其他相關案例分享
[民事-當選無效案-勝訴]-梁雨安律師勝訴案例精選9

一、案由 原審法院認定證人虛遷戶籍,判決被告當選無效。 二、本律師代理被告提出上訴主張: (一)證人遷戶籍有正當理由,且無任何實質證據足資證明證人遷戶籍與選舉有關。 (二)證人遷戶籍時,當選人還未公開要參選,故證人不可能是為了當選人而遷移戶籍, 三、案件結果 案經台灣高等法院採認本律師上開主張,並為廢棄原判決,改判上訴人勝訴。 梁雨安律師勝訴案例精選1-[民事-海砂屋減少價金案-勝訴] https://www.lawchain.tw/lawyer/315/posts/169/1 梁雨安律師勝訴案例精選2-[民事-遺產爭訟案-勝訴] https://www.lawchain.tw/lawyer/315/posts/172/2 梁雨安律師勝訴案例精選3-[民事-確認優先承購權存在案-勝訴] https://www.lawchain.tw/lawyer/315/posts/173/3 梁雨安律師勝訴案例精選4-[刑事-偽造文書案-勝訴] https://www.lawchain.tw/lawyer/315/posts/174/4 梁雨安律師勝訴案例精選5-[民事-損害賠償案-勝訴] https://www.lawchain.tw/lawyer/315/posts/175/5 梁雨安律師勝訴案例精選6-[刑事-貪污案-勝訴] https://www.lawchain.tw/lawyer/315/posts/176/6 梁雨安律師勝訴案例精選7-[刑事-妨害名譽案-勝訴] https://www.lawchain.tw/lawyer/315/posts/178 梁雨安律師勝訴案例精選8-[民事-遷讓房屋案-勝訴] https://www.lawchain.tw/lawyer/315/posts/179

▲蘇狀師勝訴案例

新北地方法院108年度國字第23號國家賠償事件(109年8月13日宣判),本人受原告委任為訴訟代理人向交通部公路總局第一區養護工程處提起國家賠償訴訟;起訴請求新臺幣70萬元,獲判賠555,120元。據統計顯示,國家賠償勝訴率僅1成,本人獲得賠償金7成9之部分勝訴判決,實難能可貴(起訴狀及請求金額為原告自行撰擬,如為本人所撰應可全部勝訴)。

▲蘇狀師談侵權行為(assumption of risk)

assumption of risk 自承風險   assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔(assumption of risk、自承風險)屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯,如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險,則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權(故意侵權沒有適用)。   Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。然而,球迷在球賽中被球擊中卻是普遍現象。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. 2015年,一位球迷在密爾瓦基觀看釀酒人與勇士兩隊的大聯盟賽事被界外球擊中臉部。該名球迷遭受到幾近致命之傷害,進而支出超過20萬美元之醫療費用,同時需要終身醫療。2016年8月另一名球迷在同場地被平飛球擊中。 Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? 當談到觀眾受傷,米勒棒球場(密爾瓦基釀酒人之主場)並不是唯一。2014年彭博新聞指出大聯盟賽事每年有1750名球迷被界外球擊中。2018年在道奇隊球場,一名婦人在被界外球擊中頭部後死亡,離之前首位被擊中身亡者將近50年。職業冰球的冰球及全國運動汽車競賽協會舉行的賽事裏的賽車在比賽中係極具淺在危險性之拋射體。假如你在觀眾席被界外球擊中或冰上曲棍球的冰球擊中,誰要負擔你的醫療費及工作能力之損失? The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸,答案是你(亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害) “Assumed Risk” and your ticket:自承風險及你的賽票 Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. 「自承風險」落入適用所謂“棒球法則”責任歸屬之範疇,其在職業及業餘賽事都有適用。假如你閱讀你賽票背面小號字體印刷品,其通常會將補償方案及法則用以凸顯方式概略出來,你將會發現自承風險的聲明,這也是為何賽事場地對你所受之傷毋庸負責之理。 It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. 其已被自我承擔,當選擇觀看賽事時,觀眾意識到飛來物會進入觀眾席,同時觀眾有責任去迴避牠。 The exception:自承風險之例外: While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: 然而,在運動賽事裏大部分的風險被認為是“比賽中所固有的”,有些情況被認為是運動場/賽場對該傷害有過失,例如: If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds. 假如你摔倒係因扶手損壞或是其他設施維護失當,例如護網毀損或被劃開,會認為球場基於不當維護而有過失為由。   In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated.在其他情形,適用酒類供應商責任法,假如球場攤商過度供酒予顧客,造成其酒醉時的一些意外。 Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.  

▲蘇狀師談「自承風險」原則

assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔(assumption of risk、自承風險)屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯,如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險,則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權(故意侵權沒有適用)。   Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸,答案是你(亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害) “Assumed Risk” and your ticket: Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. The exception: While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds.   In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated. Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.    

【辦案事蹟】被請求確認合夥關係存在,獲得勝訴判決

案件概況 本件我方當事人經營合夥事業,其中一位合夥人(簡稱A先生)因故聲明要退出合夥關係,故我方寄出存證信函,通知A先生已非事業合夥人,A先生收受存證信函後,向法院提出確認合夥關係存在之訴訟。 案件過程 本件因為曾經經歷過合夥成員的變動,所以包括股份轉讓是否有取得其他合夥人同意;其他合夥人是否有合法開除A先生的理由,以及A先生聲明退夥是否發生效力等,都成為本件程序上和實體上必須釐清的事項。 我方提出請法院傳喚證人來證明當時合夥事業成員變動以及經營的過程,並提出相關資料證明A先生曾表示要退夥,法官在調查相關證據以及確認我方主張後,認為A先生因已自行退夥,所以已非合夥人,駁回A先生的請求,我方獲得勝訴判決。 若有相關問題欲尋求協助,歡迎致電台南邱霈云律師(06-2526732#12或0906775832)預約諮詢,將有專業律師協助您解決法律問題,保障您的權益。 諮詢電話:06-2526732 分機12 E-Mail:491600491@gapp.fju.edu.tw LINE ID:@935pfzkm((歡迎加Line,可免費簡易程序上諮詢)