2. 职称英语
  3. A century ago in the United States, when an individual brought suit against a

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

游客2025-03-30  28
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. 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. [br] Which of the following is NOT true in Farwell’s case?
选项 A、Farwell would not have been injured if the switchman had been more careful.
B、The court argued that the victim had accepted the risk since he had willingly taken his job.
C、The court decided that the railroad should not be held responsible.
D、Farwell was injured because he negligently ran his engine off the track.
答案 D
解析 根据文中第三段的“Mr．Farwell，an engineer, lost his right hand when a switchman’s negligence ran his engine off the track．”可知，法威尔先生是铁路部门的一名工程师。当一名扳道工因疏忽而导致车头脱离轨道时，法威尔失去了右手。据此可知，是一位扳道工由于疏忽而导致法威尔受伤，而非法威尔本人。D项的说法错误。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/4018824.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)