英美法判例 ?a href="http://vbtrax.com/track/clicks/1748/c627c2bd9c0729def09cbd2e8d2b891473624ec970e9f0ab416db302630c">三元及第補習班闊┓身槙车闹形?急!!!
發問:
There must be reasonable evidence of negligence, but when the thing causing the injury is shown to under the control of a defendant, and the accident is such as , in the ordinary course of business, does not happen if reasonable care is used, it does, in the absence or explanation by the defendant, afford sufficent... 顯示更多 There must be reasonable evidence of negligence, but when the thing causing the injury is shown to under the control of a defendant, and the accident is such as , in the ordinary course of business, does not happen if reasonable care is used, it does, in the absence or explanation by the defendant, afford sufficent evidence that the accident arose from want to care on its part.
最佳解論語翻譯全文答:
一定要有合理的證據證明疏忽,但是當傷害的造成顯示出其發生是在被告的控制範圍之內且意外亦為如此,在一般的情況下若被告有盡到注意義務則不會發生者,被告在以上解釋之缺乏下,說明意外的發生來自需要注意的部分。
其他解答:
此疏忽應當有合理的解釋 但是此傷害發生時是在被告可控制live互動美語網際學院狀況下 而此意外正如同一般事件 若是在合理照料下是不會發生的 在被告缺乏解釋的狀況下 同時也提供了足夠的證據顯示意外發生時被告是蓄意的|||||一定有合理對於疏忽的證據，但是引起受傷的事物何時在被告的控制之下被顯示到而且意外事件是如此的當做，在生意的平常課程，不發生如果合理的照料被使用，它做，在缺席或者被告的解釋，負擔意外事件從需要到照料在它的部份上引起了的 sufficent 證據。1273FBEB8BE79A30
文章標籤
全站熱搜
留言列表
