作业帮哪个高端人才能帮我翻译一下嘛?感激不尽!
来源：学生作业帮 编辑：作业帮 分类：英语作业 时间：2024/11/09 04:56:34
哪个高端人才能帮我翻译一下嘛?感激不尽!
翻译下文,不要那种百度在线翻译或者谷歌在线翻译之类的,要纯人工!爱你!
The plaintiff is the father of two boys who died at ages six and eight when they drowned in a pond on city-owned land. Mr. Paugh sued the city for the deaths of his sons. The city successfully moved for summary judgment and this appeal followed.
The pond is about 100 feet wide at its widest point. It is shallow at the edges, and slopes gently to six feet at its deepest point. Its bottom is muddy and the water is murky. It is located in unimproved bushy terrain about 300 yards from the housing development where the plaintiff lives, and is accessible by a dirty road. The sheriff described it as an ordinary pond, just like the many others in the area. The pond is popular with nearby residents for fishing and swimming and the plaintiff himself had taken his sons there four or five times to fish. He hand told them to go only with him and to stay out of the water. There are no witnesses to the drowning.
The city had not taken any measures against trespassers. There are no warning signs around the pond, and the evidence is that a fence all around would be prohibitive in cost and probably not possible without leveling the trees and the uneven ground. The city is now contemplating draining the pond and estimates the cost at $25,000.
The general rule is that a landowner owes to duty to trespassers except to not willfully cause their injury. Mail v. Smith Lumber Co., 287 P.2d 877(Wash.1955). There is an exception, however, for child trespassers, the attractive nuisance doctrine, which has been adopted in this state. Id.This doctrine reflects public concern for the welfare and safety of children. The requirements for this doctrine to apply are
(1) The condition must be dangerous in itself, that is, it must be likely to, or probably will, result in injury to those attracted by it;
(2) The condition must be attractive and enticing to young children;
(3) The children, because of their youth, must be incapable of understanding the danger involved;
(4) The condition must have been left unguarded at a place where children go, or where they could reasonably be expected to go; and
(5) It must have been reasonably feasible either to prevent access or to render the condition innocuous without destroying it utility.
If, however, there were conditions that caused particular risk, like a concealed danger, our decision might be different. The trial court here correctly decided that the pond is not an attractive nuisance. Affirmed.
翻译下文,不要那种百度在线翻译或者谷歌在线翻译之类的,要纯人工!爱你!
The plaintiff is the father of two boys who died at ages six and eight when they drowned in a pond on city-owned land. Mr. Paugh sued the city for the deaths of his sons. The city successfully moved for summary judgment and this appeal followed.
The pond is about 100 feet wide at its widest point. It is shallow at the edges, and slopes gently to six feet at its deepest point. Its bottom is muddy and the water is murky. It is located in unimproved bushy terrain about 300 yards from the housing development where the plaintiff lives, and is accessible by a dirty road. The sheriff described it as an ordinary pond, just like the many others in the area. The pond is popular with nearby residents for fishing and swimming and the plaintiff himself had taken his sons there four or five times to fish. He hand told them to go only with him and to stay out of the water. There are no witnesses to the drowning.
The city had not taken any measures against trespassers. There are no warning signs around the pond, and the evidence is that a fence all around would be prohibitive in cost and probably not possible without leveling the trees and the uneven ground. The city is now contemplating draining the pond and estimates the cost at $25,000.
The general rule is that a landowner owes to duty to trespassers except to not willfully cause their injury. Mail v. Smith Lumber Co., 287 P.2d 877(Wash.1955). There is an exception, however, for child trespassers, the attractive nuisance doctrine, which has been adopted in this state. Id.This doctrine reflects public concern for the welfare and safety of children. The requirements for this doctrine to apply are
(1) The condition must be dangerous in itself, that is, it must be likely to, or probably will, result in injury to those attracted by it;
(2) The condition must be attractive and enticing to young children;
(3) The children, because of their youth, must be incapable of understanding the danger involved;
(4) The condition must have been left unguarded at a place where children go, or where they could reasonably be expected to go; and
(5) It must have been reasonably feasible either to prevent access or to render the condition innocuous without destroying it utility.
If, however, there were conditions that caused particular risk, like a concealed danger, our decision might be different. The trial court here correctly decided that the pond is not an attractive nuisance. Affirmed.
原告是两个孩子的夫亲,他们分别是六岁和八岁溺毙于一个市政府管理的池塘.PAUGH先生因此起诉市镇府.市镇府成功得到判决接着是上诉.
案中的池塘最大的宽度有大约100尺宽.池边较浅,渐渐的斜度直到最深的六尺.底层都是烂泥而且浑浊.这池塘处在一个荒野地大盖离原告居住的小区有300码,到那里须要走过一条很肮脏的路.警长描述那是个很普通的池塘,就和其他的池塘一样.附近的居民都喜欢到那里钓鱼或游泳,原告也曾带他的孩子到那里钓鱼四五次.他告诉过他的孩子只能由他带领下才能去,而且要原理水.事发当时并没有证人.
市镇府对外来者并没有采取任何的措施.那里没有任何的警示牌,很明显的要架起围栏把整个池塘围起来成本会很高,甚至几乎不可能除非把那里的树都除掉,还得把地整平.现在市镇府打算把水都抽干,其预算高达两万五千元.
按前例Mail v. Smith Lumber Co., 287 P.2d 877(Wash.1955)米尔对司密司伦伯 公司,287 P.2d 877(华盛顿1955）在一般的情况下,地主是有责任不让外来者,除非自愿,受到损伤.
案中的池塘最大的宽度有大约100尺宽.池边较浅,渐渐的斜度直到最深的六尺.底层都是烂泥而且浑浊.这池塘处在一个荒野地大盖离原告居住的小区有300码,到那里须要走过一条很肮脏的路.警长描述那是个很普通的池塘,就和其他的池塘一样.附近的居民都喜欢到那里钓鱼或游泳,原告也曾带他的孩子到那里钓鱼四五次.他告诉过他的孩子只能由他带领下才能去,而且要原理水.事发当时并没有证人.
市镇府对外来者并没有采取任何的措施.那里没有任何的警示牌,很明显的要架起围栏把整个池塘围起来成本会很高,甚至几乎不可能除非把那里的树都除掉,还得把地整平.现在市镇府打算把水都抽干,其预算高达两万五千元.
按前例Mail v. Smith Lumber Co., 287 P.2d 877(Wash.1955)米尔对司密司伦伯 公司,287 P.2d 877(华盛顿1955）在一般的情况下,地主是有责任不让外来者,除非自愿,受到损伤.