首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
A century ago in the United States, when an individual brought suit against a company, public opinion tended to protect that com
A century ago in the United States, when an individual brought suit against a company, public opinion tended to protect that com
admin
2014-01-07
24
问题
A century ago in the United States, when an individual brought suit against a company, public opinion tended to protect that company. But perhaps this phenomenon was most striking in the case of the railroads. Nearly half of all negligence(过失)cases decided through 1896 involved railroads. And the railroads usually won.
Most of the cases were decided in state courts, when the railroads had the climate of the times on their sides. Government supported the railroad industry; the progress railroads represented was not to be slowed down by requiring them often to pay damages to those unlucky enough to be hurt working for them.
Court decisions always went against railroad workers. A Mr. Farwell, an engineer, lost his right hand when a switchman’s negligence ran his engine off the track. The court reasoned, that since Farwell had taken the job of an engineer voluntarily at good pay, he had accepted the risk. Therefore the accident, though avoidable had the switchmen acted carefully, was a "pure accident". In effect a railroad could never be held responsible for injury to one employee caused by the mistake of another.
In one case where a Pennsylvania Railroad worker had started a fire at a warehouse and the fire had spread several blocks, causing widespread damage, a jury found the company responsible for all the damage. But the court overturned the jury’s decision because it argued that the railroad’s negligence was the immediate cause of damage only to the nearest buildings. Beyond them the connection was too remote to consider.
As the century wore on, public sentiment began to turn against the railroads—against their economic and political power and high fares as well as against their callousness(无情)toward individuals.
Which of the following is NOT true in Farwell’s case?
选项
A、Farwell was injured because he negligently ran his engine off the track.
B、Farwell would not have been injured if the switchman had been more careful.
C、The court argued that the victim had accepted the risk since he had willingly taken his job.
D、The court decided that the railroad should not be held responsible.
答案
A
解析
文章第3段第2句在介绍Farwell受伤时的情况时说,由于扳道工人的疏忽,他的引擎偏离了轨道.才使得Farwell失去了右手,这并不是由于Farwell本人的疏忽造成的,因此应选A。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/LfFK777K
0
专业英语四级
相关试题推荐
"Heisthelastpersontobefitforthejob."hasallthefollowingpossiblemeaningsEXCEPT
Thewordhugisofuncertainorigin.TheOxfordEnglishDictionarycautionsagainstconfusingitwithhugge—avariantoftheMid
AsimplepieceofropehangsbetweensomeenvironmentallyfriendlyAmericansandtheirneighbors.Ononesidestandthosewhoha
Chinesee-commercecompanyAlibabaGroupplanstotakeitsHongKong-listedunitprivate,twosourcesfamiliarwiththematters
Publicacceptanceofrabbitasaneconomicalsourceofproteindependson______.
Anniversariesaretimesforreflection,andthisoneshouldbenoexception,forthe30-yearhistoryofAIDSisaminorinwhich
Weallhaveoffensivebreathatonetimeoranother.Inmosteasesoffensivebreathemanatesfrombacteriainthemouth,althoug
RuthHandlerinventedsomethingin1959whichbecamesoquintessentiallyAmericanastobeincludedintheofficial"America’s
Municipalbansonsmokinginrestaurantsandbarsarehighlycontroversial,buthistoryshowstheycanalsobehighlyeffective.
随机试题
一国之内适用于不同宗教、种族、不同阶级的人的法律之间的冲突是()
下列不符合《拣麦穗》一文写作特点的说法是()
琥珀胆碱在体内消除迅速系由
关于证券投资基金“集合理财、专业管理”这一特点的具体体现,以下表述错误的是()。[2015年12月真题]
中国证监会及其派出监管机构依法对证券公司的经纪业务进行监管,主要监管措施包括()。Ⅰ.证券公司向监管机构的报告制度Ⅱ.信息披露Ⅲ.检查制度
某人分期付款购买一价值500000元的房产,为还款需每年末在银行存人85228.22元,每年存款,年利率为8%,请问()年才能还清。
人的本质是永恒不变的。()
恩格尔系数是指食物支出金额占总支出金额的比例。恩格尔定律是指随着家庭生活水平的提高,食品的消费支出占家庭总消费支出的比率减少的规律。依据上述定义,下列说法正确的是( )。
以下对于主流嵌入式操作系统的叙述,错误的是()。
Shenoticedtheoldlady’shand______constantlyduringthetalk.
最新回复
(
0
)