打字猴:1.70457383e+09
1704573830 11 Cooke v. Forbes,5 L.R.-Eq.166(1867—1868).
1704573831
1704573832 12 Bryant v. Lefeven4 C.P.D.172(1878一1879).
1704573833
1704573834 13 Bass v. Gregory,25 Q.B.D.481.(1890)
1704573835
1704573836 14 人们也许要问,为什么在糖果制造商一案中不适用被遗忘的授权,该制造商使用研钵已有60多年。回答是,直到医生在花园尽头建造诊所之前,不存在任何侵害。因此,侵害并没有持续多年。确实*糖果制造商在其诳词中提到,“大约30年前,一个病妇曾在这个房子中住过一段时间,要求他有可能的话,在早晨8点前停止使用研钵”。而且,有证据表明,花园墙壁易受震动影响。但法院对付这一论点毫不费力:“……尽管震动存在,但很轻,而且病妇的抱怨(如果可以称之为抱怨的话)微不足道,以至于……对被告的行为不产生任何法律的或衡平法的诉讼”(11Ch.D.863)。这就是说,在医生建诊所之前,糖果制造商并没有造成侵害。
1704573837
1704573838 15 见《企业的性质》。
1704573839
1704573840 16 有关理由在我早期的论文中已作了阐述,参见《企业的性质》。
1704573841
1704573842 17 See William L.Prosser,Handbook of the Law of Tortst 2nd ed.(St.Paul,Minn.:West Publishing Co.,1995),398~399,412.所引用的有关制造蜡烛的古老案例取之于Sir Jame sFitzjames Stephen,A General View of the Criminal Laiv of England,2nd ed,(London:Macmillan&Ca,1890),106。斯蒂芬爵士没提到这一点,也许他已熟记Rex.v.Ronkett,included in Warren A.Seavey,Keeton,and Thurston,Cases and Materials on the Law of Torts(StPaul,Minn.:West Publishing Co.,1950),604。类似普罗瑟的观点,可参见Fowler V. Harperand FlemingJames,Jr.,The Law of Torls,2nd ed.(Boston:Little,Brown,1956),67—74;Restatement,Torts§§826,827,and 828。
1704573843
1704573844 18 见Sir Percy H.Winfield,Winfieldon Torts,6th ed.byT.E.Lewis(London: Sweet&.Maxwell,1954);JohnW.Salmond,Salmond on the Law of Torts,12th ed by R.F.V. Heuston(London:Sweet&Maxwell,1957),181—190;Harry Street,The Law of Torts,2nd ed(London:Butterworth,1959),221—229。
1704573845
1704573846 19 Attorney General v. Doughty,2 Ves. Se.453,28Eng. Rep.290(Ch,1752).比较Prosser,Law of Torts,413,n.54所引的美国法官马斯曼诺的话没有烟尘,匹兹堡仍将是一个相当小的村子。”参见Versailles Borough v. McKessport Coa lCoke Co.,83 Pitts.Leg.J.379,385,1935。
1704573847
1704573848 20 Webb v. Bird,10C.B.(N.S.)268,142Eng.Rep.445(1861);13 C.B。(N.S.)841,143 Eng.Rep.332(1863).
1704573849
1704573850 21 见Gale on Easements,238,n.6。
1704573851
1704573852 22 11 ChD.865(1879)
1704573853
1704573854 23 Salmond,Law of Torts,182
1704573855
1704573856 24 C.M.Haar,Landr-Use Planning,A Case book on the Use,Misuse,and Re-use of Urban Land(Boston:Little,Browht 1959),95.
1704573857
1704573858 25 例如参见Rushmer v.Polsue and Alfieri,Ltd.(1906)1 Ch.234,它涉及房子在噪声区的安静环境的案例。
1704573859
1704573860 26 Adams v. Urseil(1913)l Ch.269.
1704573861
1704573862 27 Andreae v.Selfridgeand Company Ltd(193^8)1 Ch,1.
1704573863
1704573864 28 John Anthony Hardinge Giffard,3rd Earl of Halsbury,ed,“Public Authorities and Public Officers,”Halsbury’s Laws of England,vol.30,3rd ed(London:Butterworth,1960),690—691.
1704573865
1704573866 29 See Prosser,Law of Torts,421;Harper and Jamest Law of Torts,86—87.
1704573867
1704573868 30 Delta Air Corporation v. Kersey,Kersey v. City of Altanta,Supreme Court of Georgia,193Ga.862,20S.E. 2d 245(1942).
1704573869
1704573870 31 Thrasher v. City of Atlanta,178 Ga. 514,173 S.E. 817(1934).
1704573871
1704573872 32 Georgia Railroad and Banking Go. v. Maddox,116 Ga. 64,42 S.E.315(1902).
1704573873
1704573874 33 Smith v. New England Aircraft Co.270 Mass.511,170 N.E.385,390(1930).
1704573875
1704573876 34 See Sir Alfred Denning,Freedom Under the Law(London:Stevens,1949),71.
1704573877
1704573878 35 Mary B .Cairns,The Law of Tortin Local Govermnent(London:Shaw,1945),28—32.
1704573879
[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.70457383e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]