專業的五樓 美國憲法翻譯選 宅宅

(◕‿‿◕)

                    好音樂不聽嗎

先來介紹這部動畫

《只想告訴你》（日語：君に届け，英文：Kimi ni Todoke）

是日本漫畫家椎名輕穗的少女漫畫作品。簡稱「君届」取自於日文原名的縮寫。自2005年9月號開始於集英社雜誌《別冊Margaret》上連載，至2010年7月 日文版單行本已發行12冊。台灣由東立出

版社代理，目前單行本已發行12冊。寶島社的『這個漫畫厲害！』2008版第一女性向作品。第32回講談社漫畫賞少女部門得獎作品。

大綱

因為外表陰暗而被人疏遠，有著外號「貞子」的黑沼爽子。習慣了周圍迴避自己的爽子對接受自己的風早翔太滿懷憧憬。在鼓勵著自己的風早、矢野綾音、吉田千鶴、真田龍這些同班同學的關懷下，

爽子漸漸地改變著自己。 這是一部細膩地描寫爽子認識友情和愛情、對手和朋友失戀等各種「初次」的過程的校園青春故事。

片尾專輯

本部ed

專輯中另一首好聽的歌

部分內容轉載自維基百科http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8F%AA%E6%83%B3%E5%91%8A%E8%A8%B4%E4%BD%A0

《新世紀福音戰士》

（簡稱《EVA》）最開始是典型的機器人動畫，故事注重描寫戰鬥場景和人物回憶。隨著時間推移，故事逐漸變成對人物內心世界的精神分析式的敘述。《EVA》中的對人物心理的精神分析式的描寫，撲朔迷離、龐大複雜的故事情節，若干宗教、哲學、精神分析學符號的運用，都使得它在日本國內和國際上引起了巨大反響和爭議並成為日本動畫史上的一座里程碑。

「殘酷な天使のテーゼ」（殘酷天使的行動綱領）

歌：高橋洋子／　作詞：及川眠子／　作曲：佐藤英敏／　編曲：大森俊之

残酷（ざんこく）な天使（てんし）のように　少年（しょうねん）よ神話（しんわ）になら

蒼（あお）い風（かぜ）がいま　胸（むね）のドアを叩（たた）いても 私（わたし）だけを　ただ見（み）つめて　微笑（ほほえ）んでるあなた そっと　ふれるもの　もとめることに夢中（むちゅう）で 運命（うんめい）さえまだ知（し）らない　いたいけな瞳（ひとみ） だけどいつか気付（きつ）くでしょう　その背中（せなか）には 遥（はる）か未来（みらい）めざす　ための羽根（はね）があること 残酷（ざんこく）な天使（てんし）のテーゼ　窓（まど）辺（べ）からやがて飛（と）び立（た）つ ほとばしる熱（あつ）いパトスで　思（おも）い出（で）を裏（うら）切（ぎ）るなら この宇宙（そら）を抱（だ）いて輝（かがや）く　少年（しょうねん）よ神話（しんわ）になれ ずっと眠（ねむ）ってる　私（わたし）の愛（あい）の揺（ゆ）りかご あなただけが　夢（ゆめ）の使者（ししゃ）に　呼（よ）ばれる朝（あさ）がくる 細（はそ）い首筋（くびすじ）を　月（つき）あかりが映（うつ）してる 世界（せかい）中（ちゅう）の時（とき）を止（と）めて閉（と）じこめたいけど もしも　ふたり逢（あ）えたことに意味（いみ）があるなら 私（わたし）はそう自由（じゆう）を知（し）る　ためのバイブル 残酷（ざんこく）な天使（てんし）のテーゼ　悲（かな）しみが　そしてはじまる 抱（だ）きしめた命（いのち）のかたち　その夢（ゆめ）に目覚（めざ）めたとき 誰（だれ）よりも光（ひかり）を放（はな）つ　少年（しょうねん）よ神話（しんわ）になれ 人（ひと）は愛（あい）をつむぎながら　歴史（れきし）をつくる 女神（めがみ）なんて　なれないまま　私（わたし）は生（い）きる 残酷（ざんこく）な天使（てんし）のテーゼ　窓（まど）辺（べ）からやがて飛（と）び立（た）つ ほとばしる熱（あつ）いパトスで　思（おも）い出（で）を裏（うら）切（ぎ）るなら この宇宙（そら）を抱（だ）いて輝（かがや）く　少年（しょうねん）よ神話（しんわ）になれ

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

龍之谷 開了約10分鐘

待機

那個蚓  應該是度的意思

我的版本跑起來怪怪

圖有點小

蠻怪的 有需要請自取吧

上禮拜天去光華商場時在被弟弟慫恿下一時衝動買了台筆電

說真的這台我看到網路價後會哭死= = 殺太少錢了 讓店家賺到一筆= =

不過想說有時上課也用的道就買下去了  

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

最近去聞名已久的fb參觀

便用用了尋人功能

找到以前國中的同學

以前的我對於課業排名十分重視

總是努力競爭

以前班上有一位永遠都第一的女孩 我常以他為目標

雖然始終都無法成功超越 但久久以後 竟會產生情愫 大概是依賴吧

因此有了喜歡的感情存在 但是那時的我竟猶豫不前 也許當時是國3的關係吧

在升學壓力下 選擇了默默的注視 高中因念不同學校 時間久了這股感情也日漸消退 但仍存有一絲

為何不交女友呢?

我的觀念是傳統的 我認為想要有好的感情必先存在有穩固的經濟基礎 麵包>愛情

有穩固的基礎才可能有好的向上感情(雖然有些人應該會不認同)

但套一句俗語:貧賤夫妻百事哀   這句說得不錯

最近看到他不再是單身 對他也感到高興

我想當初的感情大概只是純粹喜歡吧