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

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

游客2023-11-09  27
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. [br] What must have happened after the fire case was settled in court?
选项 A、The railroad compensated for the damage to the immediate buildings.
B、The railroad compensated for all the damage by the fire.
C、The railroad paid nothing for the damaged building.
D、The railroad worker paid for the property damage himself.
答案 A
解析 原文第4段倒数第2句说“法庭推翻了陪审团要求全部赔偿的裁决，因为法庭认为铁路仅仅是造成就近建筑损坏的直接原因”。由此可以推断，铁路公司只对毗邻建筑的损失进行了赔偿，因此A符合题意。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3171316.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)