Lily the otter
2021-09-08T03:57:54+00:00
跟南京有的一拼了，省会中的卧龙凤雏，湖南江苏真是好福气[s:ac:偷笑]
讲个笑话:长沙公检法依法治国
Galaxybreaker
Zsbd[s:ac:哭笑][img]https://img.nga.178.com/attachments/mon_202109/10/-7Q177-bup4KnT1kScj-c8.jpg.medium.jpg[/img]
Suo
依法治国男罢了
SAS_Shadow
所以有什么办法翻盘嘛？还是等判了以后去起诉。要是我我肯定不服。我要是遇到这种事就算去帝都我也要告。
AmberRemains
你莫非以为只有长沙公检法是这样？
MIsu
[img]https://img.nga.178.com/attachments/mon_202109/10/-7Q177-3vvnK1aT1kShs-dp.jpg.medium.jpg[/img]我最喜欢的图
Ruddy
没错啊，依法治蝈
Dukso
哦我亲爱的达瓦里希，您怎么可以不认罪呢？ 固然，我们都知道，您是无辜的！ 可是，看看您的妻子，您的孩子，看看人民，看看那个死去的姑娘！ 哦，别激动，亲爱的达瓦里希。 那个姑娘的死，固然主要是她自己的问题。 那么您就没有百分之一的责任么？ 退一步讲，万分之一，总有吧？
a-Totemo
[quote][pid=548879232,28447266,1]Reply[/pid] Post by [uid=42830144]坏坏拽爷们[/uid] (2021-09-10 12:10):
[img]https://img.nga.178.com/attachments/mon_202109/10/-7Q177-3vvnK1aT1kShs-dp.jpg.medium.jpg[/img]我最喜欢的图[/quote]185的送马小号又来浑水摸鱼了
[img]https://img.nga.178.com/attachments/mon_202109/10/-7Q177-3vvnK1aT1kShs-dp.jpg.medium.jpg[/img]我最喜欢的图[/quote]185的送马小号又来浑水摸鱼了
King Cheeks
伊法治蝈，按闹分配
没毛病
没毛病
danzp107
我看你是小瞧了我们湖南
我老家的人大案，了解一下
坍塌式腐败，咱们不输山西
我老家的人大案，了解一下
坍塌式腐败，咱们不输山西
MIsu
[quote][pid=548879969,28447266,1]Reply[/pid] Post by [uid=60221359]4223[/uid] (2021-09-10 12:12):
185的送马小号又来浑水摸鱼了[/quote]嗯对对对，你癌症晚期你说什么都对
185的送马小号又来浑水摸鱼了[/quote]嗯对对对，你癌症晚期你说什么都对
The Real Mario
[quote][pid=548878845,28447266,1]Reply[/pid] Post by [uid=43245502]听雨xy[/uid] (2021-09-10 12:09):
所以有什么办法翻盘嘛？还是等判了以后去起诉。要是我我肯定不服。我要是遇到这种事就算去帝都我也要告。[/quote]可以等二审终审或者向最高法申请
所以有什么办法翻盘嘛？还是等判了以后去起诉。要是我我肯定不服。我要是遇到这种事就算去帝都我也要告。[/quote]可以等二审终审或者向最高法申请
spiderweather
[img]https://img.nga.178.com/attachments/mon_202109/10/-7Q177-i5wsKvT3cSnq-eu.jpg.medium.jpg[/img]
有法必依 哈哈哈
有法必依 哈哈哈
DopeyEthan
谁让你们考不进体系！
Knortic
刁光斗 yyds
Catra
我警告你不要打着法律的幌子妄议国家检查机关[s:a2:doge]
Darugo Sueño
在一个律师事务所找的相关类型文章。
If two people are in a moving vehicle and an accident occurs, it is easy to assume that the incident is the driver’s fault. The driver is in control of the vehicle and has a duty to avoid putting passengers in danger.
But what if the passenger willingly leaps from the moving vehicle? What responsibility does the driver have to slow down or slam on the brakes to protect the passenger? The passenger is making the decision to jump from a moving vehicle, a very dangerous maneuver. Who is at fault?
A driver is responsible for the safety of passengers to a certain degree. For instance, they should not purposely put the lives of passengers in danger by veering off the road or colliding with another vehicle or failing to pay attention to the road. However, it is worth considering whether or not the driver is responsible for preventing the passenger from harming himself or herself while in the vehicle.
Appeal to consider negligence
In a recent case, a man filed an appeal, claiming that he suffered injuries after jumping from a moving vehicle, and that the respondent (the driver) should have slowed down the car or tried to stop the vehicle. The appellant claims that the driver knew he was going to exit the vehicle abruptly, yet made no action to avoid injuring the appellant.
The primary judge found that it was not the respondent’s duty to protect the appellant from causing harm to himself, and that the appellant would likely have suffered injuries of equal or almost equal proportion if the respondent had decided to brake before the appellant jumped from the vehicle.
The Court considers the appeal
The Court then had to reconsider whether the appellant’s injuries would have been avoided or lessened had the driver slowed down, and whether it was a driver’s responsibility to protect the passenger from harming himself.
While the court acknowledged that the respondent had some duty to minimise the harm of a passenger, the Court found no error with the primary judge’s decision. It was ruled a matter of speculation whether the respondent’s further action would have lessened the severity of the appellant’s injuries. The Court also cited a similar case, which supported the consideration that there were only a few seconds between when the appellant opened the door and when he jumped, giving the respondent little time to act.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
在最近的一起案件中，一名男子提起上诉，声称他是从行驶中的车辆上跳下来受伤的，被告(司机)应该放慢车速或试图停车。上诉人声称，司机知道他要突然下车，但没有采取行动避免伤害上诉人。
主审法官认为，保护上诉人免于对自己造成伤害并不是被上诉人的责任，如果被上诉人在上诉人跳下车辆之前决定刹车，上诉人很可能遭受同等或几乎同等比例的伤害。 .
法院随后不得不重新考虑如果司机放慢速度是否可以避免或减轻上诉人的伤害，以及保护乘客免于伤害自己是否是司机的责任。
虽然法院承认被告有责任将乘客的伤害降到最低，但法院认为主审法官的决定没有错误。被告的进一步行动是否会减轻上诉人受伤的严重程度，被裁定为猜测问题。法院还引用了一个类似的案例，支持了上诉人开门和跳楼之间只有几秒钟的时间，被上诉人几乎没有时间采取行动的考虑。
上诉被驳回，并责令上诉人支付被上诉人的上诉费用。
If two people are in a moving vehicle and an accident occurs, it is easy to assume that the incident is the driver’s fault. The driver is in control of the vehicle and has a duty to avoid putting passengers in danger.
But what if the passenger willingly leaps from the moving vehicle? What responsibility does the driver have to slow down or slam on the brakes to protect the passenger? The passenger is making the decision to jump from a moving vehicle, a very dangerous maneuver. Who is at fault?
A driver is responsible for the safety of passengers to a certain degree. For instance, they should not purposely put the lives of passengers in danger by veering off the road or colliding with another vehicle or failing to pay attention to the road. However, it is worth considering whether or not the driver is responsible for preventing the passenger from harming himself or herself while in the vehicle.
Appeal to consider negligence
In a recent case, a man filed an appeal, claiming that he suffered injuries after jumping from a moving vehicle, and that the respondent (the driver) should have slowed down the car or tried to stop the vehicle. The appellant claims that the driver knew he was going to exit the vehicle abruptly, yet made no action to avoid injuring the appellant.
The primary judge found that it was not the respondent’s duty to protect the appellant from causing harm to himself, and that the appellant would likely have suffered injuries of equal or almost equal proportion if the respondent had decided to brake before the appellant jumped from the vehicle.
The Court considers the appeal
The Court then had to reconsider whether the appellant’s injuries would have been avoided or lessened had the driver slowed down, and whether it was a driver’s responsibility to protect the passenger from harming himself.
While the court acknowledged that the respondent had some duty to minimise the harm of a passenger, the Court found no error with the primary judge’s decision. It was ruled a matter of speculation whether the respondent’s further action would have lessened the severity of the appellant’s injuries. The Court also cited a similar case, which supported the consideration that there were only a few seconds between when the appellant opened the door and when he jumped, giving the respondent little time to act.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
在最近的一起案件中，一名男子提起上诉，声称他是从行驶中的车辆上跳下来受伤的，被告(司机)应该放慢车速或试图停车。上诉人声称，司机知道他要突然下车，但没有采取行动避免伤害上诉人。
主审法官认为，保护上诉人免于对自己造成伤害并不是被上诉人的责任，如果被上诉人在上诉人跳下车辆之前决定刹车，上诉人很可能遭受同等或几乎同等比例的伤害。 .
法院随后不得不重新考虑如果司机放慢速度是否可以避免或减轻上诉人的伤害，以及保护乘客免于伤害自己是否是司机的责任。
虽然法院承认被告有责任将乘客的伤害降到最低，但法院认为主审法官的决定没有错误。被告的进一步行动是否会减轻上诉人受伤的严重程度，被裁定为猜测问题。法院还引用了一个类似的案例，支持了上诉人开门和跳楼之间只有几秒钟的时间，被上诉人几乎没有时间采取行动的考虑。
上诉被驳回，并责令上诉人支付被上诉人的上诉费用。