美國侵權(quán)法

內(nèi)容概要

《美國侵權(quán)法(第2版)(英文版)》所選取的案例比較系統(tǒng)地反映了英美侵權(quán)法（主要是美國）的主要制度。為了便于讀者能夠在較短的時(shí)間內(nèi)獲得英美侵權(quán)法最為基礎(chǔ)的知識(shí)，編者特意在每一章或每一節(jié)的開頭部分對該章節(jié)所涉及的法律原理用中文進(jìn)行了簡要的表述。

書籍目錄

第一章 故意侵權(quán) 第一節(jié) 威嚇和毆打 案例1 Vosburg v.Putney 案例2 Anicet v.Gant 第二節(jié) 不法拘禁 案例3 Parvi v.City of Kingston 第三節(jié) 故意精神傷害 案例4 Womack v.Eldridge 第二章 過失侵權(quán) 第一節(jié) 注意義務(wù) 案例5 Palsgraf v.Long Island Railroad Co. 案例6 Tarasoff v.Regents of the Univ.of California 案例7 Farwell v.Keaton 案例8 Harper v.Herman 案例9 Korman v.Mallin 第二節(jié) 注意義務(wù)的違反 案例10 Brown v.Kendall 案例11 United States v.Carroll Towing Co. 案例12 McCarty v.Pheasant Run，Inc. 案例13 Stewart v.Martin Motts 案例14 Robinson v.Lindsay 案例15 Cervelli v.Graves 案例16 Poyner v.Loftus 第三節(jié) 因果關(guān)系 案例17 Overseas Tankship（U.K.）Ltd.v.Morts Dock & Engineering Co.，Ltd. 案例18 Frances A.McLaughlin v.Mine Safety Appliances Company 第四節(jié) 損害 案例19 Gammon v.Osteopathic Hosp.of Maine，Inc. 案例20 K.A.C.v.Benson 案例21 State Farm v.Campbell 第五節(jié) 舉證責(zé)任 案例22 Byrne v.Boadle 案例23 Anderson v.Service Merchandise Co.Inc. 第三章 嚴(yán)格責(zé)任 第一節(jié) 危險(xiǎn)理論的起源 案例24 Fletcher v.Rylands 案例25 Rylands v.Fletcher 第二節(jié) 直接暴力侵害 案例26 Sullivanv.Dunham 第三節(jié) 超常危險(xiǎn)活動(dòng)理論 案例27 Indiana Harbor Belt R.Co.v.American Cyananlid Co. 第四章 產(chǎn)品責(zé)任 第一節(jié) 產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的嚴(yán)格責(zé)任之訴 案例28 Camacho v.Honda Motor Co.Ltd. 案例29 Soule V.GeneraIMotors Corp. 第二節(jié) 產(chǎn)品責(zé)任領(lǐng)域嚴(yán)格責(zé)任的適用范圍 案例30 Hoven v.Kelble 案例31.Brown v.Superior Court 第三節(jié) 產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的抗辯 案例32 Daly V.General Motors Corporation 案例33 Jones v.Ryobi，Ltd. 案例34 Smith v.Ontario Sewing Machine Co.Ltd. 第五章 私人妨害責(zé)任 案例35 Jost v.Dairyland Power Co. 案例36 Carpenter v.The Double R Cattle Company，Inc. 案例37 Boomer v.Atlantic Cement Co，Inc. 第六章 環(huán)境侵權(quán)責(zé)任 案例38 Exxon Shipping Company，et al.，Petitioners，v.Grant Banker et al 案例39 United States of Amenca，Plaintiff v.J.R.Nelson Vessel Ltd.et al，Defendants. 案例40 United States，Petitioner v.Bestfoods et al.

章節(jié)摘錄

版權(quán)頁：   This is not a new question，for it has been considered，directly or indirectly，so many times by this court that a reference to the earlier authorities is unnecessary.In the leading case upon the subject，the defendant，in order to dig a canal authorized by its charter，necessarily blasted out rocks from its own land with gunpowder，and thus threw fragments against the plaintiff’s house，which stood upon the adjoining premises.Although there was no proof of negligence，or want of skill，the defendant was held liable for the injury sustained.All the judges concurred in the opinion of GARDINER，J.，who said："The defendants had the right to dig the canal.The plaintiff the right to the undisturbed possession of his property.If these rights conflict，the former must yield to the latter，as the more important of the two，since，upon grounds of public policy，it is better that one man should surrender a particular use of his land，than that another should be deprived of the beneficial use of his property altogether，which might be the consequence if the privilege of the former should be wholly unrestricted.The case before us illustrates this principle.For if the defendants in excavating their canal，in itself a lawful use of their land，could，in the manner mentioned by the witnesses，demolish the stoop of the plaintiff with impunity，they might，for the same purpose，on the exercise of reasonable care，demolish his house，and thus deprive him of all use of his property.The use of land by the proprietor is not therefore an absolute right，but qualified and limited by the higher right of others to the lawful possession of their property.To this possession the law prohibits all direct injury，without regard to its extent or the motives of the aggressor.He may excavate a canal，but he cannot cast the dirt or stones upon the land of his neighbor，either by human agency or the force of gunpowder.If he cannot construct the work without the adoption of such means，he must abandon that mode of using his property，or be held responsible for all damages resulting therefrom.He will not be pernutted to accomplish a legal object in an unlawful manner."（Hay v.Cohoes Co.，2 N.Y.159.） This case was followed immediately by Tremain v.Cohoes Co.（2 N.Y.163），a similar action against the same defendant，which offered to show upon the trial"that the work was done in the best and most careful manner".

編輯推薦

《美國侵權(quán)法(第2版)(英文版)》在每個(gè)英文案例之后附上思考題，使讀者可以帶著問題閱讀案例，加深對案例中闡明的法律原理的理解。筆者希望，讀者能夠在閱讀這些案例的過程中，不僅弄懂每一個(gè)案例的事實(shí)、判決結(jié)果和法官的推理過程，而且能透過這些案例了解英美國家的法律制度，以及它們所體現(xiàn)的社會(huì)價(jià)值觀念和公共政策。

圖書封面

評論、評分、閱讀與下載

---

    美國侵權(quán)法 PDF格式下載

---