{"title":"“沉默原则”的范围","authors":"B. Lillywhite","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00519.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"THE decision of the Court of Appeal in Walsh v. Hoist & Co., Ltd.,1 raises many uncertainties about the working of the rule of res ipsa loquitur. The facts of the case were that the plaintiff was lawfully upon the highway when he was struck by a brick. The brick came from a building to which certain substantial structural alterations were being made. It was accepted by all members of the court that a prima facie case of negligence arose against both occupier and contractor because res ipsa loquitur.","PeriodicalId":426546,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","volume":"320 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Extent of Res Ipsa Loquitur\",\"authors\":\"B. Lillywhite\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00519.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"THE decision of the Court of Appeal in Walsh v. Hoist & Co., Ltd.,1 raises many uncertainties about the working of the rule of res ipsa loquitur. The facts of the case were that the plaintiff was lawfully upon the highway when he was struck by a brick. The brick came from a building to which certain substantial structural alterations were being made. It was accepted by all members of the court that a prima facie case of negligence arose against both occupier and contractor because res ipsa loquitur.\",\"PeriodicalId\":426546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review\",\"volume\":\"320 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00519.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00519.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
上诉法院在Walsh v. Hoist & Co.， Ltd. 1一案中的判决，对沉默规则的运作提出了许多不确定性。本案的事实是，原告被砖头击中时，他是合法地在公路上行驶的。这块砖来自一栋正在进行重大结构改造的建筑物。法院的所有成员都认为，占领者和承包者都因失言而产生了初步的过失案件。
THE decision of the Court of Appeal in Walsh v. Hoist & Co., Ltd.,1 raises many uncertainties about the working of the rule of res ipsa loquitur. The facts of the case were that the plaintiff was lawfully upon the highway when he was struck by a brick. The brick came from a building to which certain substantial structural alterations were being made. It was accepted by all members of the court that a prima facie case of negligence arose against both occupier and contractor because res ipsa loquitur.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
