1.iddle English （中世纪英语；中古英语）： Middle English is thenamegiven by historical linguists to the diverse forms of the English language in use between the late11th century and about 1470， when theChancery Standard， a formof London-based English， began to become widespread， a process aided by the introduction of the printing press into England by William Caxton in the late1470s. By that time the variant of theNorthumbrian dialect（ prevalent in Northern England） spoken in southeast Scotland was developing into the Scots language. Thelanguageof England as used after this time， up to1650， is known as Early Modern English.
2.oman law （罗马法） ： Roman law denotes the legal system of ancient Rome， and the egal developments which occurred before the 7th century AD—when the Romanyzantine stateadopted Greek as thelanguageof government. Thedevelopmentof Roman law comprises more than a thousand years of jurisprudence—from the Twelve Tables（ ca. 449 BC） to the Corpus Juris Civilis （ AD 529 - 534） ordered by Emperor Justinian I. This Roman law， the Justinian Code， was effective in the Eastern Roman （ Byzantine） Empire （ 330 - 1453） ， and also served as a basis for legal practice in continental Europe， as well as in Ethiopia， Japan， and most former colonies of European nations， including Latin America.
3.onoghue vs. Stevenson （唐纳休诉史蒂文森案） ： Donoghue vs. Stevenson[ 1932] C 562 was a decision of the Houseof Lords that established the modern form of thetort of negligence in English and Welsh law， and delict in Scots law， by setting out general principles whereby one person would owe another person a duty of care. The case originated in Paisley， Renfrewshire under Scots law， but the House of Lords determined that the English law of negligence and the Scots law of delict were identical. Donoghue vs. Stevenson is often referred to as the“Paisley snail”or the“snail in thebottle”case， and is one of the most famous cases in British legal history.
4.aparo Industries plc vs. Dickman （卡帕罗实业有限公司诉迪克曼案） ： Caparo ndustries plc vs. Dickman [ 1990] 2 AC 605 is currently oneof the leading cases on the test for a duty of care in English tort law. The most recent detailed House of Lords consideration of this vexed question was in Customs and Excise Commissioners vs. Barclays Bank plc [ 2007] 1 AC 171， in light of which judgment Caparo must now be viewed. The Houseof Lords established what is known as the“three-fold test”（ a series of three factors） ， which is that for one party to owe a duty of care to another， the following must be established：
Harm must be a“reasonably foreseeable”result of thedefendant s conduct；
A relationship of“proximity”between the defendant and the claimant；
It must be“fair， just and reasonable”to impose liability.
5. easonable person （理性人） ： Reasonable person is a legal fiction of the common law epresenting an objective standard against which any individual s conduct can be easured. It is used to determine if a breach of the standard of care has occurred， rovided a duty of care can be proven.“The man on the Clapham omnibus”is a easonably educated and intelligent but non-specialist person.
6. ontributory negligence （共同过失） ： Contributory negligenceis a common law defense to a claim based on negligence， an action in tort. Itapplies to cases wherea plaintiff has， through his own negligence， contributed to the harm he suffered. For example， a pedestrian crosses a road negligently and is hit by a driver who was driving negligently. Contributory negligence differs from contribution， which is a claim brought by one tortfeasor against another to recover some or all of the money damages awarded to the plaintiff.
