这是用户在 2024-7-10 22:47 为 https://app.immersivetranslate.com/pdf-pro/1e71b547-2b1d-45d6-b507-15e333800d7d 保存的双语快照页面,由 沉浸式翻译 提供双语支持。了解如何保存?

Torts, Case 1-Negligence, Impact Rule

Supreme Court of Pennsyivania, 1958
393 PA. 161; 142 A.2D 263
BoSLEY诉ANDREWS 宾夕法尼亚州最高法院,1958年,393 PA。161;142 A.2D 263

(1) Opinion by Mr. Justice Bell, June 4, 1958
(1) 贝尔法官的意见,1958年6月4日
(2) Defendant's cattle strayed on to plaintiffs' farm and injured their crops, for which the jury gave plaintiffs a ver dict of . Mrs. Mary Louise Bosley, the wife-plaintiff, sought to recover damages for a heart disability which resulted from her fright and shock upon being chased by a Hereford bull owned by defendant. The bull did not strike or touch plaintiff, and plaintiff suffered no physical injury. The Superior Court sustained the entry of a nonsuit . . . 3
(2) 被告的牛误入原告的农场并伤害了他们的庄稼,陪审团为此向原告发出了 . 妻子兼原告人玛丽·路易丝·博斯利(Mary Louise Bosley)夫人因被被告拥有的赫里福德公牛追赶而惊吓和震惊,要求赔偿心脏残疾的损害赔偿。公牛没有撞击或触摸原告,原告也没有受到身体伤害。 高等法院维持了不起诉的判决。3
(3) he evidence does not show that [the bull] got any nearer to Mrs. Bosley than approximately 25 feet. Paintiff collapsed on the ground and had an attack of coronary insufficiency-shortness of breath, pain in her chest and an insufficiency of blood flowing into the artery into the heart. . . .
(3) 他没有证据表明[公牛]离博斯利夫人的距离超过25英尺。Paintiff 瘫倒在地上,冠状动脉功能不全发作——呼吸急促、胸部疼痛、血液流入动脉进入心脏不足......
(4) The rule is long and well established in Pennsylvania that there can be no
(4) 在宾夕法尼亚州,这条规则由来已久,而且已经确立,即不能有
recovery of damages for injuries resulting from fright or nervous shock or mental or emotional disturbances or distress, unless they are accompanied by physical injury or physical impact [] /
因惊吓或神经休克或精神或情绪障碍或痛苦而造成的伤害的损害赔偿,除非它们伴随着身体伤害或身体撞击 [] /
(5) In the leading case of Koplin v. Liggett Co., 322 Pa. . . . . plaintiff claimed damages because she became nauseated by the presence of a centipede in the spoon with which she was eating her soup, and was made sick for several weeks. This Court denied recovery. . . .
(5) 在Koplin v. Liggett Co., 322 Pa.原告要求赔偿,因为她吃汤的勺子里有一只蜈蚣感到恶心,并生病了几个星期。本院驳回追偿。
(6) In Potere v. Philadelphia, 380 Pa [581, 112 A. 2d 100]. . . , a contractor and the city were held jointly liable for a cave-in of a city street as the result of which plaintiff suffered physical injuries and a severe shock to his nervous system which was diagnosed as an anxiety neurosis. The Court said [ ]: "It has been well established that in the absence of physical injury or physical impact, mental or emotional distress is not the subject of legal redress [ ]. However, where, as here, a plaintiff sustains bodily injuries, even though trivial or minor in character, which are accompanied by fright or mental suffering directly traceable to the peril in which the defendant's negligence placed the plaintiff, then mental suffering is a legitimate element of damages [ ]."
(6) 在Potere v.Philadelphia, 380 Pa [581, 112 A. 2d 100],承包商和市政府对城市街道的塌陷负有共同责任,结果原告遭受了身体伤害,神经系统受到严重冲击,被诊断为焦虑神经症。法院说:“已经确定,在没有身体伤害或身体影响的情况下,精神或情绪困扰不是法律补救的对象[]。然而,如果像本案一样,原告人遭受了身体伤害,即使这种伤害是微不足道的或轻微的,但伴随着可直接追溯到被告人的疏忽使原告人陷入的危险的恐惧或精神痛苦,那么精神痛苦就是损害赔偿的合法要素[]。
(7) Plaintiff cites a number of decisions of this Court to support her claim but fails to realize that in those cases where recovery was allowed for nervous shock, the nervous shock was accompanied by physical injuries, and that all of her cases recegrize and reiterate the above mentioned well settled rule. What plaintiff is really asking us to do is to review and change the rule which has been so long and clearly established by our cases, because the courts of many other States and the Restatement allow recovery for shock and emotional disturbances where there has been no physical injury or physical impact.
(7) 原告援引了本院的多项判决来支持她的主张,但没有意识到,在那些允许神经休克恢复的案件中,神经休克伴随着身体伤害,而且她的所有案件都接受并重申了上述已解决的规则。原告真正要求我们做的是审查和改变我们的案件已经明确确立了这么久的规则,因为许多其他国家的法院和《重述》允许在没有身体伤害或身体影响的情况下对休克和情绪障碍进行恢复。
(8) To allow recovery for fright, fear, nervous shock, humiliation, mental or emotional distress-with all the disturbances and illnesses which accompany or result therefromwhere there has been no physical injury or impact, would open a Pandora's box. . . . Such an event, if compensable, may cause normal people, as well as nervous persons and persons who are mentally disturbed or mentally ill, to honestly believe that the sudden and unexpected event caused them fright or nervous shock or nervous tension with subsequent emotional distress or suffering or pain or miscarriage or heart attack, or some kind of disease. In most cases, it would be impossible for medical science to prove that these subjective symptoms could not possibly have resulted from or been aggravated or precipitated by fright or nervous shock or nervous tension or emotional disturbance or distress, each of which can in turn produce an ulcer or headaches or fainting spells or, under some circumstances, a heart attack, or a serious disease. For every wholly genuine and deserving claim, there would likely be a tremendous number of illusory or imaginative or "faked" ones. Medical science, we repeat, could not prove that these could not have been caused or precipitated or aggravated by defen-
(8)允许因恐惧、恐惧、神经休克、羞辱、精神或情绪困扰而恢复——以及伴随或导致的所有干扰和疾病,如果没有身体伤害或影响,就会打开潘多拉魔盒。这种事件如果可以赔偿,可能会使正常人,以及神经紧张的人和精神障碍或精神病患者诚实地相信,突然和意外的事件使他们受到惊吓或神经休克或神经紧张,随后出现情绪困扰或痛苦或疼痛或流产或心脏病发作,或某种疾病。在大多数情况下,医学不可能证明这些主观症状不可能是由惊吓或神经休克或神经紧张或情绪障碍或痛苦引起或加重或诱发的,每一种症状都可能反过来产生溃疡或头痛或昏厥,或者在某些情况下, 心脏病发作或严重疾病。对于每一个完全真实和应得的主张,可能会有大量的虚幻或想象或“伪造”的主张。我们再说一遍,医学科学无法证明这些不可能是由防御引起的、促成的或加重的——
(11) Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Justice Musmanno,
(11) 穆斯曼诺法官的反对意见,
(12) The great fear of the Majority seems to be that if we should allow the plaintiff in this case to submit her case to a jury, and, incidentally, that is all she is seeking, the courts would be besieged with "faked" cases. . . .
(13) But are our courts so naive, are they so gullible, are they so devoid of worldly knowledge, are they so childlike in their approach to realities that they can be deceived and hoodwinked by claims that have no factual, medical, or legalistic basis? If they are, then all our proud boasts of the worthiness of our judicial system are empty and vapid indeed.
(14) The Majority's apprehension that if we should allow the instant case to go to a jury for factual determination, the courts would be engulfed
(14) 多数人担心,如果我们允许本案交由陪审团裁决事实,法院就会被吞没

in a tidả wave of Tawsuits, is tollook upon a raindrop and visualize an inundation. Many jurisdictions now permit recovery where physical disablement tortiously caused is not made manifest through visible trauma, and I have seen no report that in those States the courts are awash in trumped-up cases . . . .
(15) It seems to me that it is a violation of the living spirit of the law to adhere 先例的真正俐值ancient rule which has no pragmatic application to realities of today. A precedent, in law, in order to be binding, should appeal to logic and a genuine sense of justice .... A precedent can not, and should not, control, if its strength depends alone on the fact that it is old, but may crumble at the slightest probing touch of instinctive reason and natural justice. With such criteria in mind, it is difficult to understand how this Court can allow damages for mental and nervous disability if incurred at the same time that a finger is bruised, but will deny compensation of any kind to the victim who sustains no outer mutilation but will be invalided for life because his inner mechanism has been shattered beyond repair. . . .
(16) In recapitulation I wish to go on record that the policy of non-liability announced by the Majority in this type of case is ihsupportable in Iaw, logic, and elementary juistice-and I shall continue to dissent from it until the cows come home.

Questions for Discussion

Before beginning this exercise, finish Readings 1 and 2.
在开始这个练习之前,请完成阅读 1 和 2。
  1. What court is the case in? Is it more likely that the plaintiff (1) had an automatic right to appeal or (2) requested leave to appeal (certiorari)?
  2. The opinion states, "The Superior Court sustained the entry of a nonsuit." How many courts has the case already been heard in? How do you know?
  3. Who is the plaintiff, and what is her story? Why is the plaintiff in court?
  4. Does state or federal law apply in this case? Is there a specific statute relevant to the case?
  5. The court cites two cases, one from 1936 and the other from 1955. (The court also cites other cases that have been omitted from this abridged version of the case.) Why does the court cite these particular cases?
  6. Does the court decide for the plaintiff or the defendant? What reasons does the court give for its decision?
  7. If the law that governs the case is clear, why did the plaintiff decide to go to court?

  1. In the text, an asterisk after a case name indicates that some footnotes have been removed from the abridged version and that the remaining footnotes have been renumbered.
    The partners in a legal case may be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant or plaintiff and defendant (without the).
  2. Four dots signal missing words or a combination of missing words and citations.
    Brackets indicate that one or more citations have been removed.