– Anda ingin memperbaiki flashdisk yang rusak? Jika ya, tepat Anda sudah berkunjung untuk membaca tips tutorial memperbaiki flashdisk rusak dengan software. Kenapa dengan software? Karena yang rusak terletak pada “software” flashdisknya, bukan hardwarenya. Kerusakan pada hardware biasanya akan sulit untuk dikembalikan seperti semula, karena untuk memperbaikinya harus membongkar komponen yang ada, misal solderan yang sudah copot, PCB patah dan lain-lain. Namun, jika kerusakan terjadi pada “software” flashdisknya, masih ada kemungkinan untuk diperbaiki. Memperbaiki flashdisk yang rusak dengan software biasanya flashdisk masih bisa terdeteksi oleh komputer setelah dicolokkan di USB port. Namun, ketika kita akan mengoperasikan flashdisk, melihat isi, double klik pada flashdisk, ada beberapa masalah yang terjadi. Cara Memperbaiki Flashdisk Yang Rusak Dengan Software Misalnya kapasitas hanya 0 byte, padahal flashdisk kita berkapasitas 2/4 GB, tampil pesan 'Please insert a disk into drive x:', tampil pesanan 'There is no media in the specified device' atau bahkan 'device media is write-protected' yang artinya flashdisk terproteksi. Source link: Software untuk memperbaiki flashdisk (Cara Memperbaiki Flashdisk Yang Rusak Dengan Software Setelah mengunduh beberapa rekomendasi software diatas. Anda bisa mencoba install softwarenya. Ikuti sesuai petunjuk instalasi softwarenya. Kemudian silahkan colokkan yang rusak pada USB port– jalankan softwarenya – kemudian lakukan repair pada flashdisknya. Beberapa software bisa digunakan untuk permasalahan flashdisk yang jika di properties kapasitasnya 0 byte, kemudian untuk tampilan pesan “Please insert a disk into drive x:” dsb. Untuk mengatasi masalah kartu memori. Di poin ini anda bisa memeriksa kartu memori yang rusak di hp android. Silahkan anda download software nya di. Untuk masalah write protected bisa menggunakan perintah CMD (baca: ) Demikianlah cara memperbaiki flashdisk yang rusak dengan software yang bisa diunduh dengan gratis. Manfaatkan software diatas untuk memperbaiki flashdisk yang rusak. Semoga informasinya dapat berguna dan bermanfaat, jika Anda punya info software lainnya yang bisa digunakan untuk memperbaiki flashdisk rusak, silahkan komentar dan akan kami masukkan ke dalam artikel sebagai tambahan. Salam belajar komputer.
0 Comments
Enable Scripting Activex Controls Cookies And Java Programs Download. Responsive layouts are one of the most crucial factors that enable. If using Internet Explorer, you must also have it configured to allow ActiveX controls to be downloaded and run; You must be a user of at least the Power User group to. Permissions on the Windows Downloaded Program Files directory; You have Modify and Write NTFS permissions on the Program Files SLActvX directory. Internet Explorer • On web browser menu click 'Tools' icon and select 'Internet Options'. • In the 'Internet Options' window select the 'Security' tab. • On the 'Security' tab click on the 'Custom level.' • When the 'Security Settings - Internet Zone' dialog window opens, look for the 'Scripting' section. • In the 'Active Scripting' item select 'Enable'. • When the 'Warning!' Window pops out asking 'Are you sure you want to change the settings for this zone?' Select 'Yes'. • In the 'Internet Options' window click on the 'OK' button to close it. • Click on the 'Refresh' button of the web browser to refresh the page. Internet Explorer. Google Chrome • On the web browser menu click on the 'Customize and control Google Chrome' and select 'Settings'. • In the 'Settings' section click on the 'Show advanced settings.' • Under the the 'Privacy' click on the 'Content settings.' • When the dialog window opens, look for the 'JavaScript' section and select 'Allow all sites to run JavaScript (recommended)'. • Click on the 'OK' button to close it. • Close the 'Settings' tab. • Click on the 'Reload this page' button of the web browser to refresh the page. For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Here are the instructions how to enable JavaScript in your web browser. On enable-javascript.com we optimize the script-disabled user experience as much as we can: • The instructions for your browser are put at the top of the page • All the images are inlined, full-size, for easy perusing • This developer-centric message is out of the way. We want your visitors to have JavaScript enabled just as much as you do! Applies To: Excel 2016 Word 2016 PowerPoint 2016 Excel 2013 Word 2013 PowerPoint 2013 Access 2013 Visio 2013 Excel 2010 Word 2010 PowerPoint 2010 Access 2010 Visio 2010 Office 2010 Visio Standard 2010 Visio Professional 2013 See how to work with ActiveX controls in your files, changing their settings, and how to enable or disable them by using the Message Bar and the Trust Center. You can also learn more about ActiveX controls and how they improve your files. IT Pros can learn more about planning ActiveX settings in the TechNet article. In this article Enable ActiveX controls when the Message Bar appears When you open a file that has ActiveX controls, the yellow Message Bar appears with a shield icon and the Enable Content button. If you know the controls are from a reliable source, use the following instructions: • On the Message Bar, click Enable Content. The file opens and is a. The following image is an example of the Message Bar when ActiveX controls are in the file. Enable ActiveX controls in the Backstage view Another method to enable ActiveX controls in a file is via the Microsoft Office Backstage view, the view that appears after you click the File tab, when the yellow Message Bar appears. • Click the File tab. • In the Security Warning area, click Enable Content. • Under Enable All Content, click Always enable this document's active content. The file becomes a. The following image is an example of Always enable this document's active content and Advanced Options. The following image is a larger example of the Enable Content options. Note: The one exception is an ActiveX control with the kill-bit set. In this state, the ActiveX control does not run. A kill bit is security feature that instructs an ActiveX control to never use a piece of ActiveX software, for instance by closing a security vulnerability, by or preventing code from running. Enable ActiveX controls for one time when the Security Warning appears Use the following instructions to enable controls for the duration of time that the file is open. When you close the file, and then reopen it, the warning appears again. • Click the File tab. • In the Security Warning area, click Enable Content. • Select Advanced Options. • In the Microsoft Office Security Options dialog box, select Enable content for this session for each ActiveX control. The following image is an example of the Security Warning area when ActiveX controls can be enabled for the duration of time that the file is open. Notes: • If the file contains a Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) project, for example, and a macro-enabled Microsoft Excel file, the Trust Center is more restrictive, because the file may contain macros. • Enable ActiveX controls and other active content only if you know that they are from a reliable source. Change ActiveX-control settings in Word, Access, Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher, and Visio Use the following instructions to enable or disable ActiveX controls in the Trust Center. • Click File > Options. • Click Trust Center > Trust Center Settings > ActiveX Settings. • Click the options you want, and then click OK. The following is an example of the ActiveX Settings area of the Trust Center. Important: If you trust a file and do not want to receive security warnings about content containing ActiveX controls, or other active content, put the file in a. • Disable all controls without notification All the ActiveX controls in documents are disabled. • Prompt me before enabling Unsafe for Initialization (UFI) controls with additional restrictions and Safe for Initialization (SFI) controls with minimal restrictions There are two behaviors based on the presence of VBA projects: • With a VBA project All ActiveX controls are disabled and the Message Bar appears. Click Enable Content to enable the controls. • Without a VBA project SFI ActiveX controls are enabled with minimal restrictions and the Message Bar does not appear. However, ActiveX controls must all be marked as SFI to not to generate the Message Bar. UFI ActiveX controls are disabled. However, when a user enables the UFI controls they are initialized with additional restrictions (e.g. Default values). Any persisted data that is part of the UFI control will be lost. • Prompt me before enabling all controls with minimal restrictions This is the default. There are two behaviors based on the presence of VBA projects: • With a VBA project All ActiveX controls are disabled and the Message Bar appears. Click Enable Content to enable the controls. • Without a VBA project SFI ActiveX controls are enabled with minimal restrictions and the Message Bar doesn’t appear. However, ActiveX controls must all be marked as SFI to not to generate the Message Bar. UFI ActiveX controls are disabled. However, when a user enables the UFI controls they are initialized with minimal restrictions (e.g. Persisted values or default values if persisted values don’t exist). • Enable all controls without restrictions and without prompting (not recommended) Enable all ActiveX controls in documents with minimal restrictions. • Safe mode Enable SFI ActiveX controls in safe mode, which means a developer has marked the control as safe. What is an ActiveX control and what are the risks? ActiveX controls are small building blocks that create applications that work over the Internet through Web browsers. Examples include customized applications for collecting data, viewing certain kinds of files, and displaying animation. Common uses of ActiveX controls are command buttons, list boxes, and dialog boxes. Office programs also let you use ActiveX controls to improve some documents. Risk and potential damage ActiveX controls can have unrestricted access to your computer and therefore can access your local file system and change your operating system registry settings. If a hacker uses an ActiveX control to take over your computer, the damage can be significant. 3 Why did the Separatists who fled London for Holland eventually settle in the New World? • They were impressed by tales of great riches already discovered in English settlements. • England enticed them to the colonies with promises of religious freedom and assistance. • They were worried about the 'Dutchification' of their children and wanted to practice their religion as English citizens. • They were enticed by friends and relatives who had already relocated to the colonies. American Pageant E-Text. This is an Adobe conversion of the previous edition of your text. • They envisioned great financial opportunities for their husbands and sons through an alliance with the Virginia Company. 6 What did Massachusetts governor John Winthrop mean when he said, 'We shall be as a city upon a hill'? • He envisioned the Massachusetts Bay Company as becoming the most economically successful British colony. • He hoped that the colony would become a holy society that would serve as a model for people everywhere. • He was referring to Boston as the city where elite, wealthy, and well-educated people would settle and set an example for other colonists. • He was describing Boston as the seat of English colonial government. • He wanted the colony to provide public education for all citizens and believed that an educated populace was the key to success in all colonies. Contents • • • • • • • • • Structure [ ] Twelfth edition [ ] Four different versions of the 12th edition were printed. All are divided into six parts, from 'Founding the New Nation' (with an initial chapter on prehistory, natives, and European exploration) through 'Making Modern America.' The six parts are subdivided into a total of 42 chapters spanning 1034 pages. The book's chronology officially ends in the year 2001, though later printings include an additional three paragraphs detailing the as well as. Since then, the incumbent edition of the American Pageant included information regarding the. The four versions of the Twelfth Edition are the Complete Edition, the version 'For Advanced High School Courses,' published. There are also two editions that split the textbook into two volumes: Volume I, which covers American history up to 1877, and Volume II, which covers the American history since 1865. Thirteenth edition [ ] The thirteenth edition, released in 2006, contains 42 chapters in six sections. The book's chronology is updated, briefly covering the, the, and the. Chapters 27 and 28 from the 12th Edition were combined in the 13th edition. Fourteenth edition [ ] The fourteenth edition, released in 2010, contains 42 chapters in six parts. This edition adds twelve new 'Thinking Globally' essays and many new box-quotes adding more international voices to the events chronicled in the book's historical narrative. The 'Varying Viewpoints' essays were updated reflecting new interpretations of significant trends and events, as well as concern for their global context. The text's global focus is renewed and strengthened. Also the edition has new and revised primary source features called 'Examining the Evidence'. Fifteenth edition [ ] The fifteenth edition, released in 2013, contains 42 chapters in six parts. This edition includes markedly deeper cultural innovations, artistic movements, and intellectual doctrines that have engaged and inspired Americans and shaped the course of history of the United States, new 'Thinking Globally' essay on twentieth-century in Chapter 31, new 'Makers of America' feature on of the 1950s in Chapter 37. The book's tables, graphs, Key Terms, People to Know, and To Learn More sections are also updated. This is the first edition in which Bailey is not credited as an author on the cover and the title page. Sixteenth edition [ ] The sixteenth edition, released in 2015, contains 41 chapters in six parts. This edition's Part Six, which covers post-1945 period is revised. Chapters 29 and 30 from the 15th Edition were combined in the sixteenth edition. Each chapter has a new feature called “Contending Voices”, which offers paired quotes from original historical sources, accompanied by questions which prompt students to think about conflicting perspectives on controversial subjects. Evaluation [ ] Historian, evaluating the 10th edition of 1994, argues that the publisher has made a special effort to be more approachable for beginning students by using a more basic vocabulary, simpler concepts, and features designed to aid learning. This textbook, he says, therefore uses easy syntax, unsophisticated interpretations, and gives only limited coverage to complex and controversial topics. The typeface is large, and the page layout is generous with many color illustrations. It gives a basic political narrative emphasizing great men and famous events, although it does include new topics regarding diversity of race and gender. Pocock states: It is at heart a patriotic work that celebrates American progress and the free enterprise system, while largely ignoring dissenting political viewpoints outside the mainstream. Sidebars present broader historiographic interpretations, but the context seems clearly intended to convey the notion that these other views are mistaken in some way. References [ ]. 55 Comentarios Megapost Saga de Crepusculo dvdrip latino. Necesitaba todas las pelicutas de esta saga, por MEGA Gran. Quiero descargar eclipse pero me dice q. LaPeliculas.com respects the intellectual property rights of all content creators, whether their work is affiliated with our site or not. If you have reason to suspect that your intellectual property rights have been infringed in any way that connects to our site, we strongly advise that you contact our copyright agent with a complaint as soon as possible. We take all violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 extremely seriously. We recognize that your privacy is important. This document outlines the types of personal information we receive and collect when you use Watch TV Show Online, as well as some of the steps we take to safeguard information. We hope this will help you make an informed decision about sharing personal information with us. Watch TV Show Online strives to maintain the highest standards of decency, fairness and integrity in all our operations. Likewise, we are dedicated to protecting our customers', consumers' and online visitors' privacy on our website. Personal Information Watch TV Show Online collects personally identifiable information from the visitors to our website only on a voluntary basis. Personal information collected on a voluntary basis may include name, postal address, email address, company name and telephone number. This information is collected if you request information from us, participate in a contest or sweepstakes, and sign up to join our email list or request some other service or information from us. The information collected is internally reviewed, used to improve the content of our website, notify our visitors of updates, and respond to visitor inquiries. Once information is reviewed, it is discarded or stored in our files. If we make material changes in the collection of personally identifiable information we will inform you by placing a notice on our site. Personal information received from any visitor will be used only for internal purposes and will not be sold or provided to third parties. Use of Cookies and Web Beacons We may use cookies to help you personalize your online experience. Cookies are identifiers that are transferred to your computer's hard drive through your Web browser to enable our systems to recognize your browser. The purpose of a cookie is to tell the Web server that you have returned to a specific page. For example, if you personalize the sites pages, or register with any of our site's services, a cookie enables Watch TV Show Online to recall your specific information on subsequent visits. You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying your Web browser; however, if you choose to decline cookies, you may not be able to fully experience the interactive features of the site. A web beacon is a transparent image file used to monitor your journey around a single website or collection of sites. They are also referred to as web bugs and are commonly used by sites that hire third-party services to monitor traffic. They may be used in association with cookies to understand how visitors interact with the pages and content on the pages of a web site. We may serve third-party advertisements that use cookies and web beacons in the course of ads being served on our web site to ascertain how many times you've seen an advertisement. No personally identifiable information you give us is provided to them for cookie or web beacon use, so they cannot personally identify you with that information on our web site. Some third-party advertisements may be provided by Google, which uses cookies to serve ads on this site. Google uses the DART cookie, which enables it to serve ads to our users based on their visits to this site and other sites on the Web. You may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy. Browsers can be set to accept or reject cookies or notify you when a cookie is being sent. Privacy software can be used to override web beacons. Taking either of these actions shouldn't cause a problem with our site, should you so choose. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act This website is directed to adults; it is not directed to children under the age of 13. We operate our site in compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and will not knowingly collect or use personal information from anyone under 13 years of age. Non-Personal Information In some cases, we may collect information about you that is not personally identifiable. We use this information, which does not identify individual users, to analyze trends, to administer the site, to track users' movements around the site and to gather demographic information about our user base as a whole. The information collected is used solely for internal review and not shared with other organizations for commercial purposes. Release of Information If Watch TV Show Online is sold, the information we have obtained from you through your voluntary participation in our site may transfer to the new owner as a part of the sale in order that the service being provided to you may continue. In that event, you will receive notice through our website of that change in control and practices, and we will make reasonable efforts to ensure that the purchaser honors any opt-out requests you might make of us. How You Can Correct or Remove Information We provide this privacy policy as a statement to you of our commitment to protect your personal information. If you have submitted personal information through our website and would like that information deleted from our records or would like to update or correct that information, please use our Contact Us page. Updates and Effective Date Watch TV Show Online reserves the right to make changes in this policy. If there is a material change in our privacy practices, we will indicate on our site that our privacy practices have changed and provide a link to the new privacy policy. We encourage you to periodically review this policy so that you will know what information we collect and how we use it. Agreeing to Terms If you do not agree to Watch TV Show Online Privacy Policy as posted here on this website, please do not use this site or any services offered by this site. Your use of this site indicates acceptance of this privacy policy. DISCLAIMER Watch TV Show Online provides this website as a service. While the information contained within the site is periodically updated, no guarantee is given that the information provided in this website is correct, complete, and/or up-to- date. The materials contained on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Watch TV Show Online does not accept any responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on information contained on this site. Permission is given for the downloading and temporary storage of one or more of these pages for the purpose of viewing on a personal computer. The contents of this site are protected by copyright under international conventions and, apart from the permission stated, the reproduction, permanent storage, or retransmission of the contents of this site is prohibited without the prior written consent of Watch TV Show Online. Some links within this website may lead to other websites, including those operated and maintained by third parties. Watch TV Show Online includes these links solely as a convenience to you, and the presence of such a link does not imply a responsibility for the linked site or an endorsement of the linked site, its operator, or its contents (exceptions may apply). This website and its contents are provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Reproduction, distribution, republication, and/or retransmission of material contained within this website are prohibited unless the prior written permission of Watch TV Show Online has been obtained. Provides this website as a service. While the information contained within the site is periodically updated, no guarantee is given that the information provided in this website is correct, complete, and/or up-to- date. The materials contained on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Watch TV Show Online does not accept any responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on information contained on this site. Permission is given for the downloading and temporary storage of one or more of these pages for the purpose of viewing on a personal computer. The contents of this site are protected by copyright under international conventions and, apart from the permission stated, the reproduction, permanent storage, or retransmission of the contents of this site is prohibited without the prior written consent of Watch TV Show Online. Some links within this website may lead to other websites, including those operated and maintained by third parties. Watch TV Show Online includes these links solely as a convenience to you, and the presence of such a link does not imply a responsibility for the linked site or an endorsement of the linked site, its operator, or its contents (exceptions may apply). This website and its contents are provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Reproduction, distribution, republication, and/or retransmission of material contained within this website are prohibited unless the prior written permission of Watch TV Show Online has been obtained. 'International Edition'. ISBN number and front cover may be different in rare cases but contents are same as the US edition. Printed in black & white in English language. Territorial restrictions may be printed on the book. For expedited shipping, Get it fast within 3-5 business days by FEDEX/UPS/DHL with Tracking Number. Kindly provide day time phone number in order to ensure smooth delivery. No shipping to PO BOX, APO, FPO addresses.We may ship from Asian regions for inventory purpose.100% Customer satisfaction guaranteed! • Seller: (US) • Seller: Inventory #: TBD152641 • Title: • Author: • Book condition: Brand New • Quantity available: 25. Synopsis • Even the earliest weapon developers faced the need to understand how and why guns and ammunition work in order to improve their effectiveness. As weapons became more sophisticated, the field of ballistics naturally divided into three main areas of specialization: interior, exterior, and terminal ballistics. Available in: Hardcover. Even the earliest weapon developers faced the need to understand how and why guns and ammunition work in order to improve their. Ballistics: Theory and Design of Guns and Ammunition, Second Edition by Donald E. Carlucci, Sidney S. Click here for the lowest price! Providing unique coverage of all three areas, Ballistics: Theory and Design of Guns and Ammunition offers a seamless presentation of the complex phenomena that occur during the launch, flight, and impact of a projectile. Reader-friendly in style and format, the book explains the fundamental physics, terminology, theory, engineering aspects, and design techniques for each area in gradually increasing detail and complexity. Starting with interior ballistics, the authors examine the analytical and computational tools used to predict a weapon's behavior in terms of pressure, stress and velocity, demonstrating their applications in ammunition and weapons design. The book continues with coverage of exterior ballistics, exploring the physics behind trajectories, including linear and nonlinear aeroballistics. The final section focuses on the effects of projectile impact, including details on shock physics, shaped charges, penetration, fragmentation, and wound ballistics. Enhanced with insights drawn from the authors' extensive experience in government laboratories, industry, and academia, Ballistics provides an ideal vehicle for encouraging superior design and innovative applications in the field. Table Of Content • Interior Ballistics Introductory Concepts Physical Foundation of Interior Ballistics Analytic and Computational Ballistics Ammunition Design Practice Weapon Design Practice Exterior Ballistics Introductory Concepts Dynamics Review Trajectories Linearized Aeroballistics Mass Asymmetries Lateral Throwoff Swerve Motion Non-Linear Aeroballistics Terminal Ballistics Introductory Concepts Penetration Theories Shock Physics Introduction to Explosive Effects Shaped Charges Wound Ballistics Appendix Glossary Gas Tables. Die Hard 1988 Free Movie Download 720p BluRay Movie Info Full Name: Die Hard 1988 Free Movie Download 720p BluRay Size: 906 MB Quality: 720p BluRay Genres: Action, Thriller Release Date: 20 July 1988 Language: English Cast: Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, Bonnie Bedelia Die Hard 1988 Free Movie Download 720p BluRay John McClane, officer of the NYPD, tries to spare his wife Holly Gennaro and a few others that were taken prisoner by German terrorist Hans Gruber amid a Christmas party at the Nakatomi Plaza in Los Angeles. Download Full Movie in HD (906 MB) ↓. Click Image To View Full Size Synopsis Die Hard 1988 Free Movie Download 720p BluRay John McClane, officer of the NYPD, tries to spare his wife Holly Gennaro and a few others that were taken prisoner by German terrorist Hans Gruber amid a Christmas party at the Nakatomi Plaza in Los Angeles.NYPD cop John McClane goes on a Christmas get-away to visit his wife Holly in Los Angeles where she works for the Nakatomi Corporation. While they are at the Nakatomi central command for a Christmas gathering, a gathering of bank thieves drove by Hans Gruber take control of the building and hold everybody prisoner, except for John, while they plan to perform a lucrative heist. Die Hard 1988 Free Movie Download 720p BluRay. Die Hard 1988 Free Movie Download 720p BluRay Not able to escape and with no quick police reaction, John is compelled to take matters into his own particular hands. NYPD cop John McClane goes on a Christmas get-away to visit his wife Holly in Los Angeles where she works for the Nakatomi Corporation. While they are at the Nakatomi home office for a Christmas gathering, a gathering of bank looters drove by Hans Gruber take control of the building and hold everybody prisoner, except for John, while they plan to perform a lucrative heist. Not able to escape and with no quick police reaction, John is compelled to take matters into his own particular hands. Die Hard 1988 Free Movie Download 720p BluRay,Free Movie Download Die Hard, Die Hard Film,Die Hard 1988 Download Free Movie from Movies Counter Die Hard 1988 Free Movie Download 720p BluRay If you’re facing any problem please Comment below Thanks. Art is reflection of our society and life and movies are often regarded as modern expressions of art. They make us laugh and cry and we often love to quote them, they edify us enlighten us. Every year numerous movies are made in the entertainment industries but all are not liked: some top the charts while others are kicked out of the box office. Some become the hot topic of discussion for the critics while others just escapes their notice, in short some get a thumps up while others a thumps down. But how many of these, which get a positive feedback, are actually good movies? Well it is not that simple to answer, as it seems. Movie Description: Die Hard (1988) Hindi Dubbed BRRip Full Movie John McClane, officer of the NYPD. Free Download 3gp, Mp4, HD Avi, HD Mp4, High Quility Movies. Download Die Hard 4 In Hindi Hd| Watch or download movies online. Find popular, top and now playing movies here. Watch movies with HD Quality. Watch or download. The topic is very much subjective. What seems good to some may not be the same for the others. What appears enjoyable to a few others might be enjoyable for others. Then what exactly is a good movie? To generalize it, we can say that those movies, which are liked by the mass and not by some class category of people, could be considered as a good movie. But what are the traits that are needed for a movie to qualify as a good one. First of all a movie should provide good entertainment. They are of course others: Touch our feelings: A movie should touch our heart and make us talk or think about it instead of just becoming a time pass. It should have the capacity to teach and inspire us and provoke us emotionally. Simon Fischer Basics Ebookers Ch Simon Fischer Basics Ebookers Usa. Current exchange rates of major world currencies. Find updated foreign currency values. To find more books about simon fischer basics, you can use related keywords: Stanley Fischer Pdf, Bobby Fischer Pdf, Dornbusch Fischer Macroeconomics Pdf. 'Original, detailed.useful to anyone sincerely concerned with violin technique.' - Dorothy DeLay For professional violinists Here are handy warm-up exercises which cut the time it takes to keep your playing in shape to a bare minimum. The busy musician, who has limited time to spend on technical maintenance work, will find that Basics offers the least time-consuming methods of keeping everything in order. Exercises to keep a warm and even tone, for settled and reliable intonation, to maintain a relaxed and versatile vibrato, for accuracy in shifting, and much more. For teachers Key technique-building exercises as used by the great teachers and players - many of which have never been written down before. Always simple and direct, Basics offers powerful methods of solving those frustrating problems that always seem to hold up progress in all but a few pupils. Awkwardness and tension, crooked bow, weak tone, poor intonation, vibrato problems - Basics exercises give immediate, concrete results. For students Nothing can replace a teacher, but Basics will help you teach yourself in between lessons. Improve your tone, intonation, shifting, and ease of playing. With Basics, the results are immediate and obvious - you feel the improvement as you play. For parents, guardians, friends and family Do you practise with your children? The clear, straight-forward text can easily be followed even by non-players. With Basics you can guide your children yourself to supplement the weekly lesson (many of the exercises are suitable even for the youngest), dramatically speeding up their rate of progress. Great Reference Book I ordered this book as gift for myself. The book has 231 pages and a flexable cover. I wished it had a spirsl bound cover though. It covers a wide varity of topics including, bow hold, left hand position, shifting, bowing techniques, vibrato, and intonation. I usually pick out one or two excercises a day to review. There are 300 and most have pictures. This book is not for beginners because it has excercises in different positions. A beginner could do some of the excercises in my opinion, just not all of them. There is a lot reading so it would be for an older student. Love the book and it is worth the money. “Sister’s Slam Dunk” is a South Korean variety show that features an all-woman cast of actresses, idols and comedians. Featuring actress Ra Mi Ran, comedian Kim Sook, singer Jessi, model Hong Jin Kyung and actress Min Hyo Rin, the show follows each cast member as she tries to accomplish a long-held unfulfilled dream. Special high-profile guests also make appearances to help the women achieve their dreams. The first episode follows comedian Kim Sook’s dream to become a tour bus driver. Watch online and download Slam Dunk anime in high quality. Various formats from 240p to 720p HD (or even 1080p). HTML5 available for mobile devices. Watch full episode Slam Dunk in english subbed online or stream Slam Dunk eng sub with HD/HQ quality for free at Animesub.tv. Don’t miss a minute of this highly entertaining Korean variety show! Genres: comedy, tournament Themes: Basketball, Sports Age rating: Older Children (May contain mild bad language, bloodless violence) Plot Summary: Sakuragi Hanamichi is a junior high punk used to getting into fights and being rejected by girls but upon entering high school he meets the girl of his dreams, Haruko Akagi. He will do anything in order to win her heart including joining the school basketball team that is aiming to conquer the nation lead by Haruko’s brother. The problem is that Sakuragi has never played basketball before and a freshman sensation is stealing the spotlight and Haruko’s affection from him. *You are currently watching or downloading Slam Dunk subbed / dubbed online at Anime-Sub.com. Best site for free streaming HD/HQ anime in english and much different languages (german, spanish, portuguese, french, russian, chinese, bulgarian, vietnamese and romanian)! *Tags: Watch Slam Dunk, ova, special, Slam Dunk ger, folge deutsch, ver episodio espanol, portugues online, mandarin bg subbed, capitulo italiano ita, francais vostfr, ru subtitles, episodul ro, tap viet sub, japanese raw, Slam Dunk english dub 37 Comments to “Slam Dunk” •. Cenusareasa dublat in limba romana Descriere Cenusareasa: Ramasa singura, dupa ce mama ei a murit, iar tatal recasatorindu-se cu o femeie ce avea si ea doua fiice, Cenusareasa devine sluga propriei case si frumusetea ei este alungata sub o pulbere de cenusa. Insa iubirea ajunge si la ea atunci cand seara balului soseste, si neputand merge din cauza ca surorile ei erau complexate de frumusetea ei si au impiedicat-o sa mearga la bal, acesteia i-a venit in ajutor o zana. Insa, timpul, mereu neincapator, a facut-o pe frumoasa fata sa isi piarda iubirea in seara balului, dar sa o intalneasca in hainele ei cele ponosite. Torrents results for 'madagascar 1 dublat in romana download torrent' at www.DownloadRain.com. Madagascar 1. Madagascar 2 Online Dublat In Romana Desene Animate. Christianson Systems, Inc. Offers flexible solutions for a wide range of material handling applications. State-of-the-art technology backed by over 50 years of experience insure that each machine is built with superior quality, construction, and design. The DK Vac-U-Vator line of equipment is available in two models, the 4080, and 4090, providing ship and barge unloading solutions for a variety of pneumatic conveying applications. All models are offered with either a cyclonic cleaning intake cyclone or a filter receiver. The cyclone intake provides an efficient cyclonic cleaning with a back up screen to prevent carryover. The filter receiver (FR) is equipped with its own dry compressed air for cleaning the 10-micron filter tubes with a pulsed air system. When used as a vacuum only system this machine has low dust emissions. All models may be equipped with an intake and/or discharge boom. Chassis New sturdy, heavy duty chassis with built in lifting rings and tie downs. All welded, rigid steel frame. New heavy duty tow bar and steering assembly permits maneuvering in close quarters. High ground clearance. Hidden tie rods eliminate damage. Turbo Fan Blower Proven, durable turbo-blower design provides high conveying rates. Dynamically and statically balanced. Two, three or four stage high pressure turbo-blowers available on different models. New heavy duty bearing arrangement. Patented Air Regulator Simple design. Prevents engine overloading, conserves fuel. 10-20 Series Parts Manual - grain-O-vator - Lewisburg, TN. Automatically balances air flow to volume of grain, reduces chance of grain breakage during “clean-up” operations. Yields perfect dynamic flow balance and horsepower reserve. Patented Centrifugal Separator Heavy duty centrifugal separator is easily turned by one man directly toward point of intake to increase conveying capacity. Made of heavy gauge steel for long life. A visual inspection of conveying can be made through combination access door and inspection window in lower cone of cyclone. Airlock Heavy duty rotary feeder has a simplified drive, safety slip clutch and automatic power cut-off. Positive lock system on adjustable airlock tips. Removable airlock inspection panel on larger models allows adjustment of tips without need for disassembly of airlock or cyclone. New hinged chain guard on airlock drive system permits quick and easy servicing. Trouble-Free Main Drive System Utilizes single back, multiple groove V-belt drive, eliminating “belt flip,” mismatched belt problems and excessive wear of belt and bearings. Drive-belt system has new, simple external adjustment device. Servicing of drives and bearings is simplified with drop down guard on main belt drive. Diesel Engine 300 HP diesel engine features safety shutdown controls, commercial air cleaner with safety element, full instrument panel, high ambient radiator, and heavy-duty double plate clutch. Electric motors and gasoline (petrol) engines are also available. Heavy Duty Finish The machine is coated by heavy duty paint system which includes a coating with 85% zinc rich primer, plus epoxy foundation and finish coatings. Safety Notice – Important – Read This! Working in and around bins, silos, and tanks Entering a bin, silo, tank or other type of storage structure is hazardous. You can suffocate and die from the materials stored inside these structures. There also may be explosive, harmful or poisonous gas or dust in the air. A vac operator and all other personnel assisting should strictly adhere to the procedures outlined in before entering a storage structure. For additional details regarding these procedures, reference OSHA Standards. When entering grain tanks, bins, and silos, also follow these tips – from the Kansas Grain and Feed Association’s Safety, Health and Environment Committee. Working with and around your vac Before using your vac, it is your responsibility to read, understand and follow all of the safety instructions in your operator’s manual. Also make sure that EVERYONE operating or near your vac understands and follows all of the safety instructions in the manual. Remember, a safety-minded, informed operator is the most important safety aspect of your vac. Accidents can be avoided. Do not risk injury or death — be certain that every operator of your vac is well acquainted with all the safety recommendations and operating instructions in the manual. Supreme Court of Montana. HARRISON, Justice. Plaintiff Deane Brown lost his left leg in the auger of a self-unloading feed wagon known as a 'Grain-O-Vator', manufactured by defendant North American Manufacturing Co., an Iowa corporation. In his original complaint, plaintiff specified negligence and strict liability in tort as theories supporting a damage recovery. The trial of the cause ultimately proceeded on the strict liability theory alone. Discovery consisted of depositions of the parties and certain anticipated witnesses for plaintiff. The case was tried before a jury in the District Court, Flathead County, beginning October 19, 1976. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $318,167 and judgment was entered thereon. Defendant then filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or alternatively, for a new trial. The District Court denied both motions. Defendant appeals from the judgment and denial of its post-trial motions. For reasons set forth in this opinion, we find no errors were committed requiring either reversal of the judgment, a new trial or imposition of judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The facts are: In November 1970, plaintiff Deane Brown purchased a piece of farm equipment known as a Grain-O-Vator. The feed machine was approximately one year old at the time of purchase. The machine was manufactured by defendant North American Manufacturing Co. During the next three years, the equipment was operated and serviced by plaintiff's son, Calvin Brown. Plaintiff used the machine a few times prior to the accident involved here. The central function of the Grain-O-Vator is feed unloading and distribution. The feed contained in a large bin drops through an opening into a transfer auger, and is moved to an area where it is picked up and expelled through a spout. Attached to the bin, just over the transfer auger, is a curved metal door known as an 'excess door'. The door was hinged at the bottom on the particular model owned by plaintiff, and was held closed at the top by two springs. The purpose of the excess door was to provide a 'relief valve'. When excess feed pressure is exerted against the transfer auger, the door is forced open, and the excess feed pressure relieved. The feeder is operated by a power-take-off system, when attached to a tractor. Just prior to the accident plaintiff, an experienced farmer/rancher, 51 years of age, was operating the feeder. The feed had ceased coming out of the spout. Plaintiff descended from the tractor and left the power-take-off system running, to observe if any mechanical problem existed. His intent was to first view the interior of the bin. There was no ladder or other means provided on the machine for access to a view of the bin. The height of the bin had been increased by extension boards furnished by defendant. Plaintiff mounted the machine by first placing his right foot on an iron reinforcement bar to the side of the transfer auger; then placed his left foot on the excess door covering the transfer auger. For his third step, he placed his right foot on a 'gusset' just above and to the right of the excess door, with his left foot in the air above the excess door. Plaintiff observed feed in the bin, stepped down with his left foot, without looking down, intending to again place it on the excess door. The excess door had come open and, as a result, plaintiff stepped directly into the transfer auger. His left leg was pulled in and amputated by the mechanism. Plaintiff was alone and remained caught in the machine for some time before he was taken out and given medical aid. At trial, plaintiff testified that during his prior limited experience with the machine, the excess door had not come open. While recognizing the area surrounding the excess door would be dangerous if the excess door were open, he stated he had no expectation the door would simply 'come open' and felt that the auger area, as covered, was not dangerous. Plaintiff further testified that no warning concerning the excess door appeared anywhere on the Grain-O-Vator. Carlton Zink was the plaintiff's expert witness. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural engineering from the University of Nebraska. Later he served for 12 years in charge of the tractor testing laboratory in Lincoln, Nebraska. From 1950 to 1968, he worked for John Deere Company and after 1952 he 'took on the responsibility for product safety for John Deere as a corporate representative in product safety.' He worked with the National Safety Council on 'farm safety' and was a president of the Farm Conference. He was a member of the National Institute for Farm Safety, the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, the Society of Automotive Engineers and the National Safety Council. From 1952 to 1968, he was involved with the development of safety design for John Deere Company. Zink testified the American Society of Agricultural Engineers recognized the need to effectually shield augers as early as 1964 or even 5 years earlier. Further, the Grain-O-Vator in question failed to conform to accepted safety design requirements in three particulars, rendering the equipment unreasonably dangerous to the user: 1) The lack of effective shielding of the transfer auger because of the excess door being hinged at the bottom, and much more susceptible to entry when open. 2) No ladder or other means was provided for gaining visual access to the bin. 3) No danger warnings appeared on the equipment or in the instruction manual. An expert called by defendant was of the opinion the Grain-O-Vator was not defectively designed. The owner and principal officer of defendant, Elmer K. Hanson, testified he had designed the excess door. He indicated that prior to 1958, the door had been hinged at the top, but the design was modified so the door was hinged at the bottom in later models for added utility. He further stated that at the present time, the Grain-O-Vator is marketed with the excess door bolted on firmly and it cannot come open without manual removal. He admitted the Grain-O-Vator displayed no warnings, and no ladder or other access to a view of the interior of the bin was provided. However, he consistently maintained the machine was nondefective, and satisfied industry safety standards. Various exhibits were admitted throughout the course of the trial consisting primarily of pictures and diagrams of the Grain-O-Vator, and a movie introduced by plaintiff demonstrating the steps taken by plaintiff as he mounted and attempted to dismount the Grain-O-Vator, as portrayed by his son Calvin. The jury was also afforded an opportunity to view the particular Grain-O-Vator involved in the accident. At the close of the testimony and ensuing arguments, a jury verdict was returned in plaintiff's favor. We summarize the issues raised on this appeal: 1) Was there sufficient evidence to support a finding the product was in a 'defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer?' 2) Was there sufficient evidence to support a finding that an unreasonable danger or hazard existed which required a warning? 3) Was there sufficient evidence to support a finding that the alleged defective condition was a proximate cause of injury to plaintiff? 4) Did plaintiff, by his actions, assume the risk as a matter of law? 5) Did the District Court err in giving its instruction on the law of assumption of the risk? 6) Did the District Court err in giving its instruction concerning the elements of proof in a strict liability action? 7) Did the District Court err in admitting into evidence the movie prepared and offered by plaintiff? Defendants contends the evidence adduced at the trial failed to satisfy the elements of a strict liability action as set forth in 2 Restatement of Torts 2d, § 402A. Rather, it is maintained, the sole conclusion supported by the evidence is that the danger was 'open and obvious' to plaintiff and therefore a complete bar to recovery. In support of the latter contention, defendant relies on the holding of cases from certain jurisdictions that a product is not 'defective' or 'unreasonably dangerous' if the danger occasioned by its use is open and obvious to the user. Western-Knapp Engineering Company (9th Cir.1970),; Morrow v. Trailmobile Inc. (1970),,; Zahora v. Harnischfeger Corp. (7th Cir.1968),; Halpern v. (1960), 27 N.Y. Misc.2d 675, 202 N.Y.S.2d 945. This Court, in Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1973), 162 Mont. 506, 513,, adopted the core definition of the doctrine of strict liability, set forth in 2 Restatement of Torts 2d, § 402A: '`(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if '`(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and '`(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. '`(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although '`(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and '`(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.' 513, 513 P.2d 272. In order to establish a prima facie case in strict liability, based upon the above definition, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) The product was in a defective condition, 'unreasonably' dangerous to the user or consumer; (2) The defect caused the accident and injuries complained of; and (3) The defect is traceable to the defendant. Following the well-established rule in this regard, this Court has stated that a defect in a products liability case may be shown by circumstantial as well as direct evidence. Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., supra; Pierce v. Ford Motor Co. (4th Cir.1951),, cert. Denied 342 U.S. 887, 72 S.Ct. 178, 96 L.Ed. 666; Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Inc. (1960),,, 75 A.L.R.2d 1. In such a case, the defect might well be established through proof of the circumstances of the accident, a prior history of occupational difficulties, similar occurrences under certain circumstances, and elimination of alternative causes, including plaintiff's own conduct. The reasoning behind imposition upon a plaintiff of the more flexible standard of proof was recognized in Brandenburger: 'The essential rationale for imposing the doctrine of strict liability in tort is that such imposition affords the consuming public the maximum protection from dangerous defects in manufactured products by requiring the manufacturer to bear the burden of injuries and losses enhanced by such defects in its products. If this be so, it requires little imagination to see that if a strict rule of direct evidence was required, the supposed benefit of the theory of strict liability would be lost to the consuming public.' 517, 513 P.2d 275. Recognition of a more flexible rule of evidence does not thereby convert strict liability into absolute liability. Ordinarily, a plaintiff will not sustain his burden of proof by merely establishing the fact of the occurrence of an accident. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Co.,, (1969). Imposition upon a plaintiff of the burden of showing a traceable defect, causation and damage or injury assures an appropriate limitation to a manufacturer's liability. Defendant here advances the 'open and obvious danger' or 'patent-latent' rule as a bar to plaintiff's recovery under the theory of strict liability. We reject such a rule. Recent authorities in other jurisdictions that previously adopted the rule have now abolished it in persuasive, well reasoned opinions. The 'open and obvious danger' rule is not contained in 2 Restatement of Torts 2d, § 402A nor in the comments thereto. It derives from the New York case Campo v. Scofield,, 95 N.E.2d 802 (1950), and thereafter found acceptance in various jurisdictions. Strict liability cases relying on the 'open and obvious danger' rule have typically done so upon the express authority of Campo. See: Morrow v. Trailmobile, Inc., supra. However, the New York Court of Appeals has recently abandoned the 'patent-latent' distinction. Miehle Co., Div. Of Miehle-Goss Dexter, Inc.,, 384 N.Y.S.2d 115, 348 N.E.2d 571 (1976). Arizona has rejected the authority of Morrow, relied on by defendant. Riddell, Inc.,, (1976). In so doing, the Arizona Supreme Court stated: '* * * We do not subscribe to this `patent-latent' distinction in the context of a manufacturer's strict liability in tort. Its only function is to encourage patent design defects.' 550 P.2d 1068. Yoder Company, (E.D.Pa. 1971),, the plaintiff suffered injuries to his hand when he placed it upon a piece of metal near the unshielded opening of a metal slitter, and was accidentally propelled into the machine. The defendant argued, in part, that plaintiff be barred from recovery due to the open and obvious character of the danger. The Dorsey court, after discussing the split of authority on the issue, rejected the 'open and obvious danger' rule, holding: '* * * Therefore, we hold that even though the danger of unguarded rotary blades was obvious to plaintiff, this does not ipso facto preclude recovery.' We note the Ninth Circuit case Tomicich v. Western-Knapp Engineering Co., supra, relied on by defendant, does not in fact deny recovery on the basis of the 'open and obvious danger' rule. In Tomicich, Judge Russell E. Smith, while referring to various decisions supporting the 'open and obvious danger' rule, including Campo, and noting that this Court has made no specific ruling on the question, suggests this Court might well be impressed with the criticism voiced against the rule. Liability was clearly denied on other grounds. We reject any rule which would operate to encourage misdesign. The fact that a danger is patent does not prevent a finding the product is in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to the particular plaintiff. Rather, the obvious character of a defect or danger is but a factor to be considered in determining whether the plaintiff in fact assumed the risk. The evidence in the instant case, however, tends to support a finding that the danger was hidden, rather than open and obvious, as it was concealed below the excess door. Plaintiff testified he seldom used the Grain-O-Vator and had never personally serviced the equipment. Particularly revealing in this regard is the following testimony of plaintiff, given upon direct examination: 'Q. Did you realize that door and the auger there as being a dangerous area? Because it was covered. Did you know prior to this accident, was the lid on this thing bolted down or whether it flipped up or anything about it? Prior to the time of the accident, did you know how the lid fastened to the machine? I knew it was hinged. Did you know whether it was bolted at the top or latched at the top or anything about that? I did not know whether it was or whether it wasn't.' Further, plaintiff's expert, Carlton Zink, testified the hazard or danger was, in his opinion, hidden. Defendant's reliance on the 'open and obvious danger' rule is thus misplaced. Here, plaintiff testified the fact the auger was shielded prevented him from expecting the injurious potential of the auger. It is unclear as to how the excess door came open. However, the salient fact remains the excess door did come open, in such a manner and under such conditions as to expose plaintiff to an unreasonable danger. The jury was presented with ample evidence of design defects which rendered the Grain-O-Vator unreasonably dangerous. Carlton Zink enumerated three specific design defects, based upon industry safety standards: (a) failure to hinge the excess door at the top, (b) failure to warn of the hazard, and (c) failure to provide steps or other access for mounting the equipment. When asked for his opinion as to whether the effect of the defects was to render the machine unreasonably dangerous, the expert responded in the affirmative. We hold plaintiff clearly met the burden of proof for a strict liability action, in proving a defect rendering the product unreasonably dangerous. Plaintiff's evidence, while to some extent in conflict with certain evidence offered by defendant, was sufficient for submission to the jury. We refuse to disturb the jury's findings in this respect. In accordance with its prior argument, defendant also asserts it was not under a duty to warn of any danger associated with use of the Grain-O-Vator. In support of this contention, defendant advances the position there is no duty to warn of a danger which is obvious or of which the user has knowledge. As pointed out heretofore, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion the danger was in fact hidden, and plaintiff had no subjective knowledge or awareness of the particular danger. Plaintiff's expert in fact listed the failure to warn as a defect itself. Given such evidence, it was well within the power of the jury to conclude the danger was hidden and unknown to plaintiff, and a warning should have been given. Defendant also contends the product was not defective or unreasonably dangerous because it was functioning precisely as intended at the time of the accident. This contention is without merit. It has been held that a failure to warn of an injury causing risk associated with use of a technically pure and fit product can render such product unreasonably dangerous. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (9th Cir.1968),. In further expanding the application of the Davis rule, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Jacobson v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation (9th Cir.1969),, stated: '* * * Davis distills the essence of the rule to be that the manufacturer is under a duty to warn of dangers in `nondefective' but potentially harmful products. * * * if the product is unreasonably dangerous and a warning should be given, but is not given, then the product is automatically `defective' * * *.' 409 F.2d 1271. Issues 3 and 4. Defendant next contends there was insufficient evidence that the alleged defect was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. Rather, it is maintained the evidence demonstrates plaintiff's own conduct was the proximate cause of his injuries, such that plaintiff assumed the risk as a matter of law. A showing of proximate cause is a necessary predicate to plaintiff's recovery in strict liability. Strict liability is, of course, not complete 'liability without fault' in the sense that it is absolutely immune to considerations of plaintiff's conduct. That character of plaintiff's behavior which breaks the chain of causation and operates to bar recovery is described in 2 Restatement of Torts 2d, § 402A, Comment (n): '* * * Contributory negligence of the plaintiff is not a defense when such negligence consists merely in a failure to discover the defect in the product, or to guard against the possibility of its existence. On the other hand the form of contributory negligence which consists in voluntarily and unreasonably proceeding to encounter a known danger, and commonly passes under the name of assumption of risk, is a defense under this Section as in other cases of strict liability. If the user or consumer discovers the defect and is aware of the danger, and nevertheless proceeds unreasonably to make use of the product and is injured by it, he is barred from recovery.' We find the above standard of conduct of the plaintiff as related to the injury must be considered under the Montana case law on the assumption of risk when applied to strict liability cases. In the past Montana cases have not been consistent in distinguishing between the subjective standard required in the defense of assumption of risk, and the objective standard necessary to a contributory negligence defense. As Judge Jameson held in Deeds v. United States,, 363 (D.C.Mont. 1969): 'While the defense of assumption of risk is usually asserted in employer-employee cases, in Montana the defense has been extended to `relationships independent of the master-servant relationship'. City of Billings, 1959, 135 Mont. 390, 392,, 510 and cases there cited. Assumption of risk is governed by the subjective standard of the plaintiff rather than the objective standard of the reasonable man. * *' Henceforth, in product liability cases the defense of assumption of risk, will be based on a subjective standard rather than that of the reasonable man test. The attributes of the defense of assumption of the risk in the context of strict liability are intelligently phrased and developed in Dorsey v. Yoder Company, supra: '* * * In addition to realizing the existence of the defect or danger and voluntarily doing an act which exposes him to it, the plaintiff must perceive and appreciate the risk involved, i.e., the probability of harm. * * *' 331 F.Supp. Quoting 2 Restatement of Torts 2d, § 496D, Comment (c), the court in Dorsey continued: '`The standard to be applied is a subjective one, of what the particular plaintiff in fact sees, knows, understands and appreciates. In this it differs from the objective standard which is applied to contributory negligence. * * * If by reason of age, or lack of information, experience, intelligence, or judgment, the plaintiff does not understand the risk involved in a known situation, he will not be taken to assume the risk, although it may be found that his conduct is contributory negligence because it does not conform to the community standard of the reasonable man.' ' 331 F.Supp. The Ninth Circuit has also followed the rule that the 2 Restatement of Torts 2d, § 402A version of assumption of the risk requires a showing of knowledge of the danger which is subjective, conscious and personal to the plaintiff. Coast Paint and Lacquer Company (9th Cir.1974),. By the foregoing, we do not intend to impose a burden upon the defendant which is virtually impossible to discharge. The defendant need not and, in the usual case, cannot prove the subjective requisites of the assumption of the risk defense by direct evidence. Seldom would a products liability plaintiff admit through his own testimony that he had knowledge of the danger and appreciated the risk involved. Therefore a defendant, in a given case, may effectively discharge his burden in this regard through proof of the subjective elements by circumstantial evidence. Hatch,, (1970). Turning to the record in the instant case, it is manifest there is no evidence whatsoever plaintiff had subjective knowledge the excess door would open as it did, exposing the blades of the transfer auger. It further appears, and the jury could well have found, that plaintiff did not realize the risk associated with the product relative to his use of it at the time of the accident. Defendant maintains that plaintiff, a knowledgeable and experienced farmer/rancher, assumed the risk of injury by knowingly and voluntarily climbing onto the machine while leaving the power-take-off system in operation. While plaintiff's act of climbing upon the Grain-O-Vator to inspect the bin was obviously voluntary, these questions remain: (1) Was it unreasonable for plaintiff to act as he did? (2) Was the danger actually known and appreciated by plaintiff? Under the evidence, plaintiff may be guilty at most of failing to discover the defect or guard against its possible existence. While plaintiff's actions may have amounted to some contributory negligence, it cannot be said he assumed the risk as a matter of law. The question is not whether plaintiff should have realized the risk, but whether in fact he did realize the risk involved. Defendant, in failing to establish plaintiff's actual knowledge and appreciation of the danger, did not discharge its affirmative burden of proof of the defense. The evidence, to the contrary, sufficiently supports the conclusion that plaintiff's injury was a direct result of the defective design, failure to warn, and failure to provide safe access to the bin. Plaintiff satisfied the burden, under the standard of proof outlined in Brandenburger, of showing the defect was the proximate cause of his injuries. The trial court gave as Court's Instruction No. 10 an instruction on the defense of assumption of the risk: 'You are instructed that assumption of risk is voluntarily placing oneself in a position to chance known hazards. If a person has assumed the risk, he cannot recover for any injury or damage sustained by him. In determining whether or not the plaintiff assumed a risk, you are not to consider whether or not the plaintiff exercised due care for his own safety, but must find the following factors existed: '1. That he had knowledge, actual or implied, of the particular condition. That he appreciated the condition as dangerous. Voluntarily remaining or continuing in the face of the known dangerous condition. Injury resulting as the usual or probable consequence of this dangerous condition. 'If you find all four of the above factors did exist at the time of the plaintiff's injury, he cannot recover.' This instruction is drawn primarily from the Montana Jury Instruction Guide (MJIG). However here the MJIG approved instruction was modified by inclusion of the language, 'you are not to consider whether or not the plaintiff exercised due care for his own safety'. Defendant contends the instruction as modified is an incorrect statement of the law, confusing and misleading to the jury and therefore it was error to give it. Defendant urges its proposed Instruction No. 7, taken from the 1975 Revision of the California Jury Instructions (Civil), was a correct statement of the law of assumption of the risk, and should have been given. The scope of our review in this case is well defined. This Court held in numerous cases, including Fox v. Fifth West, Inc. (1969), 153 Mont. 95, 101,, that: '* * * instructions must be considered in their entirety, and to determine whether instructions were properly given or refused this Court will read them in connection with other instructions given and consider them in the light of the evidence introduced.' 101, 454 P.2d 615. Similarly, an error in any instruction considered in isolation may be cured by reviewing the charge as a whole. Northern Pac. 701, 19 S.Ct. 878, 43 L.Ed. A review of the instruction finds it improperly inserts into the case elements of contributory negligence that could cause jury confusion. Therefore in the interests of clarification, we disapprove of its use in future cases. As previously noted herein, in an instruction on assumption of risk, the subjective standard will be used and the words 'actual' or 'implied' will not be used. See: Prosser, Law of Torts, 4th ed., § 68 Assumption of Risk, pp. The giving of Instruction No. 10 as to this defendant does not constitute reversible error. Defendant's burden of proof was clearly reduced due to the deficiency of the instruction. Under the given instruction, defendant could have argued plaintiff had implied knowledge, creating a measure for plaintiff's behavior based upon the standard of the 'reasonable man' as an alternative to a showing of actual, subjective knowledge. Such a standard is inconsistent with the defense of assumption of the risk in the context of strict liability theory, as previously noted. If anything, the error as discussed enured to the benefit of defendant in this case. An error in an instruction which is favorable to the objecting party is harmless error. Johnson, Inc. (1952), 126 Mont. 70,; Broberg v. Northern Pac. (1947), 120 Mont. 280, 182 P.2d 851. The trial court's refusal to give defendant's proposed instruction on assumption of the risk was not prejudicial error, as defendant was not thereby deprived of the potential defense. Lord (1963), 142 Mont. In fact, defendant was able under the given instruction to introduce evidence and argue the defense under a burden significantly reduced in comparison to the standard established above. Any error resulting from inclusion of the phrase concerning 'due care' is also harmless, in view of the evidence negating the defense of assumption of the risk altogether, and the charges taken as a whole. Fifth West, Inc., supra. Defendant has demonstrated no real prejudice in this regard. Defendant also alleges as error the trial court's refusal of its proposed Instruction No. 5 concerning the elements of proof in a strict liability action. Defendant's proposed instruction, in essence, sets forth the elements of proof required by Brandenburger. However, the proposed instruction includes the following additional elements as matters which must be affirmatively established by plaintiff: 'First: The defendant placed the Grain-O-Vator in question on the market for use, and the defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the particular Grain-O-Vator would be used without inspection for defects in the particular part, mechanism or design which is claimed to have been defective. '* * * 'Third: The plaintiff was unaware of the claimed defect.' Defendant admits the 'inspection for defects' matter is not an element of the law of strict liability as set forth in 2 Restatement of Torts 2d, § 402A. The rule has its origin in the landmark products liability case Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1962),,,, and is generally limited in application to subsequent California cases. We conceive of no policy which would justify imposing an increased burden of proof upon a products liability plaintiff. The manufacturer is sufficiently insulated from absolute liability by a plaintiff's required adherence to the burden of proof heretofore outlined in this opinion. No error could result from refusal to instruct as to an element of proof not imposed by the governing law. Further, plaintiff's lack of awareness of a defect cannot be considered an element plaintiff must affirmatively establish. Rather, plaintiff's awareness of the defect is a matter going to the affirmative defense of assumption of the risk. As such, the burden of alleging and proving 'awareness' is upon the defendant. The trial court cannot be placed in error for instructing as it did regarding the essential elements of strict liability. Finally, defendant advances error in the trial court's admission, over objection, of plaintiff's offered movie exhibit. The movie, offered as demonstrative evidence intended to illustrate plaintiff's testimony, depicts plaintiff's son mounting the Grain-O-Vator involved in the accident and taking the precise steps plaintiff asserts he took at the time of the accident. For purposes of illustration, the springs were removed from the excess door. As plaintiff's son stepped down towards the excess door, it was pulled open by way of a thin line. Defendant contends that the circumstances of the demonstration differed radically from those at the time of the accident, causing it to appear to the jury as if the excess door would suddenly snap and remain open. However, defendant ignores the fact the jury was cautioned the film was intended as demonstrative evidence only, and was instructed in detail as to the changes in conditions between the actual occurrence and the demonstration. The exhibit was offered after a reading of the following statement to the jury: 'This movie is intended to illustrate how the plaintiff, Deane Brown, thinks this accident happened. The machine had no feed in it when the movie was taken. At the time of the accident, the lid over the auger had springs attached to it and they are not on the machine in the movie. The lid over the auger is hinged like it was at the time of the accident, that is, the lid was hinged at the bottom and swung open from the top as shown in the movie. During the movie, the lid is pulled open with fish line to demonstrate how it could move from its point of pivot. This of course is not intended to show you what caused it to open at the time of the accident, nor is the jury to use the film in any way in deciding what caused the lid to open at the time of the accident. Again, the purpose of the movie is only to illustrate how the plaintiff believes the accident happened.' The movie was admitted through plaintiff's own testimony, with counsel establishing additional foundation elements of identification and accuracy. Generally, allowing demonstrative evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge, and is subject to review only upon a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion. Brewster (1970), 154 Mont. Particularly as regards movies of reconstructions, it has been held that such movies are admissible if shown to be accurate and relevant, and any change in conditions is adequately explained. Southern Pacific Company,, (1961), 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence, § 801. The trial court is imbued with wide discretion in admitting any diagram, map or photograph. Recently this Court in State v. Sharbono (1977), Mont.,, 34 St. 196, considered a similar objection to the use of a 'burn film' offered by the defense. Issue was taken to the trial court's refusal to allow the showing of the film, and the trial court's ruling was upheld by this Court citing Gobel v. Rinio (1948), 122 Mont. 235, 200 P.2d 700, and Leary v. Kelly Pipe Co. (1976), Mont.,, 33 St.Rep. We conclude the judgment of the District Court entered upon the verdict of the jury was correct, and it is affirmed. DALY, J., concurs. HASWELL, Justice, specially concurring: I concur in the result but not in all that is said in the foregoing opinion. My principal disagreement concerns the discussion of Issue 5 relating to the defense of assumption of risk. As pointed out in the majority opinion contributory negligence is not a defense to a products liability case, but assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery in such a case. The court's Instruction No. 10 read: 'You are instructed that assumption of risk is voluntarily placing oneself in a position to chance known hazards. If a person has assumed the risk, he cannot recover for any injury or damage sustained by him. In determining whether or not the plaintiff assumed a risk, you are not to consider whether or not the plaintiff exercised due care for his own safety, but must find the following factors existed: '1. That he had knowledge, actual or implied, of the particular condition. That he appreciated the condition as dangerous. Voluntarily remaining or continuing in the face of the known dangerous condition. Injury resulting as the usual or probable consequence of this dangerous condition. 'If you find all four of the above factors did exist at the time of the plaintiff's injury, he cannot recover.' In my view this instruction is a correct statement of the law. The instruction is the standard MJIG instruction used in the trial courts of this state for many years excepting that the phrase 'you are not to consider whether or not the plaintiff exercised due care for his own safety' has been added. This addition conforms to existing law and makes clear to the jury that it is not to judge plaintiff's conduct by contributory negligence standards. As the United States District Court observed in Deeds v. United States, (D.Mont. 1969),, 362: '* * * Contributory negligence arises from a lack of due care. Assumption of risk will bar recovery regardless of the fact that plaintiff may have acted with due care.' I have no objection to striking the words 'actual or implied' from the instruction in the future in the interest of clarity. It may be that jurors are confusing 'implied' knowledge with 'constructive' knowledge which will not support the defense of assumption of risk. There is also other language in the discussion of Issue No. 4 that improperly injects contributory negligence into the case, e.g., '(1) Was it unreasonable for plaintiff to act as he did?' SHEA, Justice, specially concurring: I agree with the result reached by the majority and with most of its conclusions. However, scattered throughout the opinion there is loose language that could cause some confusion. I will confine my remarks to that which I believe might cause future confusion. Language in several places implies the plaintiff must prove both that the product was 'defective' and 'unreasonably dangerous'. It is virtually impossible to define 'defective' in the context of the various kinds of products liability cases. Moreover, a careful reading of 2 Restatement of Torts 2d, § 402A and the comments thereto, leads me to believe that they are not separate elements. The thrust of the doctrine of strict liability is stated in Comment g. Which provides in pertinent part: 'The rule [of strict liability] stated in this Section applies only where a product is, at the time it leaves the seller's hands, in a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer which will be unreasonably dangerous to him.' (Emphasis added.) Comment j. Provides in pertinent part: ' In order to prevent the product from being unreasonably dangerous, the seller may be required to give directions or warning, on the container, as to its use.' (Emphasis added). I emphasize the above language because I believe that depending on the nature of the products liability claim, it may be confusing to the jury to speak both of 'defective' products and 'unreasonably dangerous' products. The basic thrust of § 402A, 2 Restatement of Torts 2d, can be maintained by concentrating on the 'unreasonably dangerous' condition of the product. I concur with this Court's opinion stating that recovery is allowed where the condition complained of is open and obvious as well as latent. However, because of the confining language of the Restatement, care must be taken in instructing the jury. A close reading of 2 Restatement of Torts 2d, § 402A and the comments thereto, reveals only silence as to whether an open and obvious condition can give rise to a strict liability claim. The definition of 'unreasonably dangerous' contained in Comment i. Of § 402A, is made in the context of situations where the condition complained of is latent; it states: 'i. Unreasonably dangerous. * * * The article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics. * * *' In the present case the danger was latent, and the instruction may have been appropriate. However, it would not be appropriate in a situation where the danger was one that was open and obvious. I believe the above instruction given in a situation where the danger is open and obvious, would be tantamount to telling the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, thereby effectively precluding any realistic hope of recovery. Accordingly, in such situations, the trial courts should adopt a different instruction. I agree with the overall position taken by the Court on the question of assumption of risk. However, concerning the Instruction questioned by the defendant, I feel that in most cases it is best to refrain from giving negative instructions to the jury. The inserted language concerning contributory negligence was negative in character, i.e., telling the jury what did not have to be proved. In most cases, I believe, it is sufficient to set out what each party must prove to sustain its burden of proof, and to refrain from telling the jury what each party does not have to prove. In any event, I fail to see in what way the defendant was prejudiced because the statement of law was accurate. There is language in the opinion that implies the subjective test of assumption of risk is being confined to strict liability cases only. The opinion states: 'Henceforth, in product liability cases the defense of assumption of risk will be based on a subjective standard rather than that of the reasonable man test.' It has been my understanding that, at least since D'Hoodge v. McCann, (1968), 151 Mont. 353, 363,, 752, we have applied the subjective test to assumption of risk. There, we held assumption of risk 'is governed by the subjective standard of the plaintiff himself rather than the objective standard of the reasonable man * * *.' The problem was not with the test we adopted, but with the Instruction given to the jury which allowed it to find that plaintiff could have the knowledge required by assumption of risk, if the knowledge was either actual or implied. The word 'implied' does ring of constructive knowledge as noted by Justice Haswell in his concurring opinion, and I agree it should be deleted. However, these words should be eliminated from all instructions where assumption of risk is asserted as a defense, and not solely in strict liability cases. A defendant is not bound by the plaintiff's testimony simply because the words 'or implied' are eliminated from the definition of assumption of risk. Even though a plaintiff testifies he was not aware of the particular condition involved or did not appreciate the danger, circumstantial knowledge may show the plaintiff had the actual (subjective) knowledge. If the facts are such that would lead a jury to believe that the plaintiff did not tell the truth, the jury is free to reject the plaintiff's testimony simply by applying the standard instructions on credibility of witnesses and weighing the evidence. It is one thing to argue the jury should disbelieve the plaintiff where he testifies that he did not have knowledge of the particular condition; it is yet another to argue that a reasonable man should have known of the particular condition involved. The knowledge that a man 'should have had' has no place in the doctrine of assumption of risk where the cornerstone of the doctrine is plaintiff's consent. To allow it comes dangerously close to permitting a defendant to argue contributory negligence under the guise of assumption of risk. I also do not agree with the statement in the majority opinion that 'seldom would a products liability plaintiff admit through his own testimony that he had knowledge of the danger and appreciated the risk involved.' Certainly the human nature of plaintiffs in general has not been shown to be so dishonest that it is customary for them to lie in support of their claims. Furthermore, even if a plaintiff admitted he had knowledge of the danger and appreciated the risk involved, it still would not defeat his claim. We have adopted the definition of assumption of risk as contained in 2 Restatement of Torts 2d, § 402A, Comment n. Which provides in pertinent part: '* * * If the user or consumer discovers the defect and is aware of the danger, and nevertheless proceeds unreasonably to make use of the product and is injured by it, he is barred from recovery.' (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, recovery would still be allowed if the plaintiff did not proceed unreasonably to make use of the product. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |