Dissertation > Excellent graduate degree dissertation topics show

On the Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur in the Tort of Negligence in the United States

Author: DaiPing
Tutor: WangXiaoChuan
School: University of Foreign Trade and Economic
Course: Legal
Keywords: American tort law Tort negligence The situation is not self-evident The burden of proof
CLC: D971.2
Type: Master's thesis
Year: 2000
Downloads: 246
Quote: 0
Read: Download Dissertation

Abstract

American tort law originated from the United Kingdom. In the 19th century on the second half of the tort-fault system began rooted in the United States. It is both different from the willful infringement but also different from the subject to the strict liability of infringement, a category of tort law with its own characteristics. Under the negligence theory, the fault of the perpetrator to play a major role in determining its responsibilities. In the negligence tort cases, the plaintiff obligation to prove each element to constitute a cause of action, including: 1, the defendant should bear the duty of care and standards of conduct; 2, the defendant in violation of the duty of care and unreasonable behavior; 3, causality; and 4, the result of the damage. After eleven the burden of proof on those facts, he was likely to win the case. The occurrence of an accident itself is not sufficient to allow the jury to find a defendant's conduct unreasonable, the jury needed more evidence. Plaintiff prove that the defendant negligent acts, mainly using two kinds of evidence: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence (also known as \In most cases, the plaintiffs rely on circumstantial evidence to prove that the defendant has committed a fault. U.S. court of how circumstantial evidence to prove the defendant is at fault, according to the different types of cases, established certification requirements. There are two important certification requirements, namely the \In proof of infringement negligence, if the use of circumstantial evidence than direct evidence of the use of forward step, then the traditional not self-evident principles of the generation and use development off than circumstantial evidence took a huge stride forward. The situation is not self-evident principle originated from the United Kingdom. In 1863 Byrne v. Bodleian case, the British judge Pollock first use of axiomatic principle of presumption that the defendant negligent acts. The principle in the development process in the United States, retains the basic content of the English law, and developed its own characteristics. Today, the situation is not self-evident for all courts accept and apply only the state of South Carolina that refused such a reference, but in the actual deciding a case, still according to the principle of circumstantial evidence be applicable. The situation is not self-evident is a simple, easy to understand the rules of evidence. It as a solid background in human common sense and experience, is an indirect proof method of fault. It uses logical reasoning and general evidence: the facts of the dispute can be inferred based on other facts - the existence of \Some professional accident (such as medical negligence case), if not the general experience of mankind \Applicable, is not self-evident premise, the plaintiff must prove that the negligent acts likely defendant not fully explain the basis of the facts provided by the plaintiff caused the direct cause of the accident. Axiomatic case, the jury could infer the defendant's conduct unreasonable but do not have any other proof; a corollary of the general evidence to prove negligence cases, the jury must be drawn in conjunction with other evidence before ruling The defendant failed to exercise caution. It solves encountered in deciding whether a case to a jury trial, whether the evidence is sufficient to alleviate the plaintiff's burden of proof. It is accepted by the current legal system in the United States deemed to be able to meet the standard of proof of negligence \lt; WP = 36 gt; axiomatic applicable range is very wide, it is not limited to a relationship or a certain behavior. If the facts provided by the plaintiff is able to prove that: something is under the management of the defendants or their employees, and incidents of this type: if this was management people put the proper care, usually in the development of things process, this accident would not have occurred, then the situation is not self-evident principle can be applicable. But usually can not be applied in the case of multiple defendants negligence, unless the defendant agency obligations to each other, or some sort of shared responsibility obligations. In in in Ibarra v. Adams Punta Gardner case, the California Supreme Court precedent of the first to allow the plaintiff to sue a group of doctors. Nevertheless, even in today to comply with the judgment of the Court of the Ibarra case, it is limited to the application of the principle of similar facts. Applicable axiomatic conditions: 1, the event must belong to that class without someone's negligence does not usually happen in the event; 2, the occurrence of the event must be caused by agents or objects and exclusive control by the defendant alone; , the event is not due to the active conduct of a party by the plaintiff or common behavior; 4 for the evidence to be able to the true interpretation of events causes the defendant more likely than the plaintiff. No special circumstances or between the parties in the general case, the special relationship, the majority of the court held that the principle is just a case of evidence. The principle is applicable whether to make fault inferences, the scope of the jury's discretion, the judge may permit but can not force them to make the fault inference; the plaintiff just escape from danger or withdrawal of the lawsuit does not hold, but the burden of proof is not transferred to the defendant from a limited sense, if the defendant is not positive proof, we take \This theory, also known as \A small part of the courts and scholars adhere to the \Defense method used by the defendant in the case is not self-evident case: to confirm the real cause of the accident;, or prove that he fulfilled his duty of care;, or attacks on the basis of evidence provided by the plaintiff. Situations is not words-evident the role: 1, in those people urged the implementation of strict liability and social insurance negligence cases, play a similar \to bear. 2, in particular areas, it pushes the strict liability statutes produce and raise the level of development of science and technology, greatly reducing the likelihood of occurrence of a number of adverse consequences, thereby reducing the axiomatic applicable. However, due to the operation of certain things easier to control, can lead to the application of the principle of cases, the applicable axiomatic more interested in, because if the defendant caution, avoid its occurrence is likely. I found the situation of Anglo-American system is not self-evident, through research, to produce a certain effect on the civil law countries. So far, China has not yet established a complete system of tort law and evidence law regime. Chinese scholars in the Anglo-American tort law is not self-evident

On the Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur in the Tort of Negligence in the United States

Abstract

Related Dissertations