Text 13
It’s a rough world out there.Step outside and you could break a leg slipping on your doormat.Light up the stove and you could burn down the house.Luckily，if the doormat or stove failed to warn of coming disaster，a successful lawsuit might compensate you for your troubles.Or so the thinking has gone since the early 1980s，when juries began holding more companies liable for their customers’misfortunes.
Feeling threatened，companies responded by writing ever-longer warning labels，trying to anticipate every possible accident.Today，stepladders carry labels several inches long that warn，among other things，that you might—surprise！—fall off.The label on a child’s Batman cape cautions that the toy“does not enable user to fly”.
While warnings are often appropriate and necessary—the dangers of drug interactions，for example—and many are required by state or federal regulations，it isn’t clear that they actually protect the manufacturers and sellers from liability if a customer is injured.About 50 percent of the companies lose when injured customers take them to court.
Now the tide appears to be turning.As personal injury claims continue as before，some courts are beginning to side with defendants，especially in cases where a warning label probably wouldn’t have changed anything.In May，Julie Nimmons，president of Schutt Sports in Illinois，successfully fought a lawsuit involving a football player who was paralyzed in a game while wearing a Schutt helmet.“We’re really sorry he has become paralyzed，but helmets aren’t designed to prevent those kinds of injuries，”says Nimmons.The jury agreed that the nature of the game，not the helmet，was the reason for the athlete’s injury.At the same time，the American Law Institute—a group of judges，lawyers，and academics whose recommendations carry substantial weight—issued new guidelines for tort law stating that companies need not warn customers of obvious dangers or bombard them with a lengthy list of possible ones.“Important information can get buried in a sea of trivialities，”says a law professor at Cornell Law School who helped draft the new guidelines.If the moderate end of the legal community has its way，the information on products might actually be provided for the benefit of customers and not as protection against legal liability.
重点词汇：
compensate 补偿，赔偿（v.）
misfortune 不幸；灾难（n.）
anticipate 预料，期望（v.）
stepladder 一种通常在顶端有个小平台的活动梯子（n.）
interaction 互相作用（n.）
regulation 调整；校准；规章（n.）
defendant 被告（n.）
recommendation 推荐（n.）
guideline 指导方针（n.）
tort 民事侵权行为（n.）
bombard 炮轰；攻击（v.）
triviality 琐事（n.）
难句解析：
①Or so the thinking has gone since the early 1980s，when juries began holding more companies liable for their customers’misfortunes.
【结构分析】Or so the thinking has gone since the early 1980s中的thinking是“一种思想”的意思，指的是上面所说的人们对于通过法律获得赔偿的思想。gone的本意是“消失”，但是从前后文看，这个gone不是否定，所以应该是开始的意思，也就是说应该翻译成“这种思想已经开始形成了”。(https://www.daowen.com)
②While warnings are often appropriate and necessary—the dangers of drug interactions，for example—and many are required by state or federal regulations，it isn’t clear that they actually protect the manufacturers and sellers from liability if a customer is injured.
【结构分析】在这个主从复合句中，前一个分句是由While引导的让步从句，这个从句由两个并列句组成，中间用and连接。破折号之间的部分是举例说明warnings的内容，and后面的many省略了warnings，state与federal共用regulations。主句部分本身也是一个主从复合句，主句用了一个形式主语it，真正的主语是that引导的从句，注意这个从句中有个动词短语protect...from...，后面是一个if引导的条件从句。
【理解难点】首先要把握这个句子的主旨，那就是主句中所阐明的warnings对manufacturers and sellers的保护作用还很不明朗。并注意破折号之间的部分对warnings的解释作用以及it作为形式主语的替代作用。
③As personal injury claims continue as before，some courts are beginning to side with defendants，especially in cases where a warning label probably wouldn’t have changed anything.
【结构分析】在这个主从复合句中，前一个分句是由As引导的伴随状语从句，注意这里的claims是个名词；主句的时态用的是现在进行时，表示这种状况正在开始。especially in cases
是主句的一个较长的状语短语，cases后面跟了一个where引导的定语从句修饰cases，这个定语从句的主干是a warning label wouldn’t have changed anything，解释的是什么样的cases。
【理解难点】主句依然是抓住句子大意的关键，该句所要表达的就是some courts are beginning to side with defendants，此外要注意cases后面的定语从句指出了哪类cases。
④In May，Julie Nimmons，president of Schutt Sports in Illinois，successfully fought a lawsuit involving a football player who was paralyzed in a game while wearing a Schutt helmet.
【结构分析】这个句子的主干是...Julie Nimmons...fought a lawsuit...。句子的主语是Julie Nimmons，后面逗号之间的部分是她的职位。宾语部分a lawsuit后有一个较长的现在分词involving所引导的短语，involving的宾语是a football player，后面跟了一个who引导的定语从句，这个定语从句中又有一个while引导的时间状语，还原成句子就是while he was wearing a Schutt helmet。
【理解难点】找出句子的关键部分：...Julie Nimmons...fought a lawsuit involving a football player...paralyzed...while wearing a Schutt helmet.
⑤At the same time，the American Law Institute—a group of judges，lawyers，and academics whose recommendations carry substantial weight—issued new guidelines for tort law stating that companies need not warn customers of obvious dangers or bombard them with a lengthy list of possible ones.
【结构分析】这个看起来很长的句子其实是一个简单句，主干是...the American Law Institute...issued new guidelines for tort law...。其中破折号之间的内容说明的是这个Institute的人员构成，并且用一个whose引导的定语从句说明了这些成员的权威。tort law后面的现在分词stating有一个相当长的宾语从句，这个从句的主语是companies，而谓语为两个以or连接的动词结构，一个是warn...of...，另一个是bombard...with...，叙述了guidelines的内容。
【理解难点】这个句子的要点是stating后面的that从句，对其中两个动词结构warn...of...和bombard...with...的正确理解决定了对整个句子的理解。
⑥If the moderate end of the legal community has its way，the information on products might actually be provided for the benefit of customers and not as protection against legal liability.
【结构分析】在这个复合句中，if引导的是一个条件从句，主句部分的谓语用了被动形式，谓语动词provide for有两个宾语，一个是the benefits of customers，另一个是protection against legal liability，not决定了两者的取舍关系：取前者，舍后者。
【理解难点】从句给出了前提条件，注意has its way的意思是can be achieved；理解主句部分的关键在于provide for的两个宾语的取舍关系。
全文翻译：
外面是一个危险的世界。如果你走出去，可能会滑倒在门垫上，摔伤一条腿。如果你点燃炉灶，可能会把房子烧掉。但是假如门垫或炉灶上没有警示语告诉你可能发生的危害，那么你或许可以就自己所受的伤害通过法律诉讼，成功地获得赔偿。大约自80年代初以来人们就开始这样认为了，当时陪审团已开始认为更多的公司应对其顾客所遭受的不幸负责。
公司因此感到了威胁，便做出了反应，写出越来越长的警示标识语，力图预先标明种种可能发生的事故。如今，梯子上的警告标签有几英寸长，除了警告你其他可能发生的意外情况外，还警告你可能会摔下来，简直是莫名其妙！印在儿童蝙蝠侠披风上的标识语竟然也告诫说，本玩具“无法让用户飞行”。
虽然警示语常常是合理且必要的，如对药物相互作用产生的危险的警示语，并且很多是州或联邦法规所要求的，但是当消费者受伤，这些警示语能否真正保护制造商和销售商使之免于责任，这还很难说。被受伤的消费者告上法庭的公司中，大约一半的情况是公司败诉。
现在这种趋势正在改变。尽管个人伤害指控一如既往地继续着，但有些法庭已开始站到被告一方，特别是在处理那些有警示语也无法避免伤害的案件时。五月份，伊利诺伊州的Shutt体育公司总裁朱利·尼蒙斯就成功地打赢了这样一场官司。一名橄榄球队员戴着该公司的头盔在一场比赛中受伤瘫痪，遂将该公司告上法庭。公司总裁朱利·尼蒙斯说：“他瘫痪了，我们非常难过，但头盔不是设计用来预防这类伤害的。”陪审团也认为导致该运动员受伤的是这项运动本身的危险性，而不是头盔。与此同时，美国法学会——该学会由一群举足轻重的法官、律师、学者所组成——签署了新的民事侵权法纲要，宣布公司不必警示顾客那些显而易见的危险，或者给顾客列出一份冗长的可能造成的危险的清单。康奈尔大学法学院一位参与起草新纲要的教授说，“重要的信息会淹没在无用的琐碎信息之中”。如果该法律团体的这一适中的目的能够实现，产品上提供的警示信息实际上是用来保护消费者利益的，而不是让公司规避法律责任的。