Text № 7LAWSUITS FOR PERSONAL INJUR

Text № 7
LAWSUITS FOR PERSONAL INJURY

During the early development of the law, it was recognized that whenever possible the court should award compensation to those persons banned by the actions of another. As a result of this determination, the theory of tort liability was conceived. Tort law is based on the idea that anyone who causes injury to another person or his property should be held responsible for this harm. It differs from criminal law, in which a state imposes punishment upon the guilty party and thereafter seeks to rehabilitate him. Tort theory is also different from contract law which the court uses to give legal effect to the promises of individuals.
In essence, a tort, or civil wrong, is the violation of a personal right guaranteed to the individual by law. A person has committed a tort if he has interfered with another person's safety, liberty, reputation or private property. If the injured party can prove that the defendant proximately caused him harm, the court will hold the defendant responsible for the plaintiff’s injury. If he doesn't have a valid defense, the defendant will be forced to pay for the damage he caused. Tort liability can be divided into three broad areas:
• Liability as a result of intentional conduct;
• Liability as a result of negligent conduct;
• Liability without fault.
Individual torts include such offenses as assault, battery, trespass, conversion, defamation, and deceit. In addition, accidental injuries caused by defective machinery or dangerous activities can геnder the owner or person in charge liable for the damage.
Since the individual can easily become involved in tortuous situation, often through little or no fault of his own, it is useful to know what actions are considered torts and what defenses exist to eliminate or reduce liability.
1526 зн.


Text № 8
LIABILITY RESULTING FROM INTENTIONAL CONDUCT

An individual has committed an intentional tort if he has knowingly violated the rights of another. He may have considered his action a practical joke, or he rnay have believed that no harm would result. Neither excuse constitutes a valid defense. He will be held liable for an intentional tort because he desired to wrongfully interfere with another's interests and because he acted upon that desire. If the guilty party has injured his victim, he will be forced to compensate that individual for his injuries.
Since many seemingly harmless pranks or thoughtless actions can lead to liability for a civil wrong, it is useful to know what acts constitute intentional torts.

Assault. Assault is an intentional act which provokes in the victim a reasonable apprehension that the aggressor intends and is able to harm him. No contact is necessary. The harm is the mental fear of injury. To illustrate, suppose two neighbors, Jones and Smith, are always quarreling. Jones starts to build a garage which Smith believes will infringe on his property. In his anger Smith grabs a hatchet. Running toward Jones he begins yelling and waving the hatchet wildly. Although Smith does not actually hit Jones, he may be liable for assault because his acts placed Jones under a reasonable fear that he would be injured. Even if Smith meant no harm and was only carrying a practical joke to an extreme, the liability still exists.
An assault action, however, presupposes that the victim is aware of the impending harm. Suppose Smith was behind Jones when he raised the hatchet. At this point there is no assault because Jones is unaware of the raised hatchet. He has no apprehension of impending harm. Or, if Smith points a gun at Jones, but Jones doesn't see it, the result is the same. No liability exists because the victim is unaware of the act and therefore cannot be frightened or intimidated.
Normally, words alone are insufficient to constitute an assault. The aggressor must have some ability to carry out the impending harm. Thus, words coupled with an overt act are sufficient. For example, if Alien approaches Baker, waves a pistol at him, and says "stick'em up", he has committed an assault. The words alone are no cause for fear, but the words, coupled with the pistol, constitute a distinct threat. In this situation Baker's fear that he will be banned is entirely reasonable.

Battery. In simple terms, a battery is a completed assault. It can be defined as the unjustified use of force against the body of another person, resulting in uncontented contact with that person. Fear of apprehension of injury is not part of this tort. All that is necessary is that the force is
intentional and that it is applied without the victim's consent. In our example, if Smith had actually struck Jones with the hatchet, he would have committed a battery upon him and would be liable for any resulting injuries.
Battery sometimes occurs as the result on unauthorized surgical operations. Suppose Dr. Casey is to perform an operation on Mrs. Olson's right leg. Permission is granted for that operation, but while in the operating room, Dr. Casey discovers an ugly tumor on his patient's left leg and removes it. Courts have held that since he did not have permission to operate on the left leg, the doctor is liable for battery. In view of these court results, hospitals often insert a protective clause in their consent forms.
This clause gives them permission to perform any additional surgery that is both beneficial and minor. Therefore, it is important to read a consent form for an operation carefully in order to see what clauses it contains. If a question arises about the meaning of a particular statement, the doctor can usually answer it. The safer course of action, however, might be to ask a lawyer to explain the meaning and effect of the clause.

False imprisonment. False imprisonment is a violation of the individual's right to personal liberty. This tort is described as the unlawful and unjustified detention of a person against his will. The law considers a person falsely imprisoned only if he is completely prevented from going about his business. A victim of this tort can bring an action against the person responsible and recover money compensation for his loss of time, any physical injury, illness or any mental anquish he may have suffered.
A simplified example of false imprisonment would occur if Williams, without right, placed Young in a room and locked the door, thereby preventing him from leaving. However, if there were a window in the room through which Young could have escaped, a court might find that the detention was not sufficiently complete to constitute false imprisonment.
In their attempts to curb shoplifting, store merchants occasionally violate the personal liberty of suspects by detaining them without a reasonable cause, as in the following example:
Mr. Davis, the store detective, stops Jimmy and Johnny as they try to leave the store. Davis didn't see the boys take anything nor did anyone report to him that they did. He just doesn’t trust their looks or their mannerism as they wander through the store. His examination of their shopping bags shows that they have paid for everything. Johnny and Jimmy could file a lawsuit against Davis and the store for the raise imprisonment.
Shoplifting is such a major problem that many states have modified their laws governing false imprisonment. These new provisions allow authorized store personnel to detain a person whom they reasonably believe has stolen merchandise.

Trespass. Strictly speaking, a trespass is the unlawful invasion of another person's real property. This tort has its roots in early English and American common law. Traditionally, the individual has enjoyed the right to own and use land without interference. Thus a person who intentionally
enters private property without the owner's consent technically commits trespass, regardless of whether or not he harms the property. Examples of technical trespass include animals intruding on one's property, people using private property as a short cut, or children throwing rocks on someone's land. Since the harm to the land is minimal in these cases, a court would
probably award nominal damages, such as one dollar.
However, many trespasses result in serious damage to the land or its owner. For example, a driver of a moving van, while attempting to turn around in the street, drives the truck over the curb onto a private lawn and crushes the owner's new sidewalk. The company is liable to the property owner for the damage. To illustrate another serious trespass, suppose some neighborhood children camp, on the far end of a man's acreage without his consent. Thinking that "they have put out their campfire", the children bed down for the night. However, the wind comes up and fans the coals to life. The subsequent fire spreads and eventually burns down the owner's house. He can recover damages from the children and possibly from their parents for the loss of his house.
Error is no excuse in the eyes of the law. A trespass committed by mistake is still a trespass, and the transgressor is liable to the property owner for any damage he has caused. For example, John and George have the mineral rights for a parcel of land on which they discover natural gas. After capping their find, they seek a method of economically producing it. Meanwhile ABC Gas Company, under the impression that it is drilling on its own land, "discovers" and attempts to recoup the same natural gas deposit. Since John and George have the legal rignt to the minerals, they can recover for damages even though ABC Gas Company believes that it was drilling on its own land.

Conversion. Trespass applies to the intentional invasion of real property. In a similar manner, conversion is the exercise of dominion over someone else's personal property. Personal property includes tangible possessions such as cars, appliances, clothing, and jewelry, and intangible property such as stocks and bonds.
The term conversion encompasses several different acts. One

Результаты (русский) 1:

Текст № 7СУДЕБНЫЕ ИСКИ ЗА ЛИЧНОЙ ТРАВМЫВ начале разработки закона было признано, что возможности суда следует присудить компенсацию лицам запрещены действия другого. В результате этого определения был задуман теория деликтной ответственности. Деликтного права основывается на идее, что любой, кто причиняет ущерб другому лицу или его имуществу должен нести ответственность за этот ущерб. Он отличается от уголовного права, в котором государство предусматривает наказания виновного и затем пытается реабилитировать его. Деликта теории также отличается от договорного права, которые суд использует, чтобы придать юридическую силу положениям обещания частных лиц.По существу деликта, или гражданское правонарушение, является нарушение личного право индивида гарантируются законодательством. Лицо совершило гражданское правонарушение, если он вмешался с другого лица безопасность, свободу, репутации или частной собственности. Если потерпевшая сторона может доказать, что ответчик непосредственно причинило ему вред, суд проведет ответчик несет ответственность за травмы истца. Если он не имеет действительный обороны, ответчик будет вынужден платить за ущерб, причиненный он. Деликтной ответственности можно разделить на три широкие области:• Ответственность в результате преднамеренного поведения;• Ответственность вследствие халатного поведения;• Ответственность без вины.Отдельные правонарушения включают в себя такие правонарушения, как нападение, батарея, повинности, преобразования, диффамации и обмана. Кроме того несчастных случаев, вызванных дефектных машин или опасных видов деятельности можно геnder владельца или лица, в обязанности, ответственность за ущерб.Поскольку человек легко может стать участие в извилистый ситуации, часто по его вине мало или вообще не собственные, это полезно знать, какие действия считаются деликты и какие средства защиты существуют для устранения или уменьшения ответственности.1526 ЗН. Текст № 8ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТИ В РЕЗУЛЬТАТЕ ПРЕДНАМЕРЕННОГО ПОВЕДЕНИЯЛицо совершило умышленное деликта, если он сознательно нарушает права другого. Он может рассматривать его действий для забавы, или rnay он поверил, что приведет никакого вреда. Ни оправдания представляет действительный обороны. Он будет нести ответственность за умышленные правонарушения, потому что он желал неправомерно вмешиваться в чужие интересы, и потому, что он действовал на это желание. Если виновный ранения его жертва, он будет вынужден компенсировать это лицо за его травмы.Поскольку многие казалось бы безобидной шутки или бездумные действия может привести к ответственности за гражданское правонарушение, это полезно знать, какие деяния представляют собой умышленные деликты.Штурм. Нападение является намеренный акт, который провоцирует в жертва разумные опасения, что агрессор намеревается и возможность навредить ему. Нет контакта необходимо. Вреда является психическое страх травмы. Чтобы проиллюстрировать, предположим, что два соседа, Джонс и Смит, всегда ссор. Джонс начинает построить гараж, который Смит считает, будет посягать на его имущество. В своем гневе Смит хватает топор. Побежал к Джонс, он начинает кричать и махать топором дико. Хотя Смит на самом деле не ударил Джонс, он может нести ответственность за нападение, потому что его действия под разумные основания опасаться, что он будет ранен Джонс. Даже если Смит означает никакого вреда и нес только для забавы до крайности, ответственность по-прежнему существует. Нападение действия, однако, предполагает, что жертва знает о предстоящем вреда. Предположим, что Смит был позади Джонс, когда он поднял топор. На данный момент существует не нападение, потому что Джонс неизвестно о поднял топор. Он имеет не опасения надвигающегося вреда. Или, если Смит указывает пистолет на Джонс, но Джонс не видит его, результат одинаков. Никакой ответственности существует потому, что жертва не знает закон и поэтому не может быть напуган или запугиванию. Normally, words alone are insufficient to constitute an assault. The aggressor must have some ability to carry out the impending harm. Thus, words coupled with an overt act are sufficient. For example, if Alien approaches Baker, waves a pistol at him, and says "stick'em up", he has committed an assault. The words alone are no cause for fear, but the words, coupled with the pistol, constitute a distinct threat. In this situation Baker's fear that he will be banned is entirely reasonable. Battery. In simple terms, a battery is a completed assault. It can be defined as the unjustified use of force against the body of another person, resulting in uncontented contact with that person. Fear of apprehension of injury is not part of this tort. All that is necessary is that the force isintentional and that it is applied without the victim's consent. In our example, if Smith had actually struck Jones with the hatchet, he would have committed a battery upon him and would be liable for any resulting injuries.Battery sometimes occurs as the result on unauthorized surgical operations. Suppose Dr. Casey is to perform an operation on Mrs. Olson's right leg. Permission is granted for that operation, but while in the operating room, Dr. Casey discovers an ugly tumor on his patient's left leg and removes it. Courts have held that since he did not have permission to operate on the left leg, the doctor is liable for battery. In view of these court results, hospitals often insert a protective clause in their consent forms. This clause gives them permission to perform any additional surgery that is both beneficial and minor. Therefore, it is important to read a consent form for an operation carefully in order to see what clauses it contains. If a question arises about the meaning of a particular statement, the doctor can usually answer it. The safer course of action, however, might be to ask a lawyer to explain the meaning and effect of the clause. False imprisonment. False imprisonment is a violation of the individual's right to personal liberty. This tort is described as the unlawful and unjustified detention of a person against his will. The law considers a person falsely imprisoned only if he is completely prevented from going about his business. A victim of this tort can bring an action against the person responsible and recover money compensation for his loss of time, any physical injury, illness or any mental anquish he may have suffered.A simplified example of false imprisonment would occur if Williams, without right, placed Young in a room and locked the door, thereby preventing him from leaving. However, if there were a window in the room through which Young could have escaped, a court might find that the detention was not sufficiently complete to constitute false imprisonment. In their attempts to curb shoplifting, store merchants occasionally violate the personal liberty of suspects by detaining them without a reasonable cause, as in the following example:Mr. Davis, the store detective, stops Jimmy and Johnny as they try to leave the store. Davis didn't see the boys take anything nor did anyone report to him that they did. He just doesn’t trust their looks or their mannerism as they wander through the store. His examination of their shopping bags shows that they have paid for everything. Johnny and Jimmy could file a lawsuit against Davis and the store for the raise imprisonment.Shoplifting is such a major problem that many states have modified their laws governing false imprisonment. These new provisions allow authorized store personnel to detain a person whom they reasonably believe has stolen merchandise.Trespass. Strictly speaking, a trespass is the unlawful invasion of another person's real property. This tort has its roots in early English and American common law. Traditionally, the individual has enjoyed the right to own and use land without interference. Thus a person who intentionallyenters private property without the owner's consent technically commits trespass, regardless of whether or not he harms the property. Examples of technical trespass include animals intruding on one's property, people using private property as a short cut, or children throwing rocks on someone's land. Since the harm to the land is minimal in these cases, a court wouldprobably award nominal damages, such as one dollar. However, many trespasses result in serious damage to the land or its owner. For example, a driver of a moving van, while attempting to turn around in the street, drives the truck over the curb onto a private lawn and crushes the owner's new sidewalk. The company is liable to the property owner for the damage. To illustrate another serious trespass, suppose some neighborhood children camp, on the far end of a man's acreage without his consent. Thinking that "they have put out their campfire", the children bed down for the night. However, the wind comes up and fans the coals to life. The subsequent fire spreads and eventually burns down the owner's house. He can recover damages from the children and possibly from their parents for the loss of his house.Error is no excuse in the eyes of the law. A trespass committed by mistake is still a trespass, and the transgressor is liable to the property owner for any damage he has caused. For example, John and George have the mineral rights for a parcel of land on which they discover natural gas. After capping their find, they seek a method of economically producing it. Meanwhile ABC Gas Company, under the impression that it is drilling on its own land, "discovers" and attempts to recoup the same natural gas deposit. Since John and George have the legal rignt to the minerals, they can recover for damages even though ABC Gas Company believes that it was drilling on its own land. Conversion. Trespass applies to the intentional invasion of real property. In a similar manner, conversion is the exercise of dominion over someone else's personal property. Personal property includes tangible possessions such as cars, appliances, clothing, and jewelry, and intangible property such as stocks and bonds.The term conversion encompasses several different acts. One

Результаты (русский) 3:

текст № 7 исков в отношении телесных повреждений


в начале развития права, было признано, что во всех случаях, когда это возможно, суд должен выплатить компенсацию лицам запрещены действия другого.в результате этого определения, теория о деликтной ответственности был зачат.деликтного права заключается в том, что тот, кто причиняет вред другому лицу или его имуществу, должны нести ответственность за этот ущерб.она отличается от уголовного права, в которых государство вводит наказания виновных, а затем стремится восстановить его.о теории также отличается от договорного права, которые суд использует для придания юридической силы, обещания, данные лица.
в сущности, деликт, или гражданское правонарушение, является нарушением личное право гарантирует отдельным законом.лицо, совершившее деликт, если он вмешивается, с другим лицом, безопасности, свободы, репутации или частной собственности.если потерпевшая сторона может доказать, что ответчик непосредственно в причинении ему ущерба, суд проведет ответчик несет ответственность за истцу вреда.если он не имеет действительного обороны, ответчик будет вынужден платить за ущерб, который он причинил.о деликтной ответственности может быть разделена на три основных направления:
• ответственности в результате преднамеренного поведения;
• ответственности в результате халатного поведения;
• ответственности без вины.
отдельные правонарушения включают такие нарушения, как нападение, побои, причинение вреда, преобразования, диффамации и обмана.кроме того,случайных травм, вызванных неисправной машины или опасные виды деятельности могут ге земли владелец или лицо, ответственное за ответственность за ущерб, причиненный.
с человек легко может стать участие в запутанной ситуации, зачастую через мало или не по своей вине, полезно знать, какие меры рассматриваются правонарушения и что защита существуют для устранения или уменьшения ответственности.
1526 зн.



текст № 8