A century ago in the United States, when an individual brought suit against

游客2024-10-09 56

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 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. Mr. Farrell, an engineer, lost his right hand when a switchman’s negligence ran his engine off the track. The court reasoned, that since Farrell 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 toward individuals. [br] Which of the following is INCORRECT in Farrell’s case?

选项 A、Farrell was injured because he negligently ran his engine off the track.
B、Farrell 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

解析细节题。本题是对于文中提到的一个案例所提的问题。在Farrell事件中，由于道岔工的过失造成Farrell失去了右手，并在与公司的官司中失败。在提供的四个选项中，A “Farrell因自己的过失伤到自己”显然是错误的，应该选此项。B 中提到如果道岔工再小心一点，Farrell的手就不会被切下来。C 法庭说受害人因愿意接受这份工作，所以必须承担相应的风险。D 法庭裁定铁路不应该负责。B 、C 两项都是文章第三段中所提到的，至于D 项我们也可以从第三段的最后一句中推断出，所以，正确答案应选A

转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3794228.html

相关试题推荐

随机试题

最新回复(0)

A century ago in the United States, when an individual brought suit against

WhentheUnitedNationsandworldleadersmadeuniversalprimaryeducationo

WhentheUnitedNationsandworldleadersmadeuniversalprimaryeducationo

WhentheUnitedNationsandworldleadersmadeuniversalprimaryeducationo