設成首頁 | 加入最愛 | 新訊連結 | 聯絡律師 | 推薦朋友 | 線上投稿 | 律師簡介 | 律師諮詢 | Facebook | 隱私權聲明 文章總數:209308 瀏覽總數:537304010
文章總數:209308 瀏覽總數:537304011
點選此處可回到首頁!
法律知識庫 課程講座 法律圖書 電子報中心 回首頁
台灣法律網新訊



法學入門(四十八):民法「意思表示錯誤」案例篇
【林蕙瑛專欄】同居在父母家,本性逐漸流露
「裁判易讀小幫手」自即日起上線,秒懂判決書新聞稿
【林蕙瑛專欄】遠距離戀愛的通病好像是沒辦法給另一半安全感
「國家統一」修法事件是照妖鏡
國民法官制已融合兩制優點之說明新聞稿
美人含怒奪燈去 問郎知是幾更天?
【林蕙瑛專欄】努力在擠壓生活中尋找平衡點
「是禁錮還是韁繩?論證現象世界的潛規則初探」
【林蕙瑛專欄】冒然復合有可能會落入從前互動的模式
拾得毒品,怎可占為自有
最高行政法院大法庭統一法律見解之108年度大字第3號裁定新聞稿
民法第98條所謂探求當事人之真意,如兩造就其真意有爭執時,應將誠信原則涵攝在內,藉以檢視其解釋結果對兩造之權利義務是否符合公平正義(最高法院108年度台上字第2739號民事判決)
【林蕙瑛專欄】生病總是希望得到親人朋友的關心
司法院「刑事程序制度研議委員會」第41次會議新聞稿 關於精神障礙或心神喪失規定之修正芻議
「是禁錮還是韁繩?論證現象世界的潛規則初探」
基於私法自治及契約自由原則,當事人得自行決定契約之種類及內容,以形成其所欲發生之權利義務關係,倘無違強制規定及公序良俗,即無不可(最高法院109年度台上字第88號民事判決)
【林蕙瑛專欄】加強面對面互動及感情連結
尚未向公司自請退休,及向勞動部勞工保險局辦理離職退保,能否謂其現存之婚後財產包括尚未取得之退休金及勞保老年給付?(最高法院108年度台上字第1516號民事判決)
因車禍遭撞擊造成身體傷害,未必立即顯現於外並得查明病因,倘非完全不具關連性,尚不得僅因疾病確診距車禍發生已有相當時日,即可排除其因果關係(最高法院108年度台上字第2671號民事判決)

 台灣法律網 > 法律知識庫 > 英美法 > 美國侵權行為法(TORTS)


Hector v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Ctr.(服務不適用嚴格責任)  / 劉 育偉
Hector v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Ctr.(服務不適用嚴格責任)225 Cal.Rptr.595(1986) Facts: The P filed a complaint against Def, alleging personal injury resulting from the implantation(植入)of a defective pacemaker.Issue:Whether ......(詳全文) 2009-08-22 02:20:00
Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.(二手貨不適用嚴格責任)  / 劉 育偉
Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.(二手貨不適用嚴格責任)Defendants other than principle manufacturers(製造人以外之被告)N.E. 2d 785(1975)Facts: A used car struck two boys. The P claimed for the retailer of the secondhand ......(詳全文) 2009-08-21 02:20:00
Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company(香菸之產品責任)  / 劉 育偉
Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company(香菸之產品責任)623 F. Supp.1189(1985)Facts: Mr. Roysdon suffers severe vascular disease(血管疾病)as a result of many years of smoking cigarettes manufactured by Def R.J. Reynolds Toba ......(詳全文) 2009-08-20 02:20:00
O’Brien v. Muskin Corp.(警告瑕疵)  / 劉 育偉
O’Brien v. Muskin Corp.(警告瑕疵)436 A 2d 298.(1983)Facts:原告跳水時,由於池底材質太滑致使保護頭部之手滑開,無法及時閃避而使頭部受傷Holding: Judgment for P.(縱使無design defect仍未能排除警告之責)Rationale: Strict liabi ......(詳全文) 2009-08-19 02:20:00
Henningsen v. Bloomfiled Motors, Inc.(Implied warranty)  / 劉 育偉
Henningsen v. Bloomfiled Motors, Inc.(Implied warranty)161 A.2d 69(1960)(民法第三五四條第一項強制法定擔保責任)Facts:原告於購車時未看清楚契約上小格的免責條款,於行駛中受傷而請求賠償。.Holding: Judgment for P.Rationale:Implied ......(詳全文) 2009-08-18 02:20:00
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.(Products Liability)  / 劉 育偉
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.(Products Liability)     111 N.E. 1050 (1916)Facts: Def who was a manufacturer of car sold the car to a car dealer(經銷商) who sold the car to P.  While P was driving, the ......(詳全文) 2009-08-17 02:20:00
Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.(Express warranties=Strict warranty liability)  / 劉 育偉
Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.(Express warranties=Strict warranty liability)456,12 P.2d 409.(1932)(即民354第二項)Facts:原告信賴被告nonshatterable glass的保證而購買,導致眼部受傷。Issue: Whether express warranty rests upon the pri ......(詳全文) 2009-08-16 02:20:00
Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo  / 劉 育偉
Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo478 A. 2d 755(1984)Facts: Theplaintiff was alleging that the doctors negligently deprived his parents of the choice of terminating the pregnancy(終止懷孕之選擇),he seeks general damages(直接損害= ......(詳全文) 2009-08-15 02:20:00
Pacific Mutual Life Ins. CO. v. Haslip  / 劉 育偉
Pacific Mutual Life Ins. CO. v. Haslip499 U.S, 1, 111 S. Ct. 1032, 113 L. Ed. 2d 1.(1991)Facts:保險經紀人侵吞原告之保險費,致原告發生損害時,無法向保險公司求償。 Issue:Doubts about the constitutionality(合憲性)of puniti ......(詳全文) 2009-08-14 02:20:00
Gryc v. Dayton-Hudson Corp.(about punitive damages)  / 劉 育偉
Gryc v. Dayton-Hudson Corp.(about punitive damages)297 N.W. 2d 727, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 921 (1980).Facts:PL’s 4y/o daughter was clothed in pajamas(睡衣)made from cotton material manufactured by Def Riegel. The materi ......(詳全文) 2009-08-13 02:20:00
Zimmerman v. Ausland(about mitigation of damages duty,纇民217第二項後段)  / 劉 育偉
Zimmerman v. Ausland(about mitigation of damages duty,纇民217第二項後段)513 P.2d 1167Facts: Zimmerman(P), suffered permanent injury in her knee as a result of an automobile accident caused by the negligence of the Ausland(De ......(詳全文) 2009-08-12 02:20:00
Hartridge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.(有關民188)  / 劉 育偉
Hartridge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.(有關民188)             86 Wis. 2d 1,271N.W.2d 598.(1978)Facts:The claim arise out of a two-car automobile accident ......(詳全文) 2009-08-11 02:20:00
O’Sullivan v. Shaw(about the open and obvious danger rule)  / 劉 育偉
O’Sullivan v. Shaw(about the open and obvious danger rule)            431 Mass. 201, 726 N.E. 2d 951.(2000)Facts:The plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries when he ......(詳全文) 2009-08-10 02:20:00
Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority(Consent)  / 劉 育偉
Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority(Consent)            75 Ohio St. 3d 312, 662 N.E. 2d 287(1996)Facts:Gladon(P)purchased a passenger ticket but he m ......(詳全文) 2009-08-09 02:20:00
Falcon(P)v. Memorial Hospital(Loss of opportunity)  / 劉 育偉
Falcon(P)v. Memorial Hospital(Loss of opportunity)462 N. W. 2d 44. (1990)Facts:The defendants contend that plaintiff wouldn’t show that the evidence of medical malpractice was probable, measured(受限於)as more than fi ......(詳全文) 2009-08-08 02:20:00

1 2 [3] 4 5
免 費 電 子 報
發刊期數: 3722
律 師 的 叮 嚀

代表國家訴追犯罪的機關,理應是犯罪發生的防守者,而非攻心的挑釁者。若從「人性本善」的儒家思想來看人類,舉輕明重,則更可將誘捕式偵查的結果,歸責於訴追機關的不當教唆。

劉孟錦律師


設成首頁 | 加入最愛 | 新訊連結 | 聯絡律師 | 推薦朋友 | 線上投稿 | 網站合作 | 律師簡介 | 律師諮詢 | Facebook | 隱私權聲明
法律具時效性,內容僅供參考,不宜直接引為訴訟用途,具體個案仍請洽詢專業律師
所有文章係作者之智慧,請尊重智慧財產權,轉載重製節錄請先取得本網之書面同意