YOU SAID:

A. A plaintiff who was injured as as result of some negligent conduct on the part of a defendant is entitled to recover compensation for such injury from that defendant.A plaintiff is entitled to a verdict if jury finds1. That a defendant was negligent, and2. That such negligence was a cause of injury to the plaintiff. Q. WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE? Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.Ordinary or reasonable care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence would use in order to avoid injury to themselves or others under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. The person whose conduct we set up as a standard is not the extraordinarily cautious individual, nor the exceptionally skillful one, but a person of reasonable and ordinary prudence.One test that is helpful in determining whether or not a person was negligent is to ask and answer the question whether or not, if a person of ordinary prudence had been in the same situation and possessed of the same knowledge, he or she would have foreseen or anticipated that someone might have been injured by or as a result of his or her action or inaction. If the answer to that question is "yes", and if the action or inaction reasonably could have been avoided, then not to avoid it would be negligence. Q. HOW CAUTIOUS MUST SOMEONE BE? A. The amount of caution required of a person in the exercise of ordinary care depends upon the conditions that are apparent or that should be apparent to a reasonably prudent person under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. Q. CAN I ASSUME OTHER PEOPLE WILL BE CAREFUL AND FOLLOW THE LAW? A. Every person who, himself, is exercising ordinary care, has a right to assume that every other person will perform his duty and obey the law, and in the absence of reasonable cause for thinking otherwise, it is not negligence for such a person to fail to anticipate an accident which can occur only as a result of a violation of law or duty by another person. Q. WHAT ROLE DOES A LOCAL CUSTOM PLAY IN DETERMINING IF SOMEONE IS CAREFUL? A. Evidence as to whether or not a person con... ... middle of paper ... ... Strict Liability Strict liability is different from a negligence theory in that the injured plaintiff need not show knowledge or fault on the manufacturer's part. The plaintiff must show only that the product was sold or distributed by a defendant, and that the product was unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the defendant's hands in order to prove liability on the part of such defendant. The behavior or knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of a products liability defendant regarding the dangerous nature of a product is not an issue for consideration under a strict liability theory. Strict liability concerns only the condition of the product itself. In contrast, a negligence theory concerns not only the product, but also the manufacturer's knowledge and conduct. "Strict liability", however, does not mean "absolute liability". Simply because a person is

INTO JAPANESE

ある。被告側の過失行為の結果として負傷した原告は、その被告からそのような傷害の補償を取り戻す権利がある。原告は、陪審員が1を見つけた場合、評決を受ける権利があります。被告が過失だったということ、そして2。そのような過失が原告の傷害の原因であった。 Q. 過失とは何ですか?

BACK INTO ENGLISH

Be. Plaintiffs injured as a result of the defendant's negligence have the right to recover compensation for such injuries from the defendant. Plaintiffs are entitled to a verdict if the jury finds one. that the defendant was at fault, and two. Such negligence causes plaintiff's injury

INTO JAPANESE

いる。被告の過失により負傷した原告は、被告からそのような傷害の補償を取り戻す権利を有する。原告は、陪審員が評決を下した場合、評決を受ける権利があります。被告に過失があり、2人が過失があったと。このような過失は原告の傷害を引き起こす

BACK INTO ENGLISH

Necessary. Plaintiffs injured by the defendant's negligence have the right to recover compensation for such injuries from the defendant. Plaintiffs are entitled to a verdict if the jury gives a verdict. That the defendant was at fault and the two were at fault. Such negligence causes plaintiff's injury.

INTO JAPANESE

いる。被告の過失により負傷した原告は、被告からそのような傷害の補償を取り戻す権利を有する。原告は、陪審員が評決を下した場合、評決を受ける権利があります。被告に過失があり、2人に過失があった。このような過失は原告の傷害を引き起こす。

BACK INTO ENGLISH

Necessary. Plaintiffs injured by the defendant's negligence have the right to recover compensation for such injuries from the defendant. Plaintiffs are entitled to a verdict if the jury gives a verdict. The defendant was at fault and the two were at fault. Such negligence causes plaintiffs' injuries.

INTO JAPANESE

いる。被告の過失により負傷した原告は、被告からそのような傷害の補償を取り戻す権利を有する。原告は、陪審員が評決を下した場合、評決を受ける権利があります。被告に過失があり、2人に過失があった。このような過失は原告の傷害を引き起こす。

BACK INTO ENGLISH

Necessary. Plaintiffs injured by the defendant's negligence have the right to recover compensation for such injuries from the defendant. Plaintiffs are entitled to a verdict if the jury gives a verdict. The defendant was at fault and the two were at fault. Such negligence causes plaintiffs' injuries.