高分求法律英语判例翻译 （可追加）

Question

fendant's first requested instruction which stated the user of a manufactured product is not required to take added precautionary measures to make it safer but is authorized to use it in the condition as pur-chased from the manufacturer, ordinary wear and tear excepted, provided it is used in the manner and for the purpose for which it was manufactured. Also that the jury could not find defendant negligent for failing to make the bleachers safer by adding something thereto if they were being used in the manner and for the purpose for which they were manufactured.
Defendant's objection to the refusal of this re-quest asserted it allowed the jury to speculate as to a duty on defendant to improve a manufactured product whereas it was under no such duty.
The request appears to be based on language in Wagner v. Larson, 257 Iowa 1202, 1211, 1212, 136 N.W.2d 312, 318. Its abstract correctness may be assumed. However, we think the court was not required to so instruct and that to have done so would have injected into the case an issue not pleaded, as the case was submitted to the jury, and it might have led to confusion. Had the jury based recovery on defendant's failure to make the bleach-ers safer than when obtained from the manufacturer, it would have gone outside the court's instructions. See *1072 Hart v. Hinkley, 215 Iowa 915, 919, 247 N.W. 258; Murphy v. City of Waterloo, 255 Iowa 557, 566, 123 N.W.2d 49, 54.

Answer 1

fendant第一请求指令规定的产品的用户不需要采取更多的预防措施以使其更安全但授权条件中使用它作为聚氨酯追从制造商，正常磨损除外，它是用来在方式和目的，它是生产。同时，陪审团无法找到被告过失未能使看台的安全向其中添加的东西如果他们被用的方式为目的，他们制造的。
被告人的请求，拒绝异议，声称它允许陪审团来推测，有责任在被告提高制造的产品而没有这样的义务。
的要求似乎是基于在瓦格纳诉拉尔森的语言，257，爱荷华1202，1211，1212，136 n.w.2d 312，318。摘要正确性可以假定。然而，我们认为法院是不需要如此指示，这么做会注入情况下不承认的问题，如案件提交给陪审团，并且可能有LED混乱。有陪审团对被告进行漂白ERS时相比，从制造商获得更安全的故障恢复，它就会在该法院指令。看到×1072哈特诉欣克利，215爱荷华，915，919，247，西北258；Murphy诉滑铁卢市，255，爱荷华557，566，123 n.w.2d 49，54。