其他最新諮詢
2021/06/18 18:04
身分證明
2021/06/18 11:38 有最佳解答
房屋漏水但是鄰居遲遲不肯處理
2021/06/17 17:33 有最佳解答
打遊戲開語音罵人是否會被告
2021/06/17 15:23
租屋修繕問題
2021/06/16 03:23 有最佳解答
房東連帶責任
2021/06/11 15:41 有最佳解答
妨害秘密
2021/06/09 21:37
LINE網路貨幣糾紛問題
2021/06/08 20:22 有最佳解答
遊戲買賣糾紛及侵占盜領修改
2021/06/07 14:01
網路上被罵
2021/06/07 13:58 有最佳解答
網路
2021/06/07 13:33
對方未履行調解內容
2021/06/04 21:33
侵佔房屋
2021/06/04 16:57
想要和養母終止關係
其他相關案例分享
▲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。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理的賽車在比賽中系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. 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.    

[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。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: 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.    

男朋友暴力對待,律師協助獲保護令

  【  事實經過  】 緣委任人小琪與相對人阿仁為男女朋友,惟於阿仁每次飲酒後,或小琪欲與阿仁分手時,阿仁便會毆打並脅迫小琪不得與之分手,小琪於恐懼下只得被迫原諒阿仁。某日晚間阿仁飲酒後,小琪表示欲返回父母家,但阿仁竟無故限制小琪離開,並先推倒小琪、再以鐵板凳毆打小琪頭部及身體等處。嗣後甚至命令其父須看管小琪,不讓小琪就醫。遲至阿仁之祖母發現上情後,肯諾小琪就醫,於就醫途中,小琪向其同事求救,始脫離阿仁與其父之暴行控制。.......https://www.alicelaw.com.tw/cases_content.html?n=29

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(藝人經紀合約之逃脫條款)

藝人經紀合約之重要條款 Escape Clause and Termination逃脫條款與契約終止 In addition to the term of the contract, you need to clearly understand when and under what circumstances you or the agent can terminate the relationship. Many agencies include a clause that allows either party to end the commitment after, for example, four months to a year, if either party is not satisfied with the number of bookings or amount of earnings. If the contract you are offered does not include such a clause, you can try to negotiate this point. The agency would not want to sign you if it did not believe it could make money from you. Before you sign the contract, use the leverage you have to work out better terms. 除了契約所定的存續期間外,你必須很清楚地了解何時或者在何種情況下,你或你的經紀人能夠終止包括但不限於商演、廣告代言等契約。許多經紀人會於契約中納入任意終止權條款,於契約訂立後四個月至一年不等期間,任一方就演出機會或報酬金額不滿時,即可終止之;假如你所訂立之契約未含括上開條款,你可嘗試針對此點與契約相對人進行蹉商,倘若無十足的獲利把握,你的經紀人將不會為你訂立契約。在訂立契約前,運用一些猶較條款為優之手段方是。