今天给小伙伴整理一下美国工件法法律英语概念：
但实质原因要不是/实质原因
在过失诉讼中，原告必须证明两种类型的因果关系。第一种因果关系是事实因果关系，第二种因果关系是近因。事实上，因果关系通常被称为“但为了因果关系”。也就是说，如果没有被告的过失行为，原告的伤害就不会发生。事实上的因果关系并不要求被告的过失行为是原告行为的唯一原因，而是要求它是造成伤害的重要因素。
伤害可追溯至多种原因可追溯的多种原因的伤害
当原告不能直接满足责任关系要求时，有少数原则允许陪审团认定被告承担责任。市场贡献责任原则允许陪审团根据缺陷产品生产商的市场贡献来损害损害赔偿。但几乎所有法院都认为，只有当制造商的缺陷产品相对于其造成的损害而言是可替代的时，这一原则才适用。
目标人，包括连带责任多个目标人/连带责任
如果原告的伤害是由两个独立的行为或事件造成的，而单独的行为或事件都造成原告的伤害，则法院采取的立场是，如果被告人的过失行为与另一个事件结合在一起，则被告人的过失将被视为至少造成原告伤害的一部分。如果其他行为人也有过失，被告将承担连带责任。
责任限制责任限制
在过失诉讼中，只有当被告的行为是原告受伤的直接原因时，被告才承担责任。产生与通常预期不同的伤害的干预行为者或事件可能会打破因果链，并导致法院得出结论，被告的行为不是原告受伤的直接原因。在评估干预行为是否打破因果链时，法院通常会分析其可预见性以及对被告过失的依赖程度。
遥远或不可预见的原因——救援人员无法承担的责任/营救人
责任通常仅延伸到风险区内的个人。责任通常也仅延伸到可预见的危险。例如，法院长期以来一直认为，逃离危险时遭受的伤害是可以预见的。他们还认为，危险需要救援。危及生命的错误对于他的救援者来说也是错误的。相反，如果行为人的行为仅对特定类别的人造成可识别的伤害风险，则该行为对不同类别的人造成伤害（行为人无法合理预期对这些人造成伤害）这一事实并不构成行为人对因此受伤的人负有责任。因此，对完全意外的伤害负有责任的侵权人通常可以逃避责任。
法律或近因
即使被告有疏忽，要让他承担责任，他的行为也必须具有造成损害的效果，使一个有理智的人将其视为一个原因。因果链可能会被干预行为者或事件所打破，这些行为者或事件会产生与通常预期的损害不同的损害。介入原因可以使事实认定者得出结论，被告的行为不是原告受伤的直接原因。
遵守法定标准
遵守法定标准并不能免除侵权人的责任。尽管无故违反法定护理标准本身就是疏忽，但反之则不然——即使行为人遵守了所有法定标准，但如果他的行为在当时的情况下不合理，仍然可能被认为存在疏忽。在判断行为人的行为是否合理时，事实审判者将考虑采取预防措施的负担与行为人行为固有的风险以及这些风险发生的可能性进行比较。
EggshellSkull蛋壳头脑规则
侵权被告按照他发现的受害人的情况来对待受害人——当行为者的侵权行为对一个人造成伤害，并且由于该人先前存在的身体或精神状况或其他特征，其程度或类型比合理的程度更大或不同时尽管如此，行为人仍应对所有此类人身伤害承担责任。因此，蛋壳头骨受害者所受的伤害大大超过正常受害者所受的伤害，有权获得全部伤害的恢复。
对土地所有者和占用人的索赔土地所有者或占有人责任
根据普通法，租户（而不是房东）有责任保护进入房产的人免受不合理的伤害风险。然而，现代法院发现，在某些条件下，房东可能对租户承担责任：(1)房东必须采取合理的谨慎措施，维护房屋的安全状况；(2)房东有义务采取合理的预防措施，保护租户免受可预见的第三方犯罪行为的影响；(3)房东还应对因疏忽修理财产或未能修理其控制下的财产而承担责任。
吸引力-滋扰主义保护儿童危险物品伤害原则
Thestandardofcareowedtochildtrespassersisdictatedbytheattractivenuisancedoctrine.Thisdoctrineimposesaspecialdutyofcareonthelandoccupierwithrespecttoconditionsthatinvolveariskofharmtochildrenwhoareunabletorecognizethedangerthemselves.Inordertoqualifyasachildtrespasser,achildmustbesoimmatureastobeunabletorecognizethedangerinvolved.
ClaimsforMentalDistressNotArisingFromPhysicalHarmOtherIntangibleInjuries精神伤害
Emotionaldistressisrecoverableunderanintentionalornegligenttheory.Althoughearlycasestypicallydeniedrecoveryfornegligentinflictionofemotionaldistresstoaplaintiffwhoexperiencednophysicalcontactorinjury,todayvirtuallyallAmericanjurisdictionshaveabandonedthisapproach–aplaintiffwhoiswithinthezoneofdangercreatedbythedefendantandwhosuffersaphysicalmanifestationofemotionaldistressoccasionedbyathreatenedinjurymayrecoverinvirtuallyallstates.Inevaluatingclaimsforemotionaldistressresultingfromaccidentsinvolvingotherindividuals,Americanjurisdictionshavetakentwodifferentapproaches.Somedisallowrecoveryunlesstheplaintiffwasherselfwithinthezoneofdanger.Thirteenjurisdictionsfollowthezone-of-dangerapproach.
EmployeesandOtherAgents雇主和其它代理
Undertheprincipleofrespondeatsuperior,anemployerisvicariouslyliableforthetortiousactionsofhisemployeethatarewithinthescopeofthetortfeasor’semployment.However,employersarenotresponsiblefortheintentionaltortsoftheiremployeesunless:(1)theconductisforthedirectbenefitoftheemployer;or(2)forceisauthorizedintheemployment(e.g.barbouncer).Aprincipalwillsometimesbeliablefortortscommittedbyitsagentseveniftheconditionsofrespondeatsuperiorliability(i.e.anemployer/employeerelationshipandconductwithinthescopeofemployment)arenotsatisfied.Forexample,aprincipalcanbeliableiftheprincipalwasnegligentorrecklessintheselectionoftheagent.
IndependentContractorsandNondelegableDuties独立的合同方或不可转让的义务
Anindependentcontractorisonewho,byvirtueofhiscontract,possessesindependenceinthemannerandmethodofperformingtheworkhehascontractedtoperformfortheotherpartytothecontract.Independentcontractorsareusuallypaidbythejobinsteadofreceivingongoingsalaries;theindividualwhohiresanindependentcontractortypicallydoesnotsupervisethecontractor’sactivitiesorretainarighttocontrolhisactivities.Typically,onewhoemploysanindependentcontractorisnotvicariouslyliableforthecontractor’sactsoromissions.
ContributoryNegligenceandComparativeNegligence混合过失/比较过失
Atcommonlaw,ifthejuryfoundtheplaintiff’snegligencetobeacauseinfactandproximatecauseofhisinjuries,theplaintiffcouldnotrecoverfromthedefendant.Thisall-or-nothingapproachwasfrequentlycriticized;ithasnowbeenabandonedbyvirtuallyallstates.Underthemoderncomparativenegligenceapproach,ifthejuryfindsthattwoormorepartiesarenegligent,itapportionsfaultbetweenthem.
StrictliabilityAbnormallyDangerousActivities-严格责任/异常危险的行为
Courtsaredividedastowhetherlegalfireworksdisplaysshouldbeclassifiedasabnormallydangerousandthussubjecttostrictliability.Courtsthathaveclassifiedfireworksdisplaysasabnormallydangeroushavetendedtofocusonthefactthatfireworksaremuchlikeblasting,andthatahighriskofseriouspersonalinjuryorpropertydamageiscreated.Furthermore,nomatterhowmuchcarepyro-techniciansexercise,theycannotentirelyeliminatethehighriskinherentinsettingoffpowerfulexplosivessuchasfireworksnearcrowds.
AbnormallyDangerousActivities异常危险的活动
ThemoderndoctrineofstrictliabilityforabnormallydangerousactivitiesderivesfromFletcherv.Rylandswhichholdsthatadefendantwillbeliablewhenhedamagesanotherbyathingoractivityundulydangerousandinappropriatetotheplacewhereitismaintained,inthelightofthecharacterofthatplaceanditssurroundings.Today,thedeterminationofwhetheranactivityisundulydangerous,andthussubjecttostrictliability,isgenerallygovernedbyfactorsoutlinedintheRestatementofTorts.UndertheFirstRestatement,strictliabilityappliedtoanultra-hazardousactivity.UndertheSecondandThirdRestatements,strictliabilityappliestoanabnormallydangerousactivity.
Claimsagainstmanufacturer生产商责任
Onewhosellsanyproductinadefectiveconditionunreasonablydangeroustotheuserorconsumerissubjecttoliabilityforphysicalharmtherebycaused.Strictproductsliabilityimposesabsoluteliabilityonamanufacturerorretailerofadefectiveproductthatresultsininjurytoanyforeseeableplaintiff.However,astrict-liabilityproductsactionisonlyavailableagainstthosewhoareinthebusinessofsellingproductsforuseorconsumptionbythepublic.
ManufacturingDefect产品缺陷
Astrictproductsliabilityclaimmaybebasedonthetheoryofamanufacturingdefectonthebasisthattheproductdiffersfromothersmanufacturedanditismoredangerousthanifmadeproperly.Astrictproductsliabilityactionmaybebroughtagainstamanufactureroftheproduct,amanufacturerofacomponentpart,avendor,oranyoneelseinthechainofdistribution.
ManufacturingDefect(FoodProducts)产品缺陷
Onewhosellsanyproductinadefectiveconditionunreasonablydangeroustotheuserorconsumerissubjecttoliabilityforphysicalharmtherebycaused.Productsthatfailtomeettheproducer’sownspecificationsaretypicallydescribedashavingamanufacturingdefect.Inthecaseoffoodproducts,thepresenceofaharmfulingredientisgenerallyconsideredamanufacturingdefect“ifareasonableconsumerwouldnotexpectthefoodproducttocontainthatingredient.”Inordertorecoverforinjuriessustainedbecauseofamanufacturingdefect,aplaintiffneednotshowthattheproducerwasnegligent.Aproducerisstrictlyliablewhenevertheproductdepartsfromitsintendeddesigneventhoughallpossiblecarewasexercisedinthepreparationandmarketingoftheproduct.
DefensestoStrict/ProdLiability严格责任/产品责任的抗辩
Defensestostrictliabilityclaimsincludecomparativenegligenceandassumptionofrisk.Insuchcases,theplaintiff'srecoverywouldbereducedpursuanttocomparativefaultprinciplestotheextentthattheplaintiffisguiltyofculpableconductin: