2. 外语
  3. 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

admin2014-01-07  58
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://www.kaotiyun.com/show/LfFK777K
0

专业英语四级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)