购买
下载掌阅APP,畅读海量书库
立即打开
畅读海量书库
扫码下载掌阅APP

Part I
Basics of Anglo-American Law

Chapter 1
Surviving Law School

Law school is not a walk in the park. It's a jungle out there, and you've got to be savvy to survive. There's a lot to know, and if you're not feeling a little nervous when you show up for Orientation, you're probably not human. Apprehension is to be expected. But don't despair. You can do this, and I can help. I've put together some of my very best tips below, so get to it!

Four Strategies to Think like a Lawyer

Law school is not about learning a set of rules. Law school is designed to teach you how to “think like a lawyer.” Professors have long ago settled that lawyers can always look the law up in a book, but designing an argument and analyzing a legal problem is a matter of reshaping the way a person thinks. Four key strategies will aid you in thinking like a lawyer.

Strategy 1: Accept Ambiguity.

Consider the following rule of law:

There is always an exception for every rule of law, except for the rules in which there are no exceptions.

At first glance this statement seems circular and contradictory. It states a general proposition that every rule has an exception. Then it goes onto say that there's an exception to this rule for rules that have no exceptions. It's like the childhood riddle, where someone states, “ I am a liar .” If that person is a liar, how do you know that they are telling the truth in the statement that they are a liar?

The law is full of conundrums and ambiguities like this one. If you can accept the interplay between those two statements without being distressed at the inherent fuzziness, then you will do well in studying the law. The law is inherently fuzzy in order to be flexible. Although judges attempt to interpret laws that are clear, there is almost always a set of circumstances where applying the rule would be unjust. Consequently, some latitude exists in the law in order to reach a just result.

This can drive you mad as a first year law student. You want as clear of an answer as you would get in mathematics or physics. The law is seldom black and white. Everything is a shade of gray. The right answer is almost always couched in terms of probabilities. “Maybe he's liable for damages.” “He'll probably go to jail for murder.”

There is no way around this, and the best method is to embrace and accept the inherent ambiguity of the law as a strength. Instead of thinking of the law as ambiguous, consider it flexible. Your skill as a lawyer will be in how you can use this flexibility to achieve the correct result for your client.

Strategy 2: Don't be Emotionally Tied to a Position.

One of the biggest traps that professors use on unwary first year law students is playing on the emotions. The professor poses a hypothetical situation in which it's easy to hate one of the parties and sympathize with the other. The trick is to apply the law neutrally in response to the parties' legal rights and not your personal feelings.

The classic example is a situation in which a group of Neo-Nazis attempts to assert their First Amendment rights for free speech by holding demonstrations in a city largely populated with Jewish people who are concentration camp survivors.

Naturally, almost everyone feels sympathy for the concentration camp survivors. These people shouldn't have to be subjected to a Neo-Nazi's political belief in their own home. However, professors purposefully set up situations that create internal emotional conflict in order to illustrate that you should judge a situation according to the law and not let your individual biases get in the way. The correct legal result here is that the Neo-Nazi possesses a free speech right even in these circumstances so long as they are not inciting a riot.

This does not mean that you have to check your ethics at the door of law school. People complain that lawyers have no morals but these critics don't see the higher principles that are at stake. Those higher principles might be constitutional rights such as free speech or the right to be represented by counsel. This is the higher ethical ground that you need to take as an attorney rather than siding with one party or another merely because of your own political beliefs.

Finally, be aware that the professor's hypothetical situations are not the real world. While you may not like the result of the hypothetical, you need to demonstrate to the professor that you know how to apply the law. If you really feel that the result is unjust, then state the law with the correct legal result followed by your reasons on why you don't think the result is just. Just remember that it's a hypothetical. Don't be tied emotionally to things that don't matter.

Strategy 3: Argue Both Sides.

In order to avoid being emotionally tied to a position, you should always try to argue both sides of an issue. Luckily, the same ambiguity of the law that drives you crazy in Strategy 1 allows you the flexibility to be on either side of a question in Strategy 3. Adopting this attitude will better prepare you for the exam and the practice of law. You want to be able to take on either a defendant's or plaintiff 's position for any given legal issue because you don't know whether the facts on the exam will lean towards one side or the other.

One of the biggest traps that first year law students fall into is studying only from their own point of view. For instance, some people are naturally plaintiff 's attorneys—fighting for the underdog against the big corporate giant. Others tend towards representing defendants — protecting shareholder interests from people out to make a quick buck on a fraudulent claim. Each side is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Your immediate goal on the exam is not to figure out what kind of lawyer you are. Your immediate goal is to do well on the exam. This means that you need to be able to argue the side that seems to be correct given the facts. This may, in fact, be a party that you wouldn't normally side with.

One major upside to this sort of training is that it will make you a better lawyer to be able to argue both sides of a case. Once you do adopt a plaintiff 's or defendant's posture in real life, you will benefit from knowing what arguments the other side will bring forth. If you can understand the intricacies of another side's case, then you can better attack that argument.

Strategy 4: Question Everything.

Around the age of two years old, a child often starts asking his or her parents “Why? ”You should be like a two-year-old. Every rule of law, judicial decision, statute and legal construct has a reason for its existence. It may not be a very good reason, but you will be a better lawyer for behaving like a two year old and repeatedly asking “Why? ”

This act of questioning focuses you on policy as a basis for the law. Understanding policy will carry you far in successfully writing exams. Arguing policy is one of the four key methods of analysis.

Four Strategies to Excel as a Student

Law school is as much a psychological game as it is an intellectual game. Students defeat themselves ahead of time by stressing out on the workload. You can put yourself in a better position as a student by adopting these simple attitudes.

Strategy 1: Keep Your Cool.

Law professors use fear as a tool to motivate students to (1) work hard and (2) be cautious lawyers. Many professors feel that a little anxiety is a good thing for students. The very structure of the case method and Socratic dialogue used in most classrooms helps foster this fear since nothing is laid out on the table.

However, fear also takes you away from learning. It's a waste of valuable energy. Instead of focusing on the learning, you focus on the fear of not “getting it.” To counteract the fear that is inherent in law school, consider three ideas:

First, everyone in your class is in the same state of ignorance. No one knows what's coming next.

Second, if you make a mistake in the classroom, it doesn't count. The only grade that counts in most law school classes is the final. Relax and make mistakes. It will help you in the exam to know your weak points.

Third, hundreds of thousands of students have sat where you're sitting now and have survived and thrived.

Some people purposefully create stress as a motivator for themselves. They freak out at the workload and use it as a way to bond with other students. Stay away from the people who are stressing out. Stress creates stress, and you want to focus your energies on studying, not stressing out.

Strategy 2: Compete Only with Yourself.

Although grades are important, it's also important to put them in perspective. One key factor in getting good grades is to forget about them and concentrate on the learning. Focusing on the competition — i.e. your fellow students — takes your eye off the ball, which is to learn the law. If you are constantly sizing up the competition and comparing yourself then you are taking yourself away from valuable study time.

Consider the following truism:

While grades are the only thing that counts, grades also count as only one thing. The idea here is to recognize the importance of grades in determining certain things, such as law review, summer jobs and so on. At the same time, you realize that the learning and relationships are far more important keys to happiness than grades.

The stress of getting good grades often creates competition, which leads to bad feelings between students. There are true stories of people hiding books in the library or ripping pages out of case books that are necessary to complete an assignment. This sort of competition can be very destructive.

The best strategy to deal with the stress of grades is to compete only with yourself and not others. The people in your class are your future colleagues. Building trust and relationships with these people will take you much further than any marginal increase in grades you might get from cut-throat competitive tactics for grades. The most successful people in the world are not those who are most competitive with others. Rather, the most successful are those who compete with themselves to learn the most.

Strategy 3: Play with Concepts Like a New Toy.

Whenever you learn a new legal concept, play with as if you were a kid and the concept was the coolest, neatest, newest toy that you own.

Make the concept your own by restating the principle in your own words. Turn the idea over in your head as you're walking to class or taking a shower. Whenever you learn a new rule, restate it a dozen times until you don't need notes to say it by heart. Once you really understand that concept by putting it in your own words, move on to other principles.

Apply the rule to your everyday situations. For instance, you might begin to apply the principles you learn in Contract law to your everyday dealings with grocers and retailers. As you drive down the highway, consider what you would have to prove to bring a negligence suit in Tort if there were an accident. If the car crash was caused by a faulty part in a foreign car you were driving, how could you use Civil Procedure to haul the manufacturer into Federal Court.

Closely related to this concept is the idea of making up hypothetical fact patterns in which the rule of law will or will not apply. Try this make-believe technique in order to better learn how to apply the rule. You'll be surprised at how closely you might come to guessing what fact pattern is on the exam.

A lot of the difficulty in learning comes from fighting it. We put ourselves into a non-receptive state by saying, “This is difficult. I don't understand.” We also make it harder to learn by not focusing on the learning but by focusing on where we are on the general curve of learning — i.e. what's our class rank. By wasting energy on these areas we don't focus on the area where the true energy should flow — the actual learning of the law. Playing with the concepts like they were toys will defuse that difficulty.

Strategy 4: Strive for Balance in Your Life.

A lot of law students end up studying 12-14 hours a days in order to get through all of the reading and work of law school. This can easily lead to burn out. Putting in more hours doesn't necessarily lead to more knowledge. The law of diminishing returns suggests that 80 hours a week may lead to less advancement in the study of law than a focused 40-hour week.

It is essential to have a balance in your life with exercise, eating right and fun time with your friends and family. You will get more out of the classroom if you are alert, well fed and otherwise on top of your game physically and emotionally than you will if you have read yet another treatise about the law.

You need to give law school a break in order to give it your maximum attention later on. You need time when you're not thinking like a lawyer in order to better achieve becoming a lawyer. In the words of the Alan Watts, a professor of Eastern religions, “By going out of your mind, you come to your senses.”

Two Strategies to Bolster Self Confidence

Many law students suffer academically because they lack self confidence in their ability to handle the material. By deciding ahead of time that they don't have the ability, they fulfill that prophesy before even trying. In order to succeed academically in law school you have to adopt a belief in your ability. Belief alone won't carry you through to your goals. You also have to put in the work. But without a belief in your ability, you defeat yourself before you begin.

Strategy 1: Reprogramming for Success

If you've gotten as far as being accepted into law school, then you have the native intelligence to understand legal reasoning. Hundreds of thousands of people have learned to analyze issues like a lawyer, and you can do it too. If that isn't proof enough, then consider adopting a few techniques to foster self-confidence in studying the law.

One method is through affirmations. Affirmations are a tool you can use to counteract the negative self-image that is ingrained in the subconscious mind. Through the negative messages we receive in childhood, the subconscious mind develops limitations as to what we can achieve. The subconscious tells us that we aren't an “A student, ” so we never put forth the effort to counteract that negative message.

Affirmations are a powerful tool to reprogram the subconscious. Affirmations are said in front of the mirror in the morning immediately when you get up and in the evening right before you go to sleep. It could be something as simple as:

“I, (your name), am an intelligent, confident, and articulate student who will become an outstanding advocate and attorney for my clients.”

Affirmations generally get a bad rap. It's easy to dismiss affirmations as hokey, and, in a way, they are. But affirmations are also incredibly empowering. Affirmations illustrate just how powerful language can be. I challenge you to use affirmations for a week and see if they make a difference in your underlying attitude.

Another method to improve self-confidence is through visualization. High-performance athletes visualize winning a race before running it. During the actual race, they merely put into action what they have already visualized. You can use visualization to be successful in law school before you crack a book. Take a moment to visualize your first year in law school. Close your eyes and imagine a classroom where you and your fellow students engage in a lively debate. See in your mind a situation where you convince your peers to adopt a different viewpoint. Imagine taking your first test, having fun with it and knowing that you aced the exam. Fast-forward to your third year when you graduate. See yourself successfully taking the bar exam in your state. Visualizing doesn't mean that you don't have to do the work, but it will foster the belief in your ability to accomplish the task.

Strategy 2: The Myth of Mistakes

Fostering a belief in your ability is difficult when you are constantly faced with making mistakes. Mistakes are a fact of life in law school. The number of mistakes that a law school student makes is enormous. Everything about law school is new. The language of lawyering is new. The process of learning is different than most academic fields. The analytical thought process is a skill that doesn't come easily. You should expect to make mistakes.

Success is determined by what you do with those mistakes. Are mistakes a learning experience or do those mistakes reinforce a belief that you can't do the material? If you can look at each mistake you make in law school as an opportunity to get it right for the exam, I guarantee you that you'll excel.

You're not alone in making mistakes. Did you realize that the best baseball players in the world strike out two thirds of the time they are at bat? Do they let that huge failure ratio deter them? No. Each time they step up to the plate, they have an unwavering belief that this is the ball they are going to hit out of the park. They don't let their failures get in the way of believing in their ultimate ability to succeed.

Recognize to yourself that you are only a beginner. As a beginner, you have to start out with simple concepts and take small steps in learning the material. Sometimes you won't succeed, but that's part of being a beginner. In fact, you want to make mistakes in order to see where you got it wrong the first time through. You must never let your mistakes fool you into believing that you are not capable.

Summing up, there is a two-step approach to putting yourself in the right state of mind. Adopt this phrase as your guiding principle:

Think like a winner by knowing that you will ultimately succeed, but act like a beginner by learning from your mistakes.

Exercises

I. Please match the terms on the left with the definitions on the right. Write the term number in the blank.

II. Please fill in the blank with the appropriate article (“a”, “an”, or “the”) or leave it blank to indicate that no article is necessary.

“George Pavlicic is not asking for______damages because of______broken heart or______mortified spirit. He is asking for______return of______things which he bestowed with______attached condition precedent,______condition which was never met. In demanding______return of his gifts, George cannot be charged with______ Indian giving. Although he has reached______Indian summer of his life and now at______80 years of age might, in______usual course of human affairs, be regarded as beyond______marrying age, everyone has______inalienable right under his own constitution as well as that of______United States to marry when he pleases, if and when he finds______woman who will marry him. George Pavlicic believed that he had found that woman in Sara Jane. He testified that he asked her at least 30 times if she would marry him and on each occasion she answered in______affirmative. There is nothing in______law which required him to ask______31 times. But even so, he probably would have continued asking her had she not taken his last $5,000 and decamped to another city. Moreover he had to accept______30 offers of marriage as______limit since she now had married someone else. Of course, mere multiplicity of______proposals does not make for______certainty of acceptance.______testimony, however, is to______effect that on______ occasion of each proposal by George, Sara Jane accepted not only______proposal but gift______which invariably accompanied it.

______Act of 1935 in no way alters or modifies______law on______ante-nuptial conditional gifts as expounded in______28 C.J. 651, and quoted by us with approval in______case of Stranger v. Elper, 382 Pa. 411, 415, 115 A.2d 197, 199, namely:

‘______gift to______person to whom______donor is engaged to be married, made in______contemplation of______ marriage, although absolute in______form, is conditional; and upon breach of______marriage engagement by______done______property may be recovered by______donor.'”

Excerpt from Pavlicic v. Vogtsberger, 136 A.2d 127, 131(Pa. 1957). he+o3P6PLLqBtEhSQ22v7YXHg/vgGVLSXl8x22o0SWhcl8q3Z8qWiC3g+6ULCUEd



Chapter 2
Legal Systems of the World

The contemporary legal systems of the world are generally based on one of four basic systems: civil law, common law, statutory law, religious law or combinations of these. However, the legal system of each country is shaped by its unique history and so incorporates individual variations.

Both Civil (also known as Roman ) and Common law systems can be considered the most widespread in the world, Civil law because it is the most widespread by landmass, and Common law because it is employed by the greatest number of people.

Common Law

Common law and equity are systems of law whose sources are the decisions in cases by judges. Alongside, every system will have a legislature that passes new laws and statutes. The relationships between statutes and judicial decisions can be complex. In some jurisdictions, such statutes may overrule judicial decisions or codify the topic covered by several contradictory or ambiguous decisions. In some jurisdictions, judicial decisions may decide whether the jurisdiction's constitution allowed a particular statute or statutory provision to be made or what meaning is contained within the statutory provisions. Statutes were allowed to be made by the government. Common law developed in England, influenced by Anglo-Saxon law and to a much lesser extent by the Norman conquest of England, which introduced legal concepts from Norman law, which, in turn, had its origins in Salic law. Common law was later inherited by the Commonwealth of Nations, and almost every former colony of the British Empire has adopted it (Malta being an exception). The doctrine of stare decisis, also known as case law or precedent by courts, is the major difference to codified civil law systems.

Common law is currently in practice in Ireland, most of the United Kingdom (England and Wales and Northern Ireland), Australia, New Zealand, Bangladesh, India (excluding Goa), Pakistan, South Africa, Canada (excluding Quebec), Hong Kong, the United States (on a state level excluding Louisiana), and many other places. In addition to these countries, several others have adapted the common law system into a mixed system. For example, Nigeria operates largely on a common law system, but incorporates religious law.

In the European Union, the Court of Justice takes an approach mixing civil law (based on the treaties) with an attachment to the importance of case law. One of the most fundamental documents to shape common law is the English Magna Carta, which placed limits on the power of the English Kings. It served as a kind of medieval bill of rights for the aristocracy and the judiciary who developed the law.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Civil Law

The central source of law that is recognized as authoritative is codifications in a constitution or statute passed by legislature, to amend a code. While the concept of codification dates back to the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon ca. 1790 BC, civil law systems derive from the Roman Empire and, more particularly, the Corpus Juris Civilis issued by the Emperor Justinian ca. AD 529. This was an extensive reform of the law in the Byzantine Empire, bringing it together into codified documents. Civil law was also partly influenced by religious laws such as Canon law and Islamic law. Civil law today, in theory, is interpreted rather than developed or made by judges. Only legislative enactments (rather than legal precedents, as in common law) are considered legally binding.

Scholars of comparative law and economists promoting the legal origins theory usually subdivide civil law into four distinct groups:

• French civil law: in France, the Benelux countries, Italy, Romania, Spain and former colonies of those countries;

• German civil law: in Germany, Austria, Russia, Switzerland, Estonia, Latvia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Serbia, Greece, Portugal and its former colonies, Turkey, Japan;

• Scandinavian civil law: in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. As historically integrated in the Scandinavian cultural sphere, Finland and Iceland also inherited the system.

• Chinese law: a mixture of civil law and socialist law in use in the People's Republic of China.

However, some of these legal systems are often and more correctly said to be of hybrid nature:

• Napoleonic to Germanistic influence (Italian civil law)

The Italian civil code of 1942 replaced the original one of 1865, introducing germanistic elements due to the geopolitical alliances of the time. The Italian approach has been imitated by other countries including the Netherlands (1992), Argentina (2014), Brazil (2002) and Portugal (1966). Most of them have innovations introduced by the Italian legislation, including the unification of the civil and commercial codes.

• Germanistic to Napoleonic influence (Swiss civil law)

The Swiss civil code is considered mainly influenced by the German civil code and partly influenced by the French civil code. The civil code of the Republic of Turkey is a slightly modified version of the Swiss code, adopted in 1926 during Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's presidency as part of the government's progressive reforms and secularization.

A comprehensive list of countries that base their legal system on a codified civil law follows:

(Continued)

(Continued)

(Continued)

(Continued)

(Continued)

(Continued)

(Continued)

(Continued)

(Continued)

Religious Law

Religious law refers to the notion of a religious system or document being used as a legal source, though the methodology used varies. For example, the use of Jewish and Halakha for public law has a static and unalterable quality, precluding amendment through legislative acts of government or development through judicial precedent; Christian Canon law is more similar to civil law in its use of codes; and Islamic Sharia law (and Fiqh jurisprudence) is based on legal precedent and reasoning by analogy ( Qiyas ), and is thus considered similar to common law.

The main kinds of religious law are Sharia in Islam, Halakha in Judaism, and canon law in some Christian groups. In some cases these are intended purely as individual moral guidance, whereas in other cases they are intended and may be used as the basis for a country's legal system. The latter was particularly common during the Middle Ages.

The Halakha is followed by orthodox and conservative Jews in both ecclesiastical and civil relations. No country is fully governed by Halakha, but two Jewish people may decide, because of personal belief, to have a dispute heard by a Jewish court, and be bound by its rulings.

The Islamic legal system of Sharia (Islamic law) and Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) is the most widely used religious law, and one of the three most common legal systems in the world alongside common law and civil law. It is based on both divine law, derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah, and the rulings of Ulema (jurists), who used the methods of Ijma (consensus), Qiyas (analogical deduction), Ijtihad (research) and Urf (common practice) to derive Fatwā (legal opinions). An Ulema was required to qualify for an Ijazah (legal doctorate) at a Madrasa (law school/college) before they could issue Fatwā . During the Islamic Golden Age, classical Islamic law may have had an influence on the development of common law and several civil law institutions. Sharia law governs a number of Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, though most countries use Sharia law only as a supplement to national law. It can relate to all aspects of civil law, including property rights, contracts or public law.

Pluralistic Systems

Civil Law and Canon Law

Canon law is not divine law, properly speaking, because it is not found in revelation. Instead, it is seen as human law inspired by the word of God and applying the demands of that revelation to the actual situation of the church. Canon law regulates the internal ordering of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion. Canon law is amended and adapted by the legislative authority of the church, such as councils of bishops, single bishops for their respective sees, the Pope for the entire Catholic Church, and the British Parliament for the Church of England.

Civil Law and Common Law

(Continued)

(Continued)

Civil Law and Sharia Law

Common Law and Sharia Law

Hybrid Law

Exercises

I. Collocations are word combinations, or words that occur next to or near each other, often in a particular sequence. When becoming familiar with legal English, students may not always know which word combinations are permitted and which are not. Take, for example, the noun phrase common law . We know that in English prepositions can precede noun phrases, but what specific prepositions can precede common law ?

Consider this sentence:

common law, the possessor of land owes a duty of ordinary care to his invitees, who are persons whom he invites onto his land for some purpose beneficial to him.

You may not know the answer and therefore may only be able to make some guesses, such as in, under, or at . Look at these example containing instances of common law . What preposition precedes common law in these cases?

1. There is no physician-patient privilege at common law, but a majority of states have enacted statutes.

2. Article Ι, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution provides in relevant part: “In civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred fifty dollars, the right of trial by a jury of twelve is preserved to the same extent as it existed at common law.”

Based on what you know so far, what preposition would you use to fill in the blanks in these three excerpts?

1. Civil fraud, as with suits______common law, involves lower evidentiary standards — e.g., a preponderance of the evidence, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2.______the common law, an insurance agent whose principal is the insurance company owes on duty to advise a potential insured about any coverage.

3.______the common law, “one who suffers from deficient mental capacity is not immune from tort liability solely for that reason...”

Is the preposition at the only preposition that can occur with common law? Does it make a difference if common law is preceded by the, as in Excerpts 2 and 3?

Since the answers are not likely to be found in your dictionary, you would normally have to conduct more inquiries. If you have access to a corpus of legal documents via Westlaw or Lexis Nexis, you can find the answers to these questions on your own by choosing a database (such as state cases) and then typing in key terms or word combinations, such as “common law”. Hint: Avoid beginning your entry with a high-frequency word like the . You will be able to find examples of prepositions that occur with common law . Alternatively, you can go to scholar. google. com and type in some possibilities, such as “at the common law”(law), to see if they exist.

II. Please fill in the blank with the appropriate article (“a”, “an”, or “the”) or leave it blank to indicate that no article is necessary.

“Dennis has only pled that______police responded to______call for assistance.______mere response to______ call for assistance or aid does not create______special relationship between______police and______person in need of______aid..., In Yates,______Yates family called______police to break up______gang fight behind their home.______police arrived, but instead of stopping______fight, they remained in their car. After______car departed,______shot was fired at______rear of______Yates' house which struck and killed their daughter. This court refused to find______special relationship where______police ‘did not assure______Yates family that they would protect them from______dangers caused by______gang fight.______focus of Melendez is on______individual and any danger unique to______individual from which______police specifically promise protection.'…

In Rankin,______plaintiff was stabbed on______local Philadelphia train.______plaintiff alleged that______police officer witnessed______stabbing and failed to prevent it. He further alleged that______officer escorted him from______train, told him to sit down on______bench, and told him he would be ‘alright.'______plaintiff subsequently passed out and was left on______without______medical attention for some four hours...

This court concluded that______special relationship existed because______three elements of______Thomas test were met. We inferred that______third element was met by______allegation that______police escorted______plaintiff from______train, seated him, and reassured him. In______case now before us, there are simply no facts pled from which we can make such______inference. Without______third element of______voluntary assumption by______officer in this case to protect______decedent, there can be no special relationship, no duty, and hence no liability.”

Excerpt from City of Philadelphia v. Estate of Dennis, 636 A. 2d 240 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993). aYMaZDTHK6SOhYiYD3OeoP4zTSXKdQEZnBFaYLdJthOqracOUL3MUqA71s/rBHC4

点击中间区域
呼出菜单
上一章
目录
下一章
×

打开