English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113311/144292 (79%)
Visitors : 50931039      Online Users : 971
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 教育學院 > 教育學系 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/15089


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/15089


    Title: 美國教師學校事故侵權行為與責任之研究
    Other Titles: Educators` Negligence Liability for Student Safety: Analysis of American Court Cases
    Authors: 秦夢群
    Date: 2000
    Issue Date: 2008-12-17 09:42:06 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究主要目的在探討美國學校事故教師侵權行為之有關議題，以了解美國教育當局與法院，對於學校事故教師侵權行為有關課題的處理原則與判決，以作為我國未來司法判決與相關行政措施的參考。本研究採用方法主要為文獻與個案研究法。以查閱各州立法與法院有關判例為主要步驟，探討美國對學校事故教師侵權行為的處理態度與原則。本研究之結論如下：1.美國法院已意識到教師百分之百盡到保護學生責任的困難，因此並不認為學生有受傷之事實，教師就必須負侵權的責任。2.判定教師是否善盡保護責任，美國法院常以一個具有正常智力與知識的成人作為標準，學校與教師應該對可能發生的危險有預知之能力。缺乏應有專業判斷力，往往會導致侵權的指控。3.在學校侵權案中，以疏忽為最大宗。故意侵權次之。法院對疏忽侵權行為之成立，綜而言之有四個檢視標準。其中包括：(1)被告必須具有保護原告不受到非尋常危險的責任；(2)疏忽行為必須是基於違反合理照顧標準；(3)被指之疏忽侵權行為與所指之傷害結果必須有相當因果關係；(4)必須要有因疏忽之侵權行為所導致的具體身體或心靈傷害。4.教師照顧學生的責任並不僅限於校內。教師在教導與保護時，必須檢視其智力、年齡、身心成熟度、以往之醫療歷史等因素。5.校方與教師面對侵權之控訴，其抗辯之理由可包括政府免責權、加工過失、預知危險等。6.侵權案一但成立，法院往往命原告給予賠償，其種類包括補償性賠償、懲戒性賠償，與象徵性賠償。部分州近來已開始採用相對疏忽的理念。 The major purpose of this study focuses primarily on the conditions necessary to establish tort liability for negligence, the majority of tort cases involving school safety, and the legal defenses employed by teachers and local school districts to rebut negligence charges. A brief comparison of legal resolution between Taiwan and U.S.A. related to the school negligence cases is included. Findings illustrate that the basic principles of tort law require schools and teachers exercise a standard of care commensurate with the dutyowed and the ability of foreseeability of harm. The defenses to rebut chargesof negligence including governmental immunity, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk are also examined.
    Relation: 政大學報 81,31-36
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[教育學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    3136.pdf3250KbAdobe PDF2508View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback