美国侵权法案例1（英⽂）
Question #1
Every Saturday morning, Peter takes his six-year-old daughter to swimming lessons at Briarwood Fitness Center. He and his daughter are not members of the Center: he has merely bought a ries of swimming lessons given in the Center’s teaching pool by Center staff. Normally, Peter sits beside the swimming pool while his daughter’s lesson proceeds. One Saturday morning, he leaves the side of the pool while his daughter is swimming. He wanders around the Center, inspecting the facilities. He watches some racketball games, looks into the beauty shop and cafeteria, then goes into the weight room. He decides to try out one of the weight machines.
Remembering his healthy youth, Peter lects a very heavy weight. He releas the brake on the machine, which sustains the weight until the ur is ready to exerci. He rapidly discovers that he cannot sustain the weight that he has lected. His body crumples under the weight. Peter finds that he can only get out from underneath the weight by twisting and falling out of the machine. In doing so, he verely injures his back.
成功的条件The weight machine in question is manufactured by DominaFlex, Inc. It bears a warning sticker next to
the place where the ur lects the weight to be lifted. The warning says: “WARNING. Always u spotters when you lift. Do not u this equipment without first receiving instruction or reading the information booklet.”
A “spotter” is someone who stands by the machine while the ur is using it, to watch, encourage and give assistance if needed. Peter says he did not know what the term means.
Members of the Center are given instruction in how to u the weight machines before they are allowed to u the weight room. Although u of the weight room is suppod to be confined to Center members, there is no sign on the door of the weight room to that effect, nor has the Center put up any warning sign of its own by the machine. The instruction booklet was not left by the machine.
Peter wishes to sue both Briarwood Fitness Center and DominaFlex, Inc. Advi Peter about the issues that would be raid in the actions.
(Assume that the incident occurred in a jurisdiction that has not modified the traditional rules of occupier’s liability in any way, and where the law of products liability is bad on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section:402A.)
. Peter v. Briarwood
1. Occupier’s liabilitytup是什么意思
最爱英文怎么说
Becau Peter was injured in a jurisdiction that has not modified the traditional rules of occupier’s liability, the first question must be what kind of ent rant he was, becau Briarwood’s duty as occupier of the premis in question is different for different class of entrant.
The highest duty of care is owed to invitees. An invitee is either someone who us a public space made generally available to the public at large (a public invitee) or someone who enters private premis to engage in some kind of business transaction that might benefit the occupier (a business invitee). Although many entrants u it, Briarwood Fitness Center is not a public building,
so Peter cannot be a public invitee. Like many business, the Center is open to any member of the public who wishes to enter, but it is privately owned. If Peter is to be clasd as an invitee, he can only be a business invitee.
Peter is in the Center building to attend his daughter’s swimming lessons. He has paid the Center for tho lessons, so he is plainly a business invitee when attending the lessons, even though he is not
a member of the Center. However, Peter’s injuries were not sustained in the pool area. It is quite possible for a person’s entrant status to change from one part of a building to another. For example, if a hotel guest walks through a door clearly marked “No Entry: Staff Only”, he or she would cea to be an invitee and would become a trespasr.
In the prent ca, Peter has left the part of the Center where he was clearly a business invitee and has gone into a part of the building that was only open to members. The fact that Peter was not a member does not necessarily mean that he became a trespasr when he entered the weight room. There was no sign on the door stating that the weight room was only open to members. Other parts of the Center, such as the beauty shop and cafeteria, were obviously operating as business with a general invitation to members of the public to go inside and do business. There was no visible sign to distinguish the weight room from tho other business.
A person can be a business invitee without actually conferring a benefit on the occupier, if the c ircumstances are such that
the occupier’s premis are open to anyone who might confer a benefit. For example, any person who walks into a store during regular business hours is a business invitee whether or not he or she i
耳朵尖的人什么命
ntends to buy a particular item and whether or not he or she actually buys anything. Peter would plainly have been a business invitee in the beauty shop and cafeteria. If he entered the weight room to check it out, possibly with a view to becoming a member, then he would be a business inv itee in the same way. The Center’s rule is that the weight room should only be ud by members; it does not preclude non-members from even entering the room. Peter may well have remained a business invitee when entering the weight room. At the very least, it ems likely that he was a licene, which is someone who enters premis with the permission of the occupier but for his or her own purpos, without the intention to confer a benefit on the occupier. The door of the weight room was open and there was no sign indicating that it was any more private than any of the other spaces in the Center. That should be enough to establish the Center’s permission for entrants like Peter to enter the room. Implied permission to u the machines in the room would be slightly more difficult to find, but in the circumstances it ems unlikely that Peter would be considered a trespasr. That is a possibility, however. He did not actually have permission to u the machines. The mere fact that he could walk freely into the room would not automatically create the impression that he could freely u the machines in the room.
2. Occupier’s standard of care
If Peter was a business invitee in the weight room, then Briarwood owed him a duty of reasonable care, which would extend to warning him of any of the dangers of the property and also to making reasonable efforts to determine whether any such dangers existed. The machine had no warning
signs and there is nothing to indicate that Briarwood had made any effort to determine whether pasrs-by like Peter were using the machines. It may, however, have been an “open and obvious danger”, in which ca Briarwood would have owed no duty to take protective steps in relation to it. The heaviness of the weights was obvious and the risk of lifting them should have been clear to Peter as well as Briarwood.
If Peter was merely a licene in the weight room, Briarwood’s duty would be confined to one of warning him about concealed dangers known to it but not him. As noted above, the dangerousness of the machine does not em to be particularly concealed. An occupier is not liable to a licene who is injured by a condition of the premis of which both are aware.
文天祥的爱国诗
If Peter was a trespasr when using the weight machine, Briarwood’s duty is on ly to avoid willful and wanton misconduct designed deliberately to harm him. Peter’s action against Briarwood would obviously fail if he fell into this category. There is nothing about the prence of the machine that amounts to a deliberate attempt by Briarwood to harm trespasrs.
3. Comparative fault
If Peter is entitled to recover from Briarwood for a breach of any of the occupier’s duties, his recovery may be reduced on account of his own contributory negligence. His decision to lift without a spotter was unwi, even though he says that he did not know what the warning sign about “spotters” meant. A reasonable person would realize the dangers in lifting a heavy weight without practice or training. It ems likely that Peter failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. If the injury occurred in a jurisdiction with a modified comparative fault regime, which denies recovery altogether if the plaintiff’s fault is greater than the defendant’s, Peter’s action may fail completely.
II. Peter v. Dominaflex
1. Design defect
纵横时空Becau Peter suffered his injury in a state where products liability is governed by Section:402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, his action against Dominaflex will allege that the weight machine was a product “in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the ur”. There is nothing to indicate that the machine was badly manufactured, so his action would have to allege that it was poorly designed. It operated exactly as intended: the whole purpo of the machine is to put some a
mount of stress on the ur’s muscles. The design defect, if any, could only be the abnce of some kind of fail-safe mechanism to take the place of a “spotter” for lone urs, supporting the weight if the ur could no longer handle it.
Some Section:402A states test the defectiveness of product design by reference to the expectations of “ordinary consumers”, some by reference to a “risk-utility” standard, and some by a combination of both for different kinds of product (”ordinary consumer expectation” for simple
everyday products, “risk-utility” for more complex ones). We do not know what test is applied in the jurisdiction where Peter was injured.
周六周日The question whether an “ordinary consumer” would expect the machine to have a fail-safe mechanism would be one for the jury to answer applying common n standards. Some weight machines do have foot-operated levers that support the weight, so an “ordinary consumer” might have the expectation that all machines should be equipped with something similar.
If the “risk-utility” standard is applied, it will be necessary to determine whether the risks pod by the machine could have been reduced without lesning its utility. That will involve consideration of the cost of installing a fail-safe mechanism and its effect on the operation and ea of u of the ma
红色经典故事读后感
chine.
2. Effect of warning
Warning labels can be sufficient to render safe a product that carries some inherent risk of harm. The weight machine in the prent ca bore such a warning label. However, that label ud a rather technical term (”spotters”) and it referred to an instruction booklet. There was an obvious risk that the instruction booklet would not be kept with the machine at all times and that the machine might be ud by urs who would not able to consult the booklet first. In the circumstances, it ems unlikely that the warning would be sufficient to relieve Dominaflex from liability if the design of the machine were to be held to be defective.
3. Comparative fault
Lastly, it is necessary again to consider the possibility that Peter may have failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. Any comparative fault on his part would have a different effect in the action against Dominaflex than it would in the action against Briarwood. In General Motors v. Sanchez (Tex, 1999), it was held that comparative negligence of a product ur should only operate to reduce recovery if it goes beyond a failure to discover and guard against the defect in the product. Peter’s m
istake was to u the machi ne without realizing that it could harm him if he cho too heavy a weight, becau there was no fail-safe device. If the Dominaflex machine was defectively unsafe, Peter’s fault therefore ems to have been only a failure to recognize and guard against the defect. Applying the Sanchez test, that would not lead to a reduction of his recovery. His recovery would only be reduced if he had ud the machine in some way that went beyond a failure to identify the dang
er created by its defect.
