Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Konechny_variant_Posobie_BYu_2_kurs.docx
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
01.07.2025
Размер:
5.25 Mб
Скачать

10. Translate into English using I wish:

1. Он пожалел, что бросил учиться на юриста.

2. Жаль, что уже поздно идти туда.

3. Если бы я пришел на брифинг вовремя!

4. Жаль, что вы не читали его отчет.

5. Жаль, что она делает так много ошибок в речи! Это негативно сказывается на ее репутации поверенного.

6. Жаль, что вы не побывали на его выступлении.

7. Жаль, что я узнал об этом так поздно.

8. Жаль, что мы не застали подозреваемого дома.

9. Она сожалела, что не рассказала нам об этом происшествии раньше.

10. Хорошо бы вам присудили денежную компенсацию в качестве наказания, но не заключение.

11. Read Text 2 and Text 3 again. Be ready to talk on one of the following topics:

1. Differentiate between the objectives of tort law and those of criminal law.

2. Discuss the element of duty and explain how duties relate to rights.

3. Identify the principal intentional torts and outline the elements of each.

4. Determine the four elements of negligence.

5. Contrast contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of the risk.

12. Make up your own dialogue on the case:

Prove that the plaintiff died of lung cancer caused by smoking the defendant's cigarettes or that plaintiff's scalp rash was caused by the defendant hair dye.

The plaintiff must:

1) disclose that the breach of warranty was the cause «in fact»

2) show, that the «breach of the warranty was the proximate cause of the loss sustained».

The lawyer must prove a sufficiently close causal connection to convince the court that it ought to be defined as proximate.

Use the following phrases:

Everybody stand up! Trial begins! – Всем встать! Суд идет!

Overruled! – Протест отклонен!

Objection! – Протестую!

(Objection) sustained! – Протест принят!

Received! – Принимается!

I have no further questions! – Вопросов больше нет!

I call your attention! – Прошу обратить внимание!

Call the next witness! – Пригласите следующего свидетеля!

Please, proceed! – Пожалуйста, продолжайте!

To indict smb on/ to accuse smb of – Обвинять кого-то в чем-либо

I would like to make an open statement! – Я хочу сделать открытое заявление!

Let’s examine a witness! – Давайте допросим свидетеля!

The plaintiff wants to testify! – Истец хочет дать показания!

Text 4

1. Scan the text and be ready to talk on different types of negligence. Negligence and its Types

Most people do not intentionally inflict harm on others. However, a person who causes injury to another without intending to do so, can be liable for the tort of negligence which is the broadest area of liability for the unintentional infliction of harm and the most common tort. Negligence is based upon a person's failure to exercise sufficient or due care in his or her conduct for the protection of other people when there is a fore­seeable risk of harm to them. Intent is not required in this kind of tort, only carelessness. The tort of negligence may be illus­trated by the following comparison. A person who intentional­ly drives a car into a pedestrian is liable for a battery. One who carelessly drives a car at an excessive rate of speed and cannot stop it in time to avoid a collision with pedestrian commits neg­ligence.

Like in other torts to establish negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements:

- duty - the defendant owed a duty to exercise care for the protection of the plaintiff;

- breach of duty - the defendant failed to exercise due care, i.e., breached the duty owed to the plaintiff;

- causation - the defendant's breach of duty was the actu­al and proximate cause of the plaintiffs damages;

- damages - the plaintiff suffered actual loss or damage.

The first element of negligence is the duty of care, which requires that a person acts with the care and good judgment of a reasonable person so as not to cause injury to others. In gen­eral, the common law imposes a duty of care whenever a per­son's conduct creates a foreseeable risk of harm to others. For example, if a person cuts down a large tree in his backyard, it may fall on his neighbour's house. Because his actions create a risk of property damage or personal injuries, he is under a duty to exercise due care for the protection of his neighbour. By con­trast, a farmer who cuts down a tree would not have a duty to exercise due care for the protection of a neighbour who lives several miles away, because the farmer's action does not create a foreseeable risk of harm to the neighbour's person or property.

There are, however, some individuals to whom a different degree of care is applied. Generally children under seven years of age are presumed incapable of negligence. Older children are only required to act with that care which a reasonable child of like age, intelligence, and experience would act. If, however, a child undertakes an adult activity, such as driving a car, the child is held to the adult standard.

The plaintiff must show that the defendant breached the duty. A breach of duty owed to the victim occurs if the tortfea­sor has not met the appropriate standard of care under the cir­cumstances. To determine if the tortfeasor has met the standard of care, the court uses the so-called reasonable person test: the actions of the tortfeasor are compared with those of a reason­able person in a similar situation. This test is considered to be objective.

To hold the tortfeasor liable, the plaintiff must prove that the tortfeasor's negligence was the cause of personal injury or property damage. Sometimes the cause is obvious, as where the tortfeasor carelessly drives a car and hits the plaintiff. But at other times, determining the cause of an injury is more difficult.

The negligent conduct must be the actual cause of the plain­tiff's injury. A plaintiff establishes actual cause by proving that the injury would not have occurred without the negligence of the defendant. If the plaintiff's injury would have occurred without the defendant's negligence, the negligence is not the actual cause of the injury. Dan drives his car knowing that it has defective brakes. A child suddenly darts directly in front of the car and Dan's car strikes and injures the child. If Dan would have hit the child even if the car had good brakes, his negligence is not the actual cause of the child's injury.

When the amount of causation is great enough for it to be recognized by the law, it is called proximate cause. Generally proximate cause exists when there is the connection between the unreasonable conduct and the resulting harm that is it is foreseeable that a particular breach of duty will result in a par­ticular injury.

The harm suffered as a consequence of another's negligence may be physical (personal injuries) or economic (financial loss or property damage). In a personal injury case, for example, the plaintiff may recover damages for lost wages, permanent dis­abilities, and pain and suffering.

The courts are reluctant to award damages where the plain­tiff's injury is limited only to mental distress. The major objec­tion to recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress is the danger of fictitious claims. In this case the courts permit the plaintiff to recover damages for negligently inflicted emotional distress only if the defendant's act caused immediate physical consequences to the plaintiff, such as a nervous disorder, or caused mental distress followed by physical consequences.

At common law, there were two major defenses to the tort of negligence: contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. However today courts have adopted a system of compar­ative negligence under which damages are apportioned accord­ing to the relative fault of the parties.

The doctrine of contributory negligence involves the failure of the plaintiff to exercise due care for his or her own safety which becomes a contributing cause of the plaintiff's own injury. At common law, contributory negligence was a com­plete bar to plaintiffs recovery - a negligent defendant was not liable to the plaintiff if plaintiff was in any way contributo­ry at fault. However, the courts have developed exceptions and modifications to eliminate some of the harsh consequences of the rule. Thus a negligent plaintiff can recover damages from the defendant if the defendant had an opportunity to avoid the accident by exercising reasonable care but failed to do so. For example, a pedestrian who carelessly walks across a street can hold a negligent driver liable if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.

Another defense to negligence is assumption of the risk, which involves the voluntary exposure of the victim to a known risk.

The doctrine of comparative negligence requires courts to weigh the relative degree of wrongdoing in awarding dam­ages, and to assign damages according to the degree of fault of each party. Instead of being able to recover nothing, the plain­tiff is awarded damages that are reduced in proportion to the extent of the plaintiffs own negligence. Comparative negli­gence requires the judge or jury to determine the relative fault of the parties and apportion damages between the plaintiff and the defendant according to the fault of each. Thus, if the defen­dant is found to be 75 percent at fault and the plaintiff is found to be 25 percent at fault, the plaintiff will recover only 75 per­cent of his or her monetary damages.

Notes

foreseeable risk – предвиденный риск

causation – причинность, каузация (действие, приводящее к результату)

actual cause – фактическая, действительная причина

good judgment – рассудительность

reasonable person – здравомыслящий человек

to hold the tortfeasor liable – обязывать правонарушителя нести ответственность

consequence of smth – последствие чего-л.

contributory negligence – встречная вина, вина потерпевшего в форме небрежности

comparative negligence – совместная вина, относительная небрежность

assumption of the risk – принятие на себя риска

to be a complete bar to smth – являться абсолютным препятствием чему-л.

to be at fault – быть виноватым

exposure to a known risk – подвержение известному риску

to weigh the relative degree of wrongdoing – взвесить, оценить относительную степень тяжести правонарушения

to apportion damages between smb according to the fault – распределять ущерб соразмерно степени вины

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]