Name: 17分でわかる不法行為法（その3 (Understand Tort Law in 17 Minutes (Part III))
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T07:09:57.000Z
Duration: 3 min 56 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

基礎受動態

where an intentional tort is about someone doing something they weren't supposed to do

doesn't do something they were supposed to do

this is your duty not to expose other people to unreasonable risk of harm

the test for whether what you're doing is unreasonable is

whether a reasonable person in your situation would do the same thing

your situation include your basic physical attributes

children are compared to other children except when they're doing something

so basically it's up to the court to decide reasonableness

they have to decide if what you did was too crazy or negligent

if they do, you've breached your duty if they don't, you're off the hook

they can take into account what you were doing and why when deciding whether or

not you were being reasonable and some actions are more reasonable than others

they can also take into account the way things are usually done to see if you

were just following the customary practice

sometimes you can make yourself seem more reasonable guy warning other people

of the danger involved with whatever you're doing

some warnings are a little more effective

the court may not even have to decide whether what you did was reasonable

there's a rule called negligence per se that says if what you did was against

you hurt someone you've automatically proven that you acted unreasonably

the one catch is that the law has to be designed to deal with something

so breaking a law against using guns in certain places and ending up shooting

was written to protect people from being shot

breaking a law against driving without your lights on at night and then your car

exploding would not count even if it hurt someone

because that's not the kind of thing the law was designed to deal with

where you sue a professional like a doctor or a lawyer for bad service

is in many ways just a fancy negligence case, the difference is in the duty

where an ordinary person just owes you the duty of acting reasonably

when you pay a professional they have the duty of doing at least as good a job

as a minimally qualified member of their profession

you'll note I said minimally qualified they don't have to be the best

they don't even have to be in the middle they just had to be good enough to be a

doctor even if that means they were the bottom of the class

this part is really easy. if there was a duty did you break it?

did you put someone else an unreasonable risk of harm?

next is causation. did you breaching your duty cause harm?

it's always nice when you do something bad and it doesn't hurt anyone

but don't push your luck and just hope nothing bad happens

if you do breach a duty and something bad happens

the test that usually applies is called the "but for" test

this just asks would the harm not have happened "but for" the person being sued

if they had kept their duty would the bad result have been avoided?

after all there are times you do something bad

but it's not the reason something bad happens

if you put someone in an unreasonable risk of being harmed by someone else

you might both be sued even though you didn't directly hurt anyone

字幕リスト動画再生

17分でわかる不法行為法（その3 (Understand Tort Law in 17 Minutes (Part III))

mental

situation

physical

basically