Case Name: People v. AcostaCitation

Case Name: People v. Acosta
Citation: 284 Cal. Rptr. 117 (1991)
Facts: Two police helicopters crashed, killing three occupants, during a chase of the defendant, Acosta. One of the helicopter pilots violated FAA regulations during the chase.
Defendant’s argument: The helicopter pilot’s FAA violations were a superseding cause of the accident. Also, it was unforeseeable (highly extraordinary) for a mid-air helicopter crash because the FAA inspector that testified had never heard of one and there was no civil or criminal cases involving a two-helicopter collision.
State’s argument: Acosta’s actions were the actual (“but-for”) cause of the helicopter crash. The proximate cause requirement was fulfilled because it was foreseeable or “a possible consequence which reasonably might have been contemplated.”
Holding: Acosta was the proximate cause but the judgment was reversed because there was insufficient evidence of malice.
Reasoning: The proximate cause requirement was fulfilled because it was foreseeable or “a possible consequence which reasonably might have been contemplated.” That no pursuits have ever before resulted in a helicopter crash or midair collision is more a comment on police flying skill and technology than upon the innate probabilities involved.
Dissent: The intervening negligent conduct (of the helicopter pilot) and the risk of harm were not foreseeable; therefore, the law does not assign blame. The dissent then quoted Cardozo in Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co (1928) and stated that the helicopters were not in the “zone of danger.” (Dissent is incorrect because the trier of fact also looks to see if there is a sufficient relationship that the law is justified in imposing liability)

Kết quả (Trung) 1:

Case Name: People v. AcostaCitation: 284 Cal. Rptr. 117 (1991)Facts: Two police helicopters crashed, killing three occupants, during a chase of the defendant, Acosta. One of the helicopter pilots violated FAA regulations during the chase.Defendant’s argument: The helicopter pilot’s FAA violations were a superseding cause of the accident. Also, it was unforeseeable (highly extraordinary) for a mid-air helicopter crash because the FAA inspector that testified had never heard of one and there was no civil or criminal cases involving a two-helicopter collision.State’s argument: Acosta’s actions were the actual (“but-for”) cause of the helicopter crash. The proximate cause requirement was fulfilled because it was foreseeable or “a possible consequence which reasonably might have been contemplated.”Holding: Acosta was the proximate cause but the judgment was reversed because there was insufficient evidence of malice.Reasoning: The proximate cause requirement was fulfilled because it was foreseeable or “a possible consequence which reasonably might have been contemplated.” That no pursuits have ever before resulted in a helicopter crash or midair collision is more a comment on police flying skill and technology than upon the innate probabilities involved.持不同政见者: (的直升机飞行员) 干预的疏忽行为和损害的危险，是不可以预见的;因此，法律不分配责任。持异议者然后引述在 Palsgraf 诉长岛 R.Co (1928 年) 卡多佐说，直升机不是"危险地带"。(持不同政见者是不正确的因为事实的实验者看起来也要看看是否有足够的关系，法律有道理的施加法律责任)

Kết quả (Trung) 2:

案例名称：人民诉阿科斯塔
引文：284卡尔。RPTR。117（1991）
事实：两个警用直升机坠毁，机上三名乘客，被告人，阿科斯塔的追逐中。一个直升机飞行员违反了追逐期间美国联邦航空局的规定。
被告的说法：直升机飞行员的FAA违法行为是事故发生的一个替代的原因。此外，它是无法预见的（非常平凡）的半空中的直升机坠毁，因为美国联邦航空局检查员的作证从来没有听说过一个，也没有涉及两直升机相撞民事或刑事案件。
国家的论点：阿科斯塔的行动是实际（“但换”），导致直升机坠毁的。直接原因要求被满足，因为这是可预见的或“合理地可能被考虑可能的后果。”
控股：阿科斯塔是直接原因，但该判决被推翻，因为有恶意的证据不足。
理由：最直接的原因要求是实现，因为它是可预见的或“合理地可能被考虑可能的后果。”那不追求也空前导致直升机坠毁或空中相撞更 ​​是一个警察飞行技能和技术比所涉及的先天概率意见。
异议：其间的过失行为（的直升机飞行员）和危害的风险是不可预见的; 因此，法律并没有怪罪。反对意见则援引卡多佐在Palsgraf诉长岛R.有限公司（1928年），并指出，该直升机并没有在“危险区”。（异议不正确，因为事实审理者也查看是否有足够的关系，法律是合理的施加法律责任）

Kết quả (Trung) 3:

案例名称：人诉阿科斯塔
引用：284卡。中继器。117（1991）
事实：两架警用直升机坠毁，造成三人，被告人在追逐，阿科斯塔。一个飞行员违反了美国联邦航空管理局的规定在追逐。
被告的说法：直升机飞行员的FAA侵犯接替事故原因。再者这是不可预见的（不寻常）对空中的直升机坠毁因为FAA检查员证明从来没有听说过一个没有任何民事或刑事案件涉及一二架直升机相撞。
状态的说法：Acosta的行动是实际的（“但是”）的直升机失事原因。最直接的原因是因为它要求满足可预见的或可能的后果，合理地进行考虑。”
控股：Acosta是近因，但是判断被逆转，因为有恶意的证据不足。
推理：最直接的原因是因为它要求满足可预见的或可能的后果的合理可能已经预期。”没有追求曾经导致直升机坠毁或空中碰撞更评警务飞行技能和技术比在所涉及的与生俱来的概率
异议：被干预的过失行为（直升机飞行员）和危险的伤害是不可预见的，因此，该法不分配责任。异议则引用卡多佐在palsgraf诉长岛河公司（1928）和表示，直升机不在危险区”。“（异议是错误的因为事实审理者也看看，法律是实施责任合理充分有关系）