E) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because of changes in the way negligence law assessed damages in accidental death cases. 那个NN讲讲．我觉的： 因为法律在评估死亡损失中标准的改变导致了孩子的价值增加．好像negligence law是一个词，否则好像没法解释
偶查了ENCARTA, 觉得GG真是NN, 这个的确是个词语: 全文爆长, 偶也米有看完, 就看了第一节. 应该是说管理疏忽犯罪的法律
I INTRODUCTION
Negligence (law), in the law of torts, term used to designate a failure to exercise due care, resulting in injury to another, and for which an action for money damages may be brought. The failure to exercise due care may be the omission to perform an act that a reasonable person, guided by those circumstances that normally regulate the conduct of individuals, would perform, or it may be the commission of an act that a reasonable person would not commit, or would perform in a more careful manner with due regard for the safety of others. Negligence implies that the careless conduct was in violation of a legal duty, as, for example, the duty of a railroad, engaged in the business of transporting passengers, to maintain its roadbed and rolling stock free from dangerous defects.
The circumstances under which persons act are so various that proper care in one situation may be negligence in another. Thus, a person is under no duty to keep his or her premises safe for persons who trespass thereon; in some states of the U.S., however, the owner is held liable for injuries to child trespassers for not keeping a device such as scaffolding or a revolvable platform properly guarded, on the ground that such a device is an invitation to children to trespass and play on it. In all states, the owner of property is liable to a person permitted to enter the premises who sustains injuries resulting from known defects, and of which the owner failed to give warning. The owner is liable also for injuries sustained by a person invited on the premises if such owner does not use ordinary care to see that the premises are as safe as might reasonably be expected.
II BURDEN OF PROOF
he law does not presume negligence in any situation. Instead, it places the burden of proving the fact of negligence upon the party who alleges that another has been negligent. For example, a person who suffers a fractured leg as a result of an automobile accident must show that the injury was caused by the driver of the automobile. Moreover, the injured person must show that he or she did not contribute to causing the accident, as by failing to exercise due care in crossing the street. In general, unless the fault is exclusively that of the defendant, the plaintiff has no cause of action for injuries. In some states, however, the doctrine of comparative negligence may apply, whereby a plaintiff negligent to some degree may recover damages to some degree.
On occasion, the situation of the parties when injury occurs is such as to overcome the ordinary presumption of care on the part of the defendant. To such a situation, the maxim Res ipsa loquitur (“The thing speaks for itself”) is applied. If a railroad train jumps the tracks or a crate of goods falls out of a warehouse window, the situation, in each instance, would be one that would not ordinarily occur if the railroad company or the warehouse company had exercised due care. The presumption of due care is therefore overcome, and judgment will be granted for any resulting injury unless it is shown that, notwithstanding these appearances, the injury was not the exclusive fault of the defendant.
Even when it is shown that the defendant has been guilty of negligence, the plaintiff may fail in an action because of inability to show that legal harm has been sustained as the direct result of such negligence. A striking illustration of this rule is where nervous shock results from another's negligence, as when, by fault of a railroad company, a car catches fire, frightening several passengers so badly that for weeks they are ill and confined to their beds. According to the prevailing doctrine in Great Britain and in the United States, these passengers have no cause of action against the company; in only a few jurisdictions is mental anguish, without consequent or attendant physical injury, deemed legal damage. It is generally held, however, that if the negligence of the defendant causes injury to one's body, recovery may be had for pain and suffering.
III CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
An individual may be guilty of criminal negligence if the act is committed while violating a particular statute. For example, a statute requiring the operation of an automobile at a limited speed in a school zone during school hours is violated when the car is driven at an excessive speed during those hours. If a child is injured as a result of such violation, the driver of the car is liable civilly for damages, and the driver is also liable criminally to fine or imprisonment for negligence.
© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2004-4-6 17:31:00
ffice" />
