專業的五樓 美國憲法翻譯選 宅宅

網路上找不到只好自己打

還蠻多的

期中重點

DEFENSE IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS

Damages

Anderson v. Minnneapolis, st.p. s.stm r.r. co.

Facts:

This is a fire case brought against the defendant railway company.

Plaintiff had a verdict.

The appeal is from an order denying a motion in the alternative for

    上訴             

judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

A forest fire, which originated in a bog and was found by the jury to have

                            沼澤, 泥塘

been caused by the negligence of the defendant, swept over a large area.

                                        經過

It merged with another fire of independent and uncertain origin, and the

  合併                                         不確定的起源

combined fires burned over plaintiff’s property.

               燒毀

Issue(s):

Whether the defendant was liable that the origin fire caused by the

negligence of defendant might not cause harm to plaintiff but combine

with another fire, superior in strength but of unknown origin?

Rule of Law:

1. if plaintiffs property was damaged by a number of fires combining

one…being the fire plead …the others being of no responsible origin, but

of such sufficient or such superior force that they would have produced

the damage to property regardless of the fire pleaded, then defendant was

not liable.

minn. 357,………….. this court considered the cook case but refrained

from expressing approval or disapproval of its doctrine. The supreme

court of Michigan has referred to it as good law….the supreme court of

Idaho says the opinion is logical and well reasoned , but the discussion is

in a large measure theoretical and academic….judge Thompson in his

work on negligence, vol.1.§739, says that the conclusion reached is so

clearly wrong as not to deserve discussion. If the cook case merely decide

that one who negligently sets a fire was not liable if another’s d property

is damaged, unless it is made to appear that the fire was a material

element in the destruction of the property, there can be no question about

the soundness of the decision. But if it decides that if such fire combines

with another of no responsible origin, and after the union of the two fires

they they destroy the property, and either fire independently of the other

would have destroyed it, then irrespective of whether the first fire was or

was not a material factor in the destruction of the property, there is no

liability , we are nor prepared to adopt the doctrine as the law of this state.

If a fire set by the engine of one railroad company unites with a fire set by

the engine of another company, there is joint and several liability , even

thought either fire would have destroyed plaintiff’s property. But if the doctrine of the cook case is applied and one of the fires is of unknown

origin, there is no liability. G.S. 1913. §4426,leaves no room for the

application of a rule which would relieve a railroad company from

liability under such circumstances. Moreover the reasoning of the court in

mcclellan v. st. paul, m & m. ry. Co. 58 minn. 104,59 n. w. 978 leads to

the conclusion that , regardless of the statute, there would be liability in

such a case. We, therefore ,hold that the trial court did not err in refusing

to  instruct the jury in accordance with rule laid down in the cook case.

Analysis:

1. if the plaintiff was burned out by some fire other than the bog fire,

which other fire was not set by one of the engines, then, of course, the

defendant was not liable. if the plaintiff was burned out by fire set by one

of the defendant’s engines in combination with some other fire not set by

any of its engines, then it is liable.

1. if you find that other fire or fires not set by one of defendants engines

mingled with one that that was set by one of the defendants engines, there

may be difficulty in determining whether you should find that the fire set

by the engine was amaterial or substantial element in causing plaintiff’s

damage. If it was, the defendant is liable, otherwise is not.

1. if you find that bog fire was set by the defendants engine and that

some greater fire swept over it before it reached the plaintiff ‘s land., then

it will be for you to determine whether that bog fire. Was a material or

substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s damage. If it was defendant was

liable. If it is not, defendant is not liable. If the bog fire was set by one of

the defendant’s engines, and if one of the defendant’s  engines also set a

fire or fires west of kettle river, and those fires combined and burned over

plaintiff’s property, then the defendant is liable.

Conclusion:

  We find no error requiring a reversal and hence the order appealed

from is affirmed.

維持原判決 原告可向鐵路公司求償

Fact

       The defendant(被告),a college student,was driving with a passenger. The plaintiff,a 56-year old registered nurse,was walking

along a path(路徑)through the snow along the right side of the road between parked cars and the roadway.A sidewalk was in place,

but it was covered with ice and considered to be dangerous. The director of security had been injured falling on the sidewalk.The

defendant's car struck the plaintiff on the driver's right side causing substantial injury as well as amnesia.Relevant statutes stated

that it is unlawful for pedestrians to walk on the highway where sidewalks are in place.Or in their absence,to walk on the left side

of the road facing traffic.The plaintiff failed on both these elements.

Issue

       What is the effect to violation of statute for the plaintiff?  原告違反法律 被告是否可以以原告違反法律作為對被告的抗辯

rule of law

       Section288a of the second Restatement,referred to in principle case,

1. An excused violation of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation is not negligence.

2. Unless the enactment or regulation is constructed not to permit such excuse,it's violation is excused when

a. the violation is reasonable because of the actor's incapacity

行為者的不得已  ex:行動不方便之人

b. he neither knows nor should know of the occasion for compliance

不知法規不存在

c. he is unable after reasonable diligence or care to comply

突發疾病

d. he is confronted by an emergency not due to his own misconduct

由於某些事項導致自己的失誤 ex:躲避事務導致車禍

e. compliance  would involve a greater risk of harm to the actor or to others

遵守法規會造成他人與自己更大之風險

Application

There are three ways to explain the ability of negligence when there was a violation of statute

1. Violation of statute as rebuttable presumption

違反法令  推定過失

2. Violation of statute as negligence per se

當然過失 本質上有過失

3. Violation of statute as evidence of negligence

違反法令 (證據)

欲轉借請務必留言

liability   傾向[U][(+to)]

        責任, 義務[U][C][(+for)][+to-v]

        【口】不利條件[C]

        【會計】負債, 債務[P]

 infant 嬰兒

     【律】未成年人

a. 形容詞

 嬰兒的; 供嬰兒用的

 初期的; 初創的

 未成年的

allereged

聲稱的, 被說成的, 被斷言的

presented  贈送, 呈獻[(+to/with)]

likewise同樣地, 照樣地

contention論點, 主張  爭論; 爭吵; 爭奪; 競爭

come out出現 出版

canvaslawn chair

deliberately慎重地; 謹慎地

pull out 撤軍; 撤離

testify作證[(+for/against/to)]

unwilling不願意的; 不情願的; 厭惡的[+to-v...

testimony證詞, 證言[C][U][+that...

subsequent後來的, 其後的, 隨後的

thereto向那裡

described描寫, 描繪, 敘述

premise假定, 假設; 前提

therein在其中; 在那裡; 在那點上; 在那時

formerly以前, 從前

dexterity靈巧, 熟練, 敏捷

fracture破裂; 斷裂; 折斷; 骨折

hereinafter在下

set forth提出

preponferance優勢; 優越

wilful 任性的; 倔強的; 頑固的

unlawful不合法的; 犯法的; 不正當的

unauthorized未被授權的, 越權的; 獨斷的

appurtenant附屬的, 從屬的

circumstance情況, 環境; 情勢

indicate指示; 指出[+(that)][+wh-]

conceded(勉強)承認

fractured破裂; 斷裂; 折斷; 骨折

obviate排除, 消除

retrial再審; 再試

dismiss讓...離開; 把...打發走

entry進入, 入場; 出賽, 參加

authority權, 權力; 職權

notable值得注意的, 顯著的

tort侵權行為

applicable可應用的, 合用的; 可實施的

wrongful不正當的; 不講道理的; 壞的

appellant上訴人

privilege特權; 優特

thereof其

substantially本質上, 實質上; 大體上

produced生產, 出產; 製造; 創作

conceded(勉強)承認

volitional有意志的

proved to 證明

patently明白地; 公然地

proof證據; 物證

negligent疏忽的; 粗心的

reckless不注意的, 不在乎的; 魯莽的, 不顧後果的

italicized用斜體字排(字); 在稿件的(字)下劃橫線表示要...

portions(一)部分

mere僅僅的, 只不過的

prank胡鬧; 惡作劇

absolve使免除(責任, 義務等)[(+from/o...

liability傾向[U][(+to)]

dismissed讓...離開; 把...打發走[(+fro...

had passed通過了

remand遣回; 送還

clarification (液體的)澄清, 淨化; 澄清法 意義等的澄清、說明

specifically特別地; 明確地; 具體地

significance重要性, 重要

capacity容量, 容積

course material路線材料

merit價值

contention論點, 主張

warrents授權; 批准

remanded遣回; 送還  將...還押候審; 將...發回重審

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel

Fisher 與轉盤汽車旅館公司

action for assault and battery 攻擊和毆打的行動

plaintiff起訴人, 原告

Mathematician數學家

Attending負責指導實習的

conference會議

Telemetry遙測技術, 測距術

Defendant被告

Luncheon午餐

Buffet自助餐, 快餐

Snatch奪走, 奪得

Plate盤子, 盆, 碟

Shouted呼喊, 喊叫

Negro黑人

Was not actually touched沒被實際上接觸

Apprehension恐懼, 憂慮, 擔心, 掛念

physical injury身体上的伤害

embarrassed窘的, 尷尬的

by the conduct in the presence of his associates對他的行為

Jury陪審團

returned被送回的; 歸來的; 回國的

verdict(陪審團的)裁決, 裁定

actual實際的, 事實上的

humiliation羞辱

indignity輕蔑, 屈辱; 侮辱言行, 無禮舉動

exemplary模範的; 懲戒性的; 示範的

punitive懲罰的

the trial court set aside the verdict and gave judgment for the defendants notwithstandingthe verdict審訊法庭留出了定案並且給了被告notwithstandingthe定案的評斷

trial court 初審法庭

set aside--- 撥出, 宣告無效, 駁回, 不理會  留出一個空間

judgment 審判; 裁判; 判決

affirm斷言, 申明, 堅稱 被確認

court of civil appeals民用呼籲法院

supreme court 高等法院

difficulty 困難

holding把持支持; 保持 (常複數)持有股份; 保有地 認為; 持有(見解等)

intentional有意的, 故意的

grabbing攫取, 抓取

constituted構成, 組成

battery毆打

invasion入侵, 侵略

manner方式, 方法

sufficient足夠的, 充分的

unique唯一的, 獨一無二的; 獨特的

jurisprudence法律學

committed忠誠的, 堅定的

hold握著; 抓住; 夾住 托住; 支承

assault攻擊, 襲擊; 譴責, 抨擊

trespass擅自進入  打擾; 妨礙[(+on/upon)]

findings研究結果

dispossessed無依無靠的; 失去產業的; 被逐出的

indignity輕蔑, 屈辱; 侮辱言行, 無禮舉動

rationale基本理由

restatement再聲明; 重申

essence本質, 實質; 要素; 本體

grievance不滿, 不平; 抱怨, 牢騷

consist in在於

involved複雜的

offense罪過; 犯法(行為); 過錯

inviolability不可侵犯

necessary必要的, 必需的

actual實際的, 事實上的

disturbed心亂的; 心理不正常的

unpermitted未容許

contact with聯絡與

customarily習慣上, 習俗上, 通常

partaking參加, 參與

actionable可控告的, 可起訴的

cane手杖, 柺杖

grasped抓牢; 握緊; 抱住

intimately熟悉地; 親密地, 親切地

universally普遍地; 一般地; 人人

forceful強有力的; 堅強的

dispossession驅逐; 奪取

sufficient足夠的, 充分的

erred犯錯誤

granting同意, 准予

 Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel Inc.p35 翻譯

關於攻擊與毆打的行為 原告 一位受雇於nasa的數學家 正在被告的旅館參加一場有關於遙測設備的專業會議 這場會議包含商業午餐 當原告和大家一樣站一排時 一位被告的員工接近他並從原告手中搶奪盤子 並大吼 一個黑人不應該被服務在這俱樂部 原告並沒有被確實的碰觸而且身體上並沒有任何身體上的憂慮及傷害 但是原告對被告員工的行為感到極度尷尬和受傷 陪審團送來裁決對於他的實際傷害(羞辱和無理舉動)做出400美元的判賠和額外的500美金作為懲罰

初審法院駁回這個裁決並給予被告此判決不成立 這被由民事法院確認 原告不服上訴至高等法院

greenhill justice***在這個案子下的事實 我們毫無疑問的見解故意的抓取原告的盤子構成毆打 這個從某人手中搶奪某物品的故意行為明確的是一個冒犯他人身體的行為 為構成一個攻擊與毆打的行為 是沒有必要去碰觸原告的身體甚至是他的衣服或搶奪任何東西從原告手中碰觸任何身體部位 所以是足夠構成一個冒犯的行為 morgan v loyacomo. 190 miss 656.1 so.2d 510 (1941)

如此的見解在法律學並不是獨一無二的 In S.H. Kress co. v brashier . 50 S.W.2D 922 (Tex.civ.App.1932. no write). 被告持有忠誠的 一個攻擊或妨礙人 靠搶奪一本書從原告手中 陪審團發現從那個案子被告 從原告手中逐出的書 引起他遭受羞辱

由於原告的不滿在於對於原告不可侵犯的人格和複雜不被容許和故意的羞辱行為而不是任何身體上的傷害 這不需要原告身體上的被侵犯

嘿嘿翻譯沒打完 我好懶       =.=......................