negligence:negligence 和neglect

1.negligence 和neglect

语意较重neglect指一般性的疏忽但两者的根本区别是，前一个是名词，后一个是动词还有名词！

2.英国法律案例分析 是关于NEGLIGENCE的 求法律大大帮忙：（

A可以向球场索赔，球场的拥有者或管理者应该对它的visitors有一个"然后由于A买了票。所以A和球场有了proximity（duty of care的条件之一），铁栏杆掉下来这种事不是foreseeable的，这里可以引用1932年Donoghue v Stevenson的case，最后A受到的伤害是这个breach带来的结果。以上满足了tort law中negiligence的条件。因此A是可以向球场索赔他所受伤的损失的，至于不能去学校。他也许可以因此得到额外的赔偿，这取决于法官和陪审团怎么看，B可以claim这个损失。但是有可能会失败，他需要去医院证明他确实有一个精神上的伤害，第二法官需要判断A和B的男女关系是否strong enough，一般来说男女朋友关系比较难判，夫妻就容易很多，第三B是否在immediata zone，第四B需要证明之前他没有发生过这样的病，B才可以获得赔偿，他不可以向球场索赔，他并没有卖票入场，所以他不能算是一个visitor，球场的owner没有liability on him。

3.duty of care在法律中什么意思~

注意义务”可以把duty of care 理解为因为行为人主观上的疏忽，而未尽到相应的注意义务，而这个注意义务的要求因为行为人为专业人士，主要针对专业人士并没有根据他们的专业操守、行为，英国法中侵权责任以“英国法大可以放心的在过失侵权范围内将纯粹经济损失定义为一切非因物的损坏引起的损失，因为由此而导致的法律保护之漏洞可以通过其他侵权行为法的规定加以弥补。各国对纯粹经济损失的讨论总是放在侵权法体系中进行的。由于英美法系与大陆法系侵权法构筑的基础不同，且即便是在大陆法系内部各国间侵权法理论也存在差异，但对纯粹经济损失这一概念的内涵及其所包含的外延的认识上均有差异。对纯粹经济损失作如下定义：非因绝对权之侵害，而由其他原因致使的单纯经济上的不利益。非存在违约责任与侵权责任竞合情况下的违约责任将作为纯粹经济损失样态之一种在下文予以讨论。

4.法律上,存在过失与过错的区别是什么,

5.contributory negligence和comparative negligence的异同

When a claim for damages caused by an accident is filed with a court, the fact-finder (judge or jury, depending on the proceeding) must determine who caused the accident. The person whose negligence caused the accident typically pays for the resulting damage. If more than one person caused the damage, then negligence is distributed between the parties based on state apportionment laws. The fact-finder may determine that actions of the defendant, the plaintiff, or both, caused the accident. Based on the evidence submitted, the judge or jury will then allocate the amount or percentage that each party was negligent. Depending on the jurisdiction, this allocation will directly impact the damages awarded. Throughout the United States, there are four systems used in establishing damage awards: pure contributory negligence, pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence – 50% bar rule, and modified comparative negligence – 51% bar rule. Contributory Negligence Historically, contributory negligence was a common law defense available in tort actions. In the past, if two people were in an accident, the injured person could only recover for his/her injuries and damages if they did not contribute to the accident in any way. This approach was based on a policy originally established in England that stated a person who negligently causes harm to another cannot be held liable if that injured individual contributed to his own suffering and injury, even if it was only a very slight factor. For example, if Dave and Debbie were in an accident where Jane was injured, and Jane was only 5% at fault, she would recover nothing. This method of calculating damages is still followed in states with a pure contributory negligencesystem. In light of the potentially harsh result, most states have moved from the strict nature of a pure contributory negligence system to some form of a comparative negligence system. Currently, only five (5) states, including the District of Columbia, follow the pure contributory negligence rule. Comparative NegligenceIn a comparative negligence system, the injured party may still recover some of his or her damages even if he or she was partially to blame for causing the accident. Plaintiff’s financial recovery may be reduced, or even prohibited, depending how plaintiff’s actions caused or contributed to the accident. In states using a comparative negligence system, a jury or judge determines the proportion of fault to be assigned to each responsible party. Jurisdictions following a comparative negligence system will typically apportion the damages using one of three variations of comparative negligence: pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence – 51% rule, ormodified comparative negligence – 50% rule.Presently, thirteen (13) states follow a pure comparative negligencesystem: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington. In a pure comparative negligence system, a judge or jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible party and then apportions the damage award accordingly. Using this system, an injured person may recover his or her damages even if the injured person was 99% at fault in causing the injury, with those damages reduced by his or her portion of the fault. For example, in a car accident between Dave and Debbie where Debbie was found to be 99% responsible, and the jury found that Debbie suffered $10,000 in damages, that award would be reduced by Debbie’s 99% fault in causing the injury. In the end, Dave would only have to pay 1% of Debbie’s damages, or $100 in this case.Thirty-three (33) states follow a modified comparative fault system. Similar to a pure comparative negligence system, a judge or jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible party and then apportions the damage award accordingly. From that point, depending on how the system is applied, if a plaintiff’s apportioned fault reaches a particular level, he or she may be completely prohibited from recovering a damage award.Of the thirty-three states following a modified comparative fault system, twelve (12) states follow a 50% rule. In states following a modified comparative fault – 50% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault in causing the injury is 49% or less. If the injured party’s fault level reaches 50%, he or she cannot recover any damages resulting from the accident. Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia follow the 50% rule. Of the thirty-three states following a modified comparative fault system, the remaining twenty-one (21) states follow a 51% rule. In states following amodified comparative fault – 51% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault does not reach 51%. If the injured party was 50% or less at fault, he or she may still recover damages. In other words, a plaintiff may have caused half of the accident and still recover damages from the court, but if it is found that the plaintiff’s fault was responsible formore than half of the accident, that plaintiff is barred from receiving any damages determined by the court. Here, as in a pure comparative negligence state, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the degree of his or her fault. Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming follow the 51% rule. Remember that many exceptions to the standard negligence systems are present in several states. Additionally, some states limit the types of cases to which these negligence systems may apply. The information present in this article and following table should only be used as a guide. Specific questions should be directed to a qualified attorney licensed in your state. Nothing in this summary should be construed as legal advice.

6.法律中 negligent misstatement 和liability for negligence的区别

negligent misstatement是指由过失引起的不实陈述。而liability for negligence是指过失责任。后者包括因前者引起的法律责任。前者是具体的过失行为，后者是过失责任。《侵权责任法》第6条规定，行为人因实施过错行为而侵害他人权益的，应当承担法律责任。

7.neglect，negligence，carelessness和absentmindedness的区别

neglect，carelessness和absentmindedness的区别neglect是动词的疏忽negligence 强调的是因为疏忽而造成的过失性错误.carelessness 强调的是粗心大意,粗枝大叶.absentmindedness 是缺乏注意力的，心不在焉的一个人可以心思缜密,但是偶尔疏忽会犯错.这就是negligence,一个人本质上粗心大意,区别不是特别大.一个人开小差，The woman denied that she had neglected her child. 那位女士否认疏于照管自己的孩子。Mistakes due to carelessness may have serious consequences. 由粗心大意造成的错误有可能带来严重的后果。

8.oversight和negligence的区别？？？

oversight.. 1. 失察工程质量词汇(二)-工程词汇 ...overlook 监察oversight 失察overvoltage 过电压 ...2. 监督控制与操控你的机器，大概是在你远行的时间监督(Oversight)指导你的员工。3. 勘漏英语新词汇与常用词汇的翻译(O2)—生命经纬 ...overside 从船边的oversight 勘漏oversimplification 过度单纯化 ...4. 监督（机制）To the Speaker of the Hou... ...mission 使命oversight 监督（机制）illiquid 不能立即变现的；可能表示有人为的疏忽(Negligence)，可引致民事诉讼。若死因庭裁定死者死于不幸，则虽然可能有人为的疏忽，但未必可以构成诉讼的理据。