注意: 若欲轉載使用英美法筆記 務必留言


Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()


Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()




Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()



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




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。






Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 留言(2) 人氣()







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

Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

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


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


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.


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.




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.



  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.



  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

Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

cpu gpu.jpg












龍之谷 開了約10分鐘






那個蚓  應該是度的意思








蠻怪的 有需要請自取吧

Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()



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= =




Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()


       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.


       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


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


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



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)




Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()











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




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




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



Mickey 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()