聲音簡(jiǎn)介
“And it seems to me the difficulty with saying that this is an unlimited source of liability on a strict liability theory is that why would you identify lighterage as the specific remedy to be worried about unless what you’re really concerned about is, has the charterer made essentially a safe choice as far as everyone can tell, and then, when the captain gets there, if for whatever reason the captain in his or her judgment decides it’s not a safe choice and decides to go off into another port or to offload some portion at the expense and the risk, all of that is then imposed upon the charterer.”
逐句分析：
1.“the difficulty with saying that this is an unlimited source of liability on a strict liability theory”：
?Strict liability theory（嚴(yán)格責(zé)任理論）意味著不考慮過(guò)失，責(zé)任方在法律上自動(dòng)承擔(dān)后果。此處律師指出了在這一理論下，將責(zé)任無(wú)限擴(kuò)大存在的問(wèn)題，即不應(yīng)該將所有責(zé)任都?xì)w于租船人。
2.“why would you identify lighterage as the specific remedy to be worried about”：
?這里的 lighterage 是指將貨物從大船轉(zhuǎn)移到小船的操作。律師質(zhì)疑，如果合同中特別規(guī)定輕貨操作的責(zé)任歸租船人，那么法院不應(yīng)把“安全停泊區(qū)”的一般性責(zé)任視為租船人應(yīng)承擔(dān)的無(wú)限責(zé)任。
3.“unless what you’re really concerned about is, has the charterer made essentially a safe choice”：
?關(guān)鍵問(wèn)題是租船人是否做出了“安全選擇”（safe choice）。律師認(rèn)為，重點(diǎn)在于租船人是否合理履行了自己的選擇安全停泊區(qū)的義務(wù)，而不是簡(jiǎn)單地對(duì)所有潛在事故負(fù)責(zé)。
4.“as far as everyone can tell”：
?這意味著從所有可用信息來(lái)看，租船人應(yīng)該確保作出合理的判斷和選擇。律師試圖強(qiáng)調(diào)，在選擇停泊區(qū)時(shí)，租船人已經(jīng)盡到合理的注意義務(wù)。
5.“when the captain gets there, if for whatever reason the captain in his or her judgment decides it’s not a safe choice”：
?Captain’s judgment（船長(zhǎng)的判斷）在海事法中至關(guān)重要。如果船長(zhǎng)認(rèn)為指定的停泊區(qū)不安全，他或她有權(quán)采取其他措施。這強(qiáng)調(diào)了船長(zhǎng)的現(xiàn)場(chǎng)判斷和靈活決策的重要性。
6.“and decides to go off into another port or to offload some portion at the expense and the risk”：
?這里描述的是船長(zhǎng)在判斷停泊區(qū)不安全后，可能采取的行動(dòng)，例如駛向另一個(gè)港口或部分卸貨。無(wú)論采取何種行動(dòng)，其費(fèi)用和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)都由租船人承擔(dān)。
7.“all of that is then imposed upon the charterer”：
?最終責(zé)任歸于租船人，律師認(rèn)為，合同已經(jīng)明確了租船人承擔(dān)輕貨操作的責(zé)任，這種責(zé)任不應(yīng)被進(jìn)一步擴(kuò)大為“無(wú)限責(zé)任”。
總結(jié)：
這段話的關(guān)鍵在于對(duì) strict liability（嚴(yán)格責(zé)任）的質(zhì)疑。律師認(rèn)為，責(zé)任應(yīng)集中在租船人是否做出了合理的“安全選擇”，而不是簡(jiǎn)單地對(duì)所有潛在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)負(fù)責(zé)。此外，船長(zhǎng)在現(xiàn)場(chǎng)的判斷和決策也是重要的免責(zé)因素。通過(guò)分析合同的具體條款，律師試圖限制租船人責(zé)任的范圍，不讓其成為一個(gè)“無(wú)限責(zé)任”的來(lái)源。
這一段展示了法律辯論中對(duì)合同解釋和責(zé)任范圍的探討，尤其是在涉及嚴(yán)格責(zé)任的情況下。
音頻列表
- 5天前
- 6天前
- 6天前
- 7天前
- 7天前
- 8天前
- 8天前
- 8天前
- 8天前
- 9天前
查看更多
猜你喜歡
聲音主播
用戶評(píng)論