課程大綱

課程資訊

課程名稱	英美侵權行為法乙 Law of Torts (b)
開課學期	101-2
授課對象	法律學院法律學系
授課教師	葉俊榮
課號	LAW3370
課程識別碼	A01E393B0
班次
學分	2
全/半年	半年
必/選修	選修
上課時間	星期一5,6(12:20~14:10)
上課地點	法1401
備註	本課程以英語授課。英美法群組（3必選2）限學士班三年級以上且限法律學院學生(含輔系、雙修生) 總人數上限：120人
Ceiba 課程網頁	http://ceiba.ntu.edu.tw/1012Torts
課程簡介影片
核心能力關聯	核心能力與課程規劃關聯圖
課程大綱
為確保您我的權利,請尊重智慧財產權及不得非法影印
課程概述	侵權行為法乃英美法的核心課程之一。晚近，美國在商品瑕疵、醫療傷害、環境保護、與新型技術訴訟日增的情況下，衍生出保險的危機(insurance crisis)，有關侵權行為的功能、法則、與實際運用都面臨重新檢討的地步。本學期課程除了對英美侵權行為法基本理論作討論外，尤其將著重制度上的改革方向。
課程目標	本課程在實質內容上將涵蓋以下幾項重點：（1） Tort Law 從英國令狀制度至美國晚近針對科技發展所引發的改革措施之間的演變軌跡及其衍生的問題。（2） 1870年以來美國法律思潮的演變（例如概念主義、法實存主義、以及晚近風行的「法與經濟」）對Tort Law的衝擊與影響。（3）以Common Law 為本的Torts在行政國家(Administrative State)的積極管制行為下，如何與行政措施(Admiinistrative Schemes)相調和。學期的下半部分則就現代工技社會所引發的新型損害賠償問題（醫療、藥物、公害、核能等）做較深入的討論，進而較深入地討論改革的方案與制度因應的方向。
課程要求	本課程依課程大綱（課堂中發給）循序討論約三十個具有重大意義的判決。同學必須於上課前閱讀指定判決，課堂中參與討論。討論的重點將包括事實陳述、爭點探尋以及法理、背景與政策層面的分析。課程全程以英文進行。
預期每週課後學習時數
Office Hours
指定閱讀
參考書目	本課程將有授課老師自行編纂教材，大綱如下： 1.Introduction 1.1.Administrative Matters: About This Subject, This Course and the Instructor 1.2.The Development of Anglo-American Tort Law: Historical Overview 1.3.Approaches and Philosophical Basis 1.3.1.Legal Professionalization and Conceptionalism 1.3.2.The Lasting Impact of Legal Realism 1.3.3.Post-War Consensus Thoughts 1.3.4.Economic Analysis of Law 1.3.5.Critical Legal Studies 1.3.6.Legal Feminism 1.4.Between Norms and Functions 1.4.1.Tort Law as a Body of Common Law Norms 1.4.2.Tort Law as a Regulatory Mechanism 2.The role of fault in the development of tort liability 2.1Fault-based Development of Tort Law 2.1.1.British Writs System and Procedural Pigeon Hole Morgan, Forms of Action, Introduction to the Study of Law, 79-81 (2nd ed. 1948) Case No.1 Scott v. Shepherd Case No.2 Brown v. Kendell 2.2.Basis other Than Fault for Deciding Liability 2.2.1.Legislative Activism Simth, Sequel to Workmen/s Compensation Acts, 27 Harv. L. Rev. 235, 344 (1914) 2.2.2.Administrative Intervention Reprot by Prime Minister Churchill to Parliament on the Progress of the War, Oct. 9, 1940 2.2.3.Judicial Announcement Case No.3 Spano v. Perini Corp. 2.2.4.Interest Balancing Case No.4 Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., Inc Case No.5 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 3.Negligence 3.1.Negligence Based on General Duty of Due Care 3.1.1.Standard of Conduct Case No.6 Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Goodman Nixon, Changing Rules of Liability in Automobile Accident Litigation, 3 Law and Comtemp. Prob. 476, 477, 478 (1936) 3.1.2.Negligence or Causation? Case No.7 Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co 3.1.3Multiple Defendants Case No.8 Ybarra v. Spangrad Case No.9 Summer v. Tice 3.1.4.Scientific Basis of Causation Case No.10 Berry v. Sugar Notch 3.2.Special Duty Questions 3.2.1.Statutory Obligations Case No.11 Ross v. Hartman Case No.12 Bishop v. City of Chicago 3.3.Defenses to Negligence 3.3.1.Contributory Negligence Case No.13 Koenig v. Patrick Const. Corporation 3.3.2.Assumption of Risk Case No.14 Elliott v. Philadelphia Transp. Co. Case No.15 Brown v. San Francisco Ball Club., Inc 3.3.3.Last Clear Chance Case No.16 Bence v. Teddy’s Taxi 3.3.4.Comparative Negligence Case No.17 Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California 4.Gender, Body and Liability 4.1.Sexual Harassment Case No.18 Kerry Ellison v. Nicholas F. Brandy Case No.19 Kerans et al. v. Porter Paint Co. 4.2.Pornographer Liability 4.3.Birth Control, “Women’s Stuff” and Liability 4.3.1.DES Case No.20 Sindell v. Abott Laboratories 4.3.2.Oral Contraceptives Case No.21 McDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 4.4.Cosmetics Case No.22 Walker v. Maybelline Co. 5.Freedom and Control: Wine and Tobacco 5.1.Alcohol and Cough Medicine Case No.23 Thornton v. North Dakota State Highway Commissioner 5.2Tobacco and Smoking Case No.24 Dianne Castano v. The American Tobacco Co. 6. Torts Involving Injuries Arising form the Wide-spread Use of Modern Technology 6.1.Industrial Processes and Products 6.1.1Asbestos151 Case No.25 Beshada v. John-Manville Products Corp. Cost of Asbestos Litigation 6.1.2.Agent Orange Case No.26 In Re Agent Orange Liability Litigations 6.1.3Nuclear and Radiological Liability Case No.27 Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group Inc. Case No.28 Bennett v. Mallinckrodt 6.2.Medication and Pharmaceutical Products 6.2.1.Vaccines Case No.29 Kerl v. Kederle Laboratories 6.2.2.Medical Diagnosis Case No.30 Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound 6.3.Possible Liability Scenario in the Application of Biotechnology Traynor and Cunningham, Emerging Product Liability Issues in Biotechnology, 3 High Technology L.J. 149 (1989) 7.Reforming the Existing Liability Regime in the Age of Modern Technology 7.1Direct Government Regulation Huber, Safety and the Second Best: The Hazards of Public Risk Management in the Courts, 85 Columbia. L. Rev. 277 (1985) 7.2Economic Incentives Pierce, Encouraging Safety: The Limits of Tort Law and Government Regulation, 33 Vand. L. Rev. 1281 (1980) 7.3.Settlements O’Connell, Offers That Can’t Not Be Refused: Foreclosure of Personal Injuries Claims by Defendants’ Prompt Tender of Claimants’ Net Economic Losses, 77 Nw. U.L. Rev. 589 (1982) 7.4.Social Welfare Henderson, The New Zealand Accident Compensation Reform, 48 U. Chi. L. Rev. 781 (1981) 8.Conclusion
評量方式 (僅供參考)

課程進度

週次

日期

單元主題