查看: 1973|回复: 3
|
tort law 侵权法
[复制链接]
|
|
小妹有个地方始终是搞不清楚.
请问如果被告企图恐吓原告..原告预测他自己有危害而做出回避..在回避过程中意外弄伤自己..请问battery成立吗?
battery有3个元素..intent, contact, harmful.
在这案件里,Intent是有了harmful也有了....可是contact没有..请问battery还成立吗?
contact可以indirectly..例如:我用飞刀丢你..你受伤..这样battery就成立..
可是以上的案件...完全没有任何物品接触..>.<
请问有那位熟读法律的会员能够为我解答啊?
谁能提供相关案件类似我的问题啊?
感激万分..data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b69a8/b69a87d2f03b436ff5498a52a4fc4e8ed5f71d80" alt=""
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 19-11-2010 10:32 PM
|
显示全部楼层
小妹有个地方始终是搞不清楚.
请问如果被告企图恐吓原告..原告预测他自己有危害而做出回避..在回避过程中意 ...
Tiffany1115 发表于 19-11-2010 10:02 PM data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25ae0/25ae0af2d53f34cd79ba83225862eb5a5fa02326" alt=""
没contact,battery就不成立了应该是assault
intentionally and voluntarily causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d8cce/d8cce01a28e70910359b411de4bdf6041da9677a" alt=""
楼主 |
发表于 19-11-2010 10:41 PM
|
显示全部楼层
没contact,battery就不成立了应该是assault
intentionally and voluntarily causing the reasonable ...
Dellan 发表于 19-11-2010 22:32 data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/66f08/66f0851f80d26a5527da99433b0d6cef7747b2ed" alt=""
是不是说The injury during the escape wascaused by the assault and the defender is liable for these damages but not battery?
请问有什么案件可以support这个sentence吗?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 30-11-2010 01:50 PM
|
显示全部楼层
Mead & Belt's Case (1823)
R v Wilson 1955 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
本周最热论坛帖子
|