|
課程名稱 |
英美侵權行為法乙
Law of Torts (b) |
|
開課學期 |
100-2 |
|
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 |
星期一3,4(10:20~12:10) |
|
上課地點 |
法1403 |
|
備註 |
本課程以英語授課。
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：80人 |
|
Ceiba 課程網頁 |
http://ceiba.ntu.edu.tw/1002torts |
|
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.Introduction1
1.1.Administrative Matters: About This Subject, This Course and the Instructor1
1.2.The Development of Anglo-American Tort Law: Historical Overview1
1.3.Approaches and Philosophical Basis1
1.3.1Legal Professionalization and Conceptionalism1
1.3.2The Lasting Impact of Legal Realism1
1.3.3Post-War Consensus Thoughts1
1.3.4Economic Analysis of Law1
1.3.5Critical Legal Studies1
1.3.6Legal Feminism1
1.4.Between Norms and Functions1
1.4.1Tort Law as a Body of Common Law Norms1
1.4.2Tort Law as a Regulatory Mechanism1
2.The role of fault in the development of tort liability1
2.1Fault-based Development of Tort Law1
2.1.1British Writs System and Procedural Pigeon Hole1
Morgan, Forms of Action, Introduction to the Study of Law, 79-81 (2nd ed. 1948)2
1.Scott v. Shepherd3
2.Brown v. Kendell7
2.2.Basis other Than Fault for Deciding Liability10
2.2.1Legislative Activism10
Simth, Sequel to Workmen/s Compensation Acts, 27 Harv. L. Rev. 235, 344 (1914)10
2.2.2Administrative Intervention12
Reprot by Prime Minister Churchill to Parliament on the Progress of the War, Oct. 9, 194013
2.2.3Judicial Announcement13
3. Spano v. Perini Corp.14
2.2.4.Interest Balancing18
4. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., Inc18
5. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.25
3.Negligence31
3.1.Negligence Based on General Duty of Due Care31
3.1.1Standard of Conduct31
6. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Goodman31
Nixon, Changing Rules of Liability in Automobile Accident Litigation, 3 Law and Comtemp. Prob. 476, 477, 478 (1936)33
3.1.2Negligence or Causation?33
7. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co33
3.1.3Multiple Defendants42
8. Ybarra v. Spangrad42
9. Summer v. Tice47
3.1.4Scientific Basis of Causation51
10. Berry v. Sugar Notch51
3.2.Special Duty Questions53
3.2.1Statutory Obligations53
11. Ross v. Hartman54
12. Bishop v. City of Chicago55
3.3.Defenses to Negligence58
3.3.1Contributory Negligence58
13. Koenig v. Patrick Const. Corporation58
3.3.2.Assumption of Risk62
14. Elliott v. Philadelphia Transp. Co.62
15. Brown v. San Francisco Ball Club., Inc66
3.3.3Last Clear Chance71
16. Bence v. Teddy’s Taxi71
3.3.4Comparative Negligence75
17. Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California75
4.Gender, Body and Liability90
4.1.Sexual Harassment90
18. Kerry Ellison v. Nicholas F. Brandy90
19. Kerans et al. v. Porter Paint Co101
4.2.Pornographer Liability110
4.3.Birth Control, “Women’s Stuff” and Liability110
4.3.1DES110
20. Sindell v. Abott Laboratories110
4.3.2Oral Contraceptives125
21. McDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.126
4.4.Cosmetics 134
22. Walker v. Maybelline Co.134
5.Freedom and Control: Wine and Tobacco138
5.1.Alcohol and Cough Medicine138
23. Thornton v. North Dakota State Highway Commissioner139
5.2Tobacco and Smoking140
24. Dianne Castano v. The American Tobacco Co140
6. Torts Involving Injuries Arising form the Wide-spread Use of Modern Technology151
6.1.Industrial Processes and Products151
6.1.1Asbestos151
25. Beshada v. John-Manville Products Corp151
Cost of Asbestos Litigation159
6.1.2.Agent Orange161
26. In Re Agent Orange Liability Litigations161
6.1.3Nuclear and Radiological Liability171
27. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group Inc.171
28. Bennett v. Mallinckrodt189
6.2.Medication and Pharmaceutical Products201
6.2.1Vaccines201
29. Kerl v. Kederle Laboratories201
6.2.2Medical Diagnosis212
30. Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound212
6.3.Possible Liability Scenario in the Application of Biotechnology232
Traynor and Cunningham, Emerging Product Liability Issues in Biotechnology, 3 High Technology L.J. 149 (1989)232
7.Reforming the Existing Liability Regime in the Age of Modern Technology232
7.1Direct Government Regulation232
Huber, Safety and the Second Best: The Hazards of Public Risk Management in the Courts, 85 Columbia. L. Rev. 277 (1985)232
7.2Economic Incentives232
Pierce, Encouraging Safety: The Limits of Tort Law and Government Regulation, 33 Vand. L. Rev. 1281 (1980)232
7.3.Settlements232
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)232
7.4.Social Welfare232
Henderson, The New Zealand Accident Compensation Reform, 48 U. Chi. L. Rev. 781 (1981)232
8.Conclusion232
|
|
評量方式
(僅供參考) |
|
|
週次 |
日期 |
單元主題 |
|
第1週 |
2/20 |
Introduction |
|
第2週 |
2/27 |
228連假，停課一次 |
|
第3週 |
3/05 |
2.The Role of Fault in the Development of Tort Liability
2.1.Fault-Based Development of Tort Law
2.1.1.British Writs System and Procedural Pigeon Hole
A1.Morgan, Forms of Action, Introduction to the Study of Law, 79-81 (2nd ed. 1948)
C1.Scott v. Shepherd
C2.Brown v. Kendell
|
|
第4週 |
3/12 |
2.The Role of Fault in the Development of Tort Liability
2.2.Basis Other Than Fault for Deciding Liability
2.2.1.Legislative Activism
A2.Simth, Sequel to Workmen/s Compensation Acts, 27 Harv. L. Rev. 235, 344 (1914)
2.2.2.Administrative Intervention
A3.Reprot by Prime Minister Churchill to Parliament on the Progress of the War, Oct. 9, 1940.
2.2.3.Judicial Announcement
C3. Spano v. Perini Corp. |
|
第5週 |
3/19 |
2.The Role of Fault in the Development of Tort Liability
2.2.4. Interest Balancing
C4. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., Inc.
C5. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. |
|
第6週 |
3/26 |
3.Negligence
3.1.Negligence Based on General Duty of Due Care
3.1.1.Standard of Conduct
C6. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Goodman
A4.Nixon, Changing Rules of Liability in Automobile Accident Litigation, 3 Law and Comtemp. Prob. 476, 477, 478 (1936)
3.1.2.Negligence or Causation?
C7. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. |
|
第7週 |
4/02 |
3.Negligence
3.1.3.Multiple Defendants
C8.Ybarra v. Spangrad
C9.Summer v. Tice
3.1.4.Scientific Basis of Causation
C10.Berry v. Sugar Notch |
|
第8週 |
4/09 |
3.Negligence
3.2.Special Duty Questions
3.2.1.Statutory Obligations
C11.Ross v. Hartman
C12.Bishop v. City of Chicago
3.3.Defenses To Negligence
3.3.1.Contributory Negligence
C13.Koenig v. Patrick Const. Corporation
3.3.2.Assumption of Risk
C14. Elliott v. Philadelphia Transp. Co.
C15. Brown v. San Francisco Ball Club., Inc
|
|
第9週 |
4/16 |
3. Negligence
3.3.3. Last Clear Chance
C16. Bence v. Teddy’s Taxi
3.3.4. Comparative Negligence
C17. Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California
4. Gender, Body and Liability
4.1. Sexual Harassment
C18. Kerry Ellison v. Nicholas F. Brandy
C19. Kerans et al. v. Porter Paint Co.
|
|
第10週 |
4/23 |
4. Gender, Body and Liability
4.2. Pornographer Liability
4.3. Birth Control, “Women’s Stuff” and Liability
4.3.1. DES
C20. Sindell v. Abott Laboratories
4.3.2. Oral Contraceptives
C21. McDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
4.4. Cosmetics
C22. Walker v. Maybelline Co.
|
|
第11週 |
4/30 |
5. Freedom and Control: Wine, Tobacco, and Fast food
5.1. Alcohol and Cough Medicine
C23. Thornton v. North Dakota State Highway Commissioner
5.2. Tobacco and Smoking
C24. Dianne Castano v. The American Tobacco Co.
C25. Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
5.3. Fast Food
C26. Pelman v. McDonald's |
|
第12週 |
5/07 |
6. Torts Involving Injuries Arising form the Wide-spread Use of Modern Technology
6.1. Industrial Processes and Products
6.1.1. Asbestos
C27. Beshada v. John-Manville Products Corp.
6.1.2. Agent Orange
C28. In Re Agent Orange Liability Litigations
6.1.3. Nuclear and Radiological Liability
C29. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group Inc.
C30. Bennett v. Mallinckrodt |
|
第13週 |
5/07 |
6. Torts Involving Injuries Arising form the Wide-spread Use of Modern Technology
6.1.4. Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)
C31. In Re Starlink Corn Product Liability Litigation
6.2. MEDICATION AND PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
6.2.1. Vaccines
C32. Kerl v. Kederle Laboratories |
|
第14週 |
5/21 |
6. Torts Involving Injuries Arising form the Wide-spread Use of Modern Technology
6.2.2. Medical Diagnosis
C33. Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound
6.2.3. HIV/AIDS
C34. Estate of Behringer v. Medical Center at Princeton |
|
第15週 |
5/21 |
6. Torts Involving Injuries Arising form the Wide-spread Use of Modern Technology
6.3. Emerging Liability Arising from Extreme Weather in the Era of Climate Change
C35. Kivalina v. Exxonmobil
C36. Commer v. Murphy Oil USA |
|
第16週 |
6/04 |
課程調整，停課。 |
|
第17週 |
6/4 |
7. Reforming the Existing Liability Regime in the Age of Modern Technology
A5. Huber, Safety and the Second Best: The Hazards of Public Risk Management in the Courts
A6. Pierce, Encouraging Safety: The Limits of Tort Law and Government Regulation
A7. O’Connell, Offers That Can’t Not Be Refused: Foreclosure of Personal Injuries Claims by Defendants’ Prompt Tender of Claimants’ Net Economic Losses
A8. Henderson, The New Zealand Accident Compensation Reform
|
|
第18週 |
06/18 |
Final Exam |
|