DevelopmentoftheCaparoIndustriesplcvDickman[1990]2AC605Concerning:dutyofFacts–Thecaseconsideredtheliabilityofanauditorforfinanciallosssufferedbyinvestors.However,italsosetoutthethreepointswhichacourtmustconsidertoestablishwhetheradutyofcareexists.Legalprinciple–Thethreestagetestforestablishingadutyofcarethatstillstands:WastheharmreasonablyWastherearelationshipofproximitybetweenthe justandreasonabletoimposeadutyofcare?TestyourunderstandingInassessingwhetheradutyofcareexists,whichofthefollowingtestswillbetakenintoconsideration?atthetimeoftheactoromission?Wasitfairandreasonableforthelawtoimposeadutyofcare?Hasthedefendantintentionallycausedphysicaldamageorfinancialloss?Hastheclaimanttakenreasonablestepstomitigatethelosssuffered?A.(1)and(4) B.(1)and(2)onlyC.(3)and(4)D.Allofthe[B]Theintentionofthedefendantisirrelevanttoaclaimfornegligence.Theclaimantisundernodutytomitigatetheirloss.BreachofdutyofThebasicThestandardofreasonablecare-ThereasonabletestBlythvBirminghamWaterWorksRequires:theconcernedshoulddowhatareasonablemanwoulddo,andshouldnotdowhatareasonablemanwouldnotdo:.ThefactorsshouldbeconsideredwhendecidingifadutyofcarehasbeenbreachedProbabilityofItispresumedthatareasonablemantakesgreaterprecautionswhentheriskofinjuryishigh.Thereforewhentheriskishigherthedefendantmustdomoretomeettheirduty.SeriousnessoftheTheyoung,oldordisabledmaybepronetomoreseriousinjurythanafitable-bodied.The'egg-sskull'rulemeansthatyoumusttakeyourvictimastheyareWheretherisktothevulnerableishigh,thelevelofcarerequiredisraised。IssuesofpracticalityandItisnotalwaysreasonabletoensureallpossibleprecautionsaretaken.Wherethecostordisruptioncausedtoeliminatethedangerfarexceedstheriskofitoccurringitislikelythatdefendantswillbefoundnottohavebreachedtheirdutyiftheydonotimplementthem.CommonWhereanindividualcanprovetheiractionswereinlinewithcommonpracticeorcustomitislikelythattheywouldhavemettheirdutyofcare.Thisisunlessthecommonpracticeitselfisfoundtobenegligent.SocialWhereanactionisofsomebenefittosociety,defendantsmaybeprotectedfromliabilityeveniftheiractionscreaterisk.Forexample,afireenginethatspeedstoamajordisasterprovidesasocialbenefitthatmayoutweighthegreaterrisktothepublic.Professionsandswhoholdthemselvesouttopossessaparticularskillshouldbejudgedonwhatareasonablepossessingthesameskillwoulddointhesituationratherthanthatofareasonableman.Professionsareabletosettheirownstandardsofcarefortheirmemberstomeetandthereforemembersshouldbejudgedagainstthesestandardsratherthanthoselaiddownbythecourts.Resipsaloquitur（'ThethingspeaksforInsomecircumstancestheclaimantmayarguethatthefactsspeakforthemselves(resipsaloquitur)–wantofcarebeingtheonlypossibleexnationforwhathappened,negligenceonthepartofthedefendantmustbepresumed.Resipsaloquiturcanbedefinedas:'Thethingspeaksforitself'.Ifanaccidentoccurswhichappearstobemostlikelycausedbynegligence,thecourtmayapplythisandinfernegligencefrommereproofofthefacts.TheburdenofnotNegligent.TheclaimantmustdemonstratethefollowingtorelyonthisThethingwhichcausedtheinjurywasunderthemanagementandcontrolofthedefendant.Theaccidentwassuchthatitwouldnotoccurifthoseincontrolusedpropercare.RichleyvFould1965thefactthatacarskiddedtothewrongsideoftheroadwasenoughtoindicatecarelessdriving.CausalityandremotenessofDamageorAclaimforcompensationfornegligencewillnotsucceedifdamageorlossisnotproved.Awillonlybecompensatediftheyhavesufferedactualloss,injury,damageorharmasaconsequenceofanother'sactions.Examplesofsuchlossmayinclude:(1)alinjury人身（有形損害Damagetoproperty（有形損害Consequentialfinancialloss（bedirectlyconnectedtophysicaldamage）有形損害直接導(dǎo)致的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失Purefinanciallossberarelyrecoverable)純粹的經(jīng)濟(jì)Purefinancialloss純粹的經(jīng)濟(jì)損§Purefinancialloss,alsoknownaseconomicloss,islosswhichisunconnectedwithphysicaldamage.ItisnotusuallySpartanSteelandAlloysvMartin&Co1973Held:generallossofprofitsduetointerruptioncausedbyaprolongedlossofpowertoamanufacturingntasawholewasnotrecoverable.§Theclaimantswereabletorecoverlossesfromphysicaldamagetoaparticularfurnace,andlossofprofitonthedamagedproductsinthefurnace,whichoccurredasadirectresultofpowerbeingunexpectedlycut.The'Butfor'Tosatisfytherequirementthatharmmustbecausedbyanother'sactions,the'Butfor'testisapplied.Theclaimantmustprovethatifitwasnot'butfor'theother'sactionstheywouldnothavesuffereddamage.Claimantsareunabletoclaimforanyharmthatwouldhavehappenedtothemanywayirrespectiveofthedefendant'sMultiplecauses多重Thecourtsoftenhavedifficultyindeterminingcausationwherethereareanumberofpossiblecausesofinjuryincludingthenegligentact.Thecourtsmustdecideonthefactsifthenegligentactwastheonethatmostlikelycausedtheinjury.Novusactusinterveniens新情況的介入和因果關(guān)系Defendant'swillnotbeliablefordamagewhenthechainofeventsisbroken.ThreetypesofinterveningactthatwillbreakthechainofActoftheclaimant的行Theactionsoftheclaimantthemselvesmaybreakthechainofcausation.Theruleisthatwheretheactisreasonableandintheordinarycourseofthingsanactbytheclaimantwillnotbreakthechain.Actofathirdparty第三人的行WhereathirdpartyintervenesinthecourseofeventsthedefendantwillnormallyonlybeliablefordamageuntiltheNaturalevents自§Thechainofcausalityisnotautomaticallybrokenduetoaninterveningnaturalevent.§Insituationswherethebreachputstheclaimantatriskofadditionaldamagecausedbyanaturaleventthechainwillnotbebroken.§Wherethenaturaleventisunforeseeable,thechainwillbeRemotenessofdamage損害的遠(yuǎn)隔性/Thetestofreasonableforesight合理的預(yù)見可能性§Evenwherecausationisproved,anegligenceclaimcanstillfailifthedamagecausedis'tooremote'.§Thetestofreasonableforesight-Liabilityislimitedtodamagethatareasonablemancouldhaveforeseen.§Thisdoesnotmeantheexacteventmustbeforeseeableindetail,justthattheeventual eisforeseeable.DefencestoContributorynegligence互有過失/過失相Acourtmayreducetheamountofdamagespaidtotheclaimantifthedefendantestablishesthattheycontributedtotheirowninjuryorloss.Ifthedefendantprovesthattheclaimantwasatleastpartiallyatfault,courtswillreducethedamagesawardedtothembyapercentagethatisjustandreasonable.Thispercentageiscalculatedaccordingtowhatisestablishedastheclaimant'sshareoftheThisistypicallyintherangeof10%to75%,howeveritispossibletoreducetheclaimbyupto100%Volentinonfitinjuria（thevoluntaryacceptanceofriskofinjury）自愿接受損害風(fēng)Whereadefendant'sactionscarrytheriskofatortbeingcommittedtheywillhaveadefenceifitcanbeprovedthattheclaimantconsentedtotherisk.Thisdefenceisavailabletothedefendantwherebothpartieshaveexpresslyconsentedtotherisk(suchaswaiverformssignedbythosetakingpartindangeroussports),oritmaybeimpliedbytheconductoftheclaimant.Vicariousliability替代責(zé)（雇主對雇員職務(wù)替代責(zé)任Inemploymentsituations,anemployeecanavoidliabilityfornegligenceiftheywereactingontheiremployer'sbusinessatthetimeofthe.Fortheemployertobevicariouslyliable,theemployeemusthavebeenfollowingtheiremployer'sinstructions,evenifthemannerofhowtheywerecarryingthemoutwasnothowtheemployertoldthemto.LimpusvLondonGeneralOmnibusCo(1862)：awasfoundvicariouslyliableforabusdrivennegligentlybyabusdriveragainsttheirinstructions.BeardvLondonGeneralOmnibusCo(1900)：thewasnotfoundvicariouslyliablewhereabusconductor(whowasnotauthorisedtodriveabus)droveabusnegligently.Theemployeewasheldliable.Testyourunderstanding tortof responsibleforhisowninjuriesthen:NocompensationcanberecoveredfromtheThedefendantisfullyliableifhewasmainlyresponsiblefortheinjuries.Ifthedefendantwasnegligentheremainsfullyliableforalltheinjuriescaused.Thecompensationwillbereducedtotakeaccountofclaimant’sshareofthe[D]Inthetortofnegligence,iftheclaimantispartlyresponsibleforhisowninjuries,theoftheinjuries.IfaclaimantcannotshowpreciselyhowanaccidentoccurredinrelationtoalinjurieshereceivesthroughHecannotclaimHecanonlyclaimreducedThereisnoeffectonhisHemayassert‘resipsaThismeansthat‘thethingspeaksforitself’.Whenthisdoctrineisapplieditisnotnecessaryfortheclaimanttoprovethatthedefendantisnegligent:iftherewasnootherwaytheinjurycouldhavehappenedthenegligenceofthedefendantispresumed.CPA1987TheConsumerProtectionAct1987(I)§CPA1987),whichwasenactedtoimplementtheECProductLiabilityDirective(85/374/EC),hasintroducedmeasureofstrictliabilityfordefectiveproductsintoEnglishThedifferencebetweenfaultandstrict§FaultMosttorts,includingnegligence,arebasedonfaultliability.Theclaimanthastoprovenotonlythatthedefendant’sbehaviourbrokethelawandcauseddamage,butalsothatthedefendanteitherintendedtocauseharmtotheclaimant,orwasblameworthyinoverlookingtherisktotheclaimant.§StrictStrictliabilityisexceptionalinTheclaimantmerelyhastoprovethecausallinkbetweenthedefendant’stortiousbehaviourandthedamagesuffered.Thismayincreasetheclaimant’schancesofaclaim,asproofoffailuretotakecareisoftenThemainprovisionsofPartIofCPA§Whomaysue?sAnysufferingdamagegivingrisetoliabilityundertheActtotheirorpropertyandresultingfromdefectivegoods.§Methodsofsupply:sBywayofsale,barter,hire,prizeorgiftprovidedthattherwasactinginthecourseofbusiness.§Potentialdefendants:sWhereanydamageiscausedwhollyorpartlybyadefectinaproduct,thefollowingsshallbeliable:Theproducer.Thisincludesthemanufacturerandsresponsibleforwinningor ingaproduct,forexample,mineralwaterorelectricity.Theself-brandingr‘who,byputtinghisontheproductorusingatrademarkorotherdistinguishingmarkinrelationtotheproducthasheldhimselfoutastheproduceroftheproduct’.Theimporter.ThepartywhoinitiallyimportedproductintotheEUmaybeliable.(ThisisnotnecessarilythepartyresponsibleforthegoodsenteringtheUK.)Ther.rsareliableonlyiftheyfail,onrequestfromtheinjuredparty,toidentifythemanufacturer,producerorimporter.§Themeaningof‘product’:sProductincludespackagingandinstructionsandpotentiallycoversahugevarietyofmanufacturedandothergoodsandManufacturedSubstanceswonor ed.Thisincludesthingslikeelectricityandwater.Thingswhichowetheir‘essentialcharacteristics’to‘industrialorotherAgricultural§Defectivemeansdangerous:sTheCPAisnotconcernedwiththequalityoftheproductbutwithitssafety.Therefore,aproductisnotdefectiveundertheActunlessitisunsafe:thereisnoliabilityitactuallycausesdamagetotheconsumerortheconsumer’sotherproperty.ThestandardofsafetyundertheActisthatwhichpeople‘generallyareentitledtoexpect’whichisactuallysetbythecourtratherthannecessarilyreflectingpublicexpectation,whichmayberegardedasunreasonablyhigh.TheActspecifiesthefollowingfactorstoberelevantindecidingwhetherthisstandardhasbeenmet:ThepackagingandanywarningsorinstructionsAmedicinemaybeperfectlysafeinandofitself,butrendereddangerousbecauseitlacksclearinstructionsorawarningthatitisunsuitableforpeoplewithcertainmedicalThenormalusesoftheproductTheneedsoftherelevantclassofconsumermustbetakenintoaccountindecidingwhetherthemanufacturerhasrenderedtheproductsafe.Toysmarketedforusebysmallchildrenrequiredifferentsafetystandards,inrelationtothingslikesharpedges,non-toxicmaterialsandthesizeofremovableparts,thangoodsfortheentertainmentofIftheconsumerisharmedbyuseoftheproductforpurposeswhicharenotnormal,liabilitydoesnotarise.Byindicatingthepurposeofaproductandtheagegroupforwhichitisintended,themanufacturermaylimitthe‘normaluse’oftheproduct.ThetimewhentheproductwasissuedThisi