베이비바 뽀개기/2013년 6월: 두 판 사이의 차이
내용 삭제됨 내용 추가됨
편집 요약 없음 |
|||
8번째 줄:
3. 크리스의 죄책은?}}
==제2문 [불법행위법]==
1. 빌은 에이브를 상대로 한 소송에서 승소할 것인가?<br>
2. 신디는 에이브를 상대로 한 과실에 의한 불법행위 소송에 승소할 것인가?<br>
3. 데비는 에이브를 상대로 한 과실적 감정고통유발 소송에서 승소할 것인가?}}
===모범답안===
====제1항====
빌 (원고) 대 에이브 (피고)
=====위협=====
위협이란 피고가 타인에 대해 급박한 침해적이거나 공격적인 접촉을 고의적으로 발생시키는 불법행위이다. 여기서 고의란 결과를 발생시키기 위하거나 결과 발생이 상당히 확실한 상태를 의욕하는 것이다. '''여기서''' 에이브는 톱을 쥐고는 빌 앞으로 두 발자국 걸어나갔다. 에이브는 단지 벌목하려는 목적하에 톱을 쥐고 나아갔을 뿐이며 빌에게 어떠한 해를 입히려는 의도도 없었을 수 있다. 하지만 이건 서로 의견충돌 중에서 행동한 것으로 합리적인 사람이 볼 때 상대방에게 신변의 적지않은 위협감을 느끼게 하기에 충분한 상황이다. 그러므로 에이브는 빌에 대해 위협에 대한 책임을 진다.
=====폭행=====
폭행은 피고가 침해적인 또는 공격적인 접촉을 고의적으로 발생시키는 불법행위이다. 여기에서 에이브는 벌목으로 인해 빌에 나무가 떨어져서 침해적이거나 공격적인 접촉을 당할 수 있는 상당한 확실성을 인지하고 행동하였으므로 고의가 성립한다. 항변으로는 에이브는 필요를 주장할 수 있으나 필요를 주장하기 위해서는 이익이 침해보다 더 중하여야 하는데 빌에게 중상을 입히는 것은 이 기준에 부합하지 않아서 필요 항변은 성립하지 않을 것으로 보인다. 따라서 피고는 폭행에 대한 책임을 진다.
====제2항====
신디(원고) 대 에이브(피고)
=====과실=====
A person is liable for negligence if they owe a duty, the duty is breached, they are the cause of harm, and the other party suffers damages.
Duty-- Generally one owes a duty of reasonable care to all foreseeable plaintiffs under the circumstances. Here, there are no special relationships between Cindy and Abe, so Abe will be held to this reasonably prudent person standard.
Breach-- The duty is breached if the defendant fails to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. One method to determine if a duty is breached is to compare the burden to avoid the harm and the utility of the defendant's conduct against the gravity of harm combined with the likelihood of the harm. Here, Abe's burden to avoid any harm was rather low, since all he needed to do was not cut down the tree. Additionally, Abe may have been able to simply contact the local municipality and have them address his problem with the tree. The utility of Abe's conduct is also rather low, since his only benefit was the relief from having to rake leaves. The gravity of the harm suffered by Cindy was great as she suffered serious injury. The likelihood of Cindy suffering such injury was also relatively high, since Abe knew that Bill was in the tree and was likely to be injured, which would prompt a passerby to assist Bill. Based on this analysis, Abe breached his duty of reasonable care to Cindy, since the gravity of harm and the likelihood of harm greatly outweigh the burden to avoid the harm and the utility of Abe's conduct.
Causation-- In order to be liable for negligence, the defendant must be both the actual cause and proximate cause of the harm.
Actual cause-- one test used to determine actual cause is the but for test; but for Abe's cutting down the tree, would Cindy have been injured? Clearly the answer is no, so under this test Abe is an actual cause of harm. Another test used to determine actual cause is the substantial factor test; was Abe a substantial factor in Cindy's harm? Again the answer is clear; Abe was a substantial factor in Cindy's harm. Under either test, Abe is an actual cause of harm.
Proximate cause-- Were there any intervening acts which caused Cindy's harm? Abe may contend that the car which struck Cindy was an intervening act, but this act was foreseeable since the tree was caused to fall into the street. Therefore, this intervening act would not cut off liability. Next we ask, was the harm suffered by Cindy foreseeable• Since the tree had fallen in the street, and since Bill was in the tree when it was cut down, it was entirely foreseeable that a passerby would stop to render aid to Bill. It is also foreseeable that Cindy would suffer both the type of injury suffered and the extent of the injury. Therefore, Abe is a proximate cause of Cindy's harm.
Damages-- Cindy suffered serious injuries, so this element is obviously satisfied.
Defenses-- Assumption of the risk occurs when the plaintiff knows of the danger involved and voluntarily proceeds anyway. The facts do not state if Cindy knew of the car coming which caused her injury. Even if she did know of it, Cindy could argue that her act was not voluntary because Bill was in peril and required rescue.
Comparative fault/Contributory negligence-- If Cindy failed to act in a reasonable way and was a cause of her own injuries, then she could be found to be comparatively at fault or contributory negligent, depending on the jurisdiction. The majority rule is comparative fault, which states that plaintiff's damages will be reduced by the proportion of their fault in their own injury.
Contributory negligence states that plaintiff's recovery will be barred if found to be a cause of their own injury. Cindy can claim that she acted perfectly reasonable under the circumstances, because there was an emergency situation. Under emergency situations, the actor is to act reasonably under the circumstances at hand, even if in hindsight it is shown that they did not take the wisest course of action. Cindy most likely will be found to have acted reasonably under the circumstances, and her recovery will not be reduced or barred.
Conclusion-- Cindy will prevail and she will be entitled to compensatory damages which would include medical expenses, lost time from work, and pain & suffering. If it was found that Abe acted maliciously, then punitive damages may also be awarded.
====제3항====
=====고의적인 정신적 가해행위=====
피 고가 난폭한 (outrageous) 또는 과격 한 (extreme) 행 위 를 하여 부주의
하게 (recklessly) 또는 고의적으로 타인에게 극심한 감정적 고통 (severe emotiona* distress) 을 일으켰다. 24 Outrageous or extreme conduct (난폭하고 과격 한 행 위 )
모든 禮嚴기준 (standards of decency) 을 벗어나는 것으로 다른 사람이
“난폭하군 (outrageous) "이라고 소리칠 수 있게 만드는 말과 행동
합리적인 일반인의 기준이 적용
그러나 높은 기준에 부합하여야 한다.
Debbie is a bystander; bystander NIED is established if the defendant, through negligence, causes emotional distress to a bystander who witnesses the event, the witnessing of the event is what causes the emotional distress, and if the bystander is a close relative of the one who is injured. Debbie is a neighbor, and not a close relative, so this action would fail. Abe is not liable for NIED.
==제3문 [계약법]==
3. {{인용문|샐리는 자신이 유산으로 물려받은 골동품 인형을 팔려고 했다. 샐리는 자신의 페이스북에 사진을 올리면서 다음과 같은 메모를 남겼다. "지난달 이것과 꼭 같은 인형이 에베이에서 650달러에 팔렸습니다.”
| |||