校際選修

115-1 選課時程

進行中

  • 初選第一階段 6/15/2026
  • 初選第二階段 6/22/2026
  • 校際選修 8/24/2026
  • 初選第三階段 8/31/2026
  • 開學後加退選 9/7/2026
  • 逾期加退選 9/21/2026
選課資源

美國侵權法

U.S. Tort Law

學期
110-2
學分
3 學分
當期課號
5167
永久課號
ITL5228
開課單位
科技法律研究所碩士在職專班
授課教師
江浣翠
校區
光復
類別
選修
上課時間表
週六
6
14:20–15:10
美國侵權法
AB102
3 節連堂
7
15:30–16:20
8
16:30–17:20

* 根據陽明交大上課時間表所列

概述

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 apply them to real cases. 3. Students are expected to present leading cases of American tort law fluently after they take this course.

先修科目

不必具備法律基礎知識,但應有良好的英文閱讀能力。

教學方式

Reading assignments will be uploaded on e-campus

評分方式

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. Performance During the Lessons: 6% 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. 3. Case-leading: 20% We will read many cases in this semester. (Do not worry about the quantity. Most of the cases are very short.) You are responsible for one or two classes' cases as groups. 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 20 points. 4. Quizzes: 35% We will have 11 quizzes in the beginning of the most classes. The quizzes help you to review the previous class by 3-5 multiple-choice question. You need to take at least 7quizzes. Each quiz counts 5 points. If you take more than 7 quizzes. I will count 7 of them which you have better performance. 5. Researchh Paper: 35% You are required to do a research paper for this course. After introducing the tort law system in the U.S. generally, please find a decision from courts in Taiwan and provide your criticism and great ideas about the decision from what you have learned in this American Torts course (3000 words are enough) (Writing in Chinese is acceptable.)

課程大綱
  • 講授
  • 案例研討
週次計畫
週次主題
第 1 週Introduction A. Introduction to the Course B. The Map of Torts An Overview of Modern Tort Liability. C. How to Brief a Case
第 2 週中秋放假
第 3 週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 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 Imprisonment 9. Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman 40-41 10. Parvi v. City of Jingston 42-44 11. Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing 44-46
第 4 週1. State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff 50-53.pdf 2. Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida 54-56.pdf 3. Harris v. Jones 57-60.pdf 4. Taylor v. Vallelunga 64-65.pdf 5. Dougherty v. Stepp 66-67.pdf 6. Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co. 68-70.pdf 7. Herrin v. Sutherland 70-71.pdf 8. Rogers v. Board of Com’rs for Kent County72-73.pdf 9. Glidden v. Szybiak 75-76.pdf 10. CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions Inc. 77-81.pdf 11. Pearson v. Dodd 81-84.pdf Restatement – 85-90.pdf
第 5 週Intentional Torts – Defenses and Privileges 1. Peters v. Menard, Inc. 61 2. Katko v. Britney 62-63 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
第 6 週講者演講
第 7 週Negligence-- Basic Principle of Negligence & The Prudent Person Standard History- 131-133 1. Lubitz v. Wells 133 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
第 8 週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 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 Malpractice SAUL LEVMORE & CATHERINE M. SHARKEY, FOUNDATIONS OF TORT LAW 161-181 (2009).
第 9 週1. Santiago v. First Student, Inc. 135-136.pdf 2. Thoma v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. 140-141.pdf 3. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright 143-144.pdf 4. The T.J. Hooper 145-146.pdf 5. Bryne v. Boadle 147-149.pdf 6. Cosgrove v. Commonwealth Edison Co. 153-154.pdf 7. Giles v. City of New Heaven 156-159.pdf 8. Collins v. Superrior Air-Ground Ambulance Service 160-161.pdf
第 10 週NO CLASS
第 11 週Negligence –Causation-- Factual Causation- “But For” Cause 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
第 12 週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 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
第 13 週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 C. Unborn Children-- Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Life 5. Endresz v. Friedberg 464-467 6. Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo 469-476 D. Premises Liability-Special Rules for Landowners 7. Salevan v. Wilmington Park, Inc. 482-483 8. Sheehan v, St. Paul & Duluth Ry. Co. 485-487 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
第 14 週NO CLASS
第 15 週Strict Liability & Vicarious Duty A. Animals B. Hazardous Activities 1. Rylands v. Fletcher 692-697 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. 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
第 16 週Products Liability & Other Compensation System A. Products Liability 1.Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. (722-725) 2.Greenman v. Yuba Power products, Inc. (732-735) 3. Rix v. general Motors Corp. (740-742) 4. Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co. (743-748).pdf(6595364) 5. Anderson v. Owens- Corning Fiberglas Corp (757-760) B. Works’ Compensation & Other Compensation System 6. Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. 1195-1198 1202-1217 (2005).
第 17 週Negligence- Defenses for Negligence & Immunity 1. Butterfield v. Forrester 219-220.pdf 2. Christensen v. Royal School District No. 160 229-231.pdf 3. Leroy Fibre Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 232-233.pdf 4. Moore v. Hartley Motors 240-242.pdf 5. Avila v. Citrus Community College District 245-248.pdf 6. Freehe v. Freehe 622-624;.pdf 7. Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary’s 633-636;.pdf 8. Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education 637-640;.pdf 9. Deuser v. Vecera 648-653.pdf
第 18 週Guest Speaker
第 19 週Oral Presentation
教科書

推薦教科書、參考資料、預習書單: MARSHALL S. SHAPO, PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW (2003). VICTOR E. SCHWARTZ ET AL, PROSSER, WADE AND SCHWARTZ’S TORTS (2006)

Office Hours
地點
MB404
時間
Saturdays 14:30-15:20PM
聯絡方式
chiangwt@nctu.edu.tw