英语翻译，求助高手是一个法律案例的翻译，求助高手，万分感谢。参考词汇： breach of duty of care 违

英语翻译，求助高手
是一个法律案例的翻译，求助高手，万分感谢。参考词汇： breach of duty of care 违背了谨慎爱护之责
causation 因果关系
contributory negligence 受害方自己也有粗心大意
defective goods 劣质产品
defence 抗辩或者辩护
duty of care 谨慎爱护之责
negligence 疏忽大意
personal injury人生伤害
proximity亲近性
pure economic loss 纯金钱上的损失或纯经济上的损失
reasonable foreseeability 合理的可预见性
不要机器翻译的~
1、我认为，生产电钻的厂家对MIKE犯了疏忽大意侵权，首先，生产电钻的厂家对购买电钻的消费者负有谨慎爱护之责，这是要件之一，生产厂家，明知道这批电钻大约有5%质量有问题，电路会融化，会导致购买者受到电击，却不回收修理或者提醒购买者，这就违背了谨慎爱护之责，是要件之二。而消费者MIKE，因此受到了电击和摔伤等严重的伤害，这就是要件之三。所以，在此次事件中，三个要件全都符合，所以，MIKE可以以民事侵权的疏忽大意来起诉这家电钻公司。
2、生产厂家，对MIKE附有谨慎爱护之责吗？我们可以从两个方面来考虑，首先，合理的可预见性，生产厂家明知道自己的产品有问题会导致事故的发生，却不回收和修补，从而导致了MIKE受了很严重的伤害，这是可以预见的，其次是亲近性（proximity）
3、而生产厂家应该对FRED的损失做出赔偿吗？很显然，我认为是的，因为FRED所受的损失是纯经济损失（pure economic loss)而寻求赔偿其纯经济损失的第三方需要满足一些前提条件：因为生产厂家，明知道这批电钻大约有5%质量有问题，电路会融化，会导致购买者受到电击，却不回收修理或者提醒购买者，就应该会预想到这批产品会导致事故，从而给消费者带来事故，可能会影响很大地方，所以，我认为这是可以预见的，第二点是所受到的纯经济损失具有亲近性（proximity），我认为，生产厂家的过失，导致了MIKE的遭受
电击，从而影响了FRED的工作，所以，我认为这之间是有因果联系的，是因果关系的亲近，所以，这两点全都符合，所以厂家应该对FRED的损失给与适当赔偿。
4、而MIKE应该对Fred的损失做出赔偿吗?我认为这是不用的，因为MIKE在本身的操作上没有失误，是因为产品质量原因造成的事故，而导致Fred的工作受到了影响，造成了经济上的损失，这是不可预见的。所以MIKE 不应该对FRED 承担责任。
5、厂家可以有什么理由辩解吗？我认为没有，因为疏忽大意的抗辩有两个条件： 一 原告自己也有粗心大意，二 原告自愿承担了风险，这二者此案例中都没有，所以这个公司应承担全部责任，没有什么辩解的。
请人工翻译，有加分，不要电脑翻的，谢谢！
6.疏忽的行为必须造成损失，这是证明有疏忽大意民事侵权存在的第三个要素。首先要考虑的事，损失是否由于被告疏忽大意引起的。这就是因果关系的因素。要问的就是“原告所遭受到得损失是因为被告违背了其谨慎爱护责任引起的吗？”第二个要考虑的是损失不能太遥远，太间接。只有可预见的损失能够得到补偿。

我认为，生产电钻的厂家对MIKE犯了疏忽大意侵权，首先，生产电钻的厂家对购买电钻的消费者负有谨慎爱护之责，这是要件之一，生产厂家，明知道这批电钻大约有5%质量有问题，电路会融化，会导致购买者受到电击，却不回收修理或者提醒购买者，这就违背了谨慎爱护之责，是要件之二。而消费者MIKE，因此受到了电击和摔伤等严重的伤害，这就是要件之三。所以，在此次事件中，三个要件全都符合，所以，MIKE可以以民事侵权的疏忽大意来起诉这家电钻公司。
I think that the manufacturers of drills commit a tort of negligence. First of all, the producers of drills has the duty of care to the consumer who purchases the product., this is one element, on the other hand ,Producers who know there are 5% of the drills have some problems of quality that is to say the circuit will melt and it will lead to electric shocks of the purchasers do not repair or recovery the product ,neither remind the purchaser. This is the second element that it has the breach of duty of care. At last, consumer MIKE had been shocked and serious injury which is the third element. Therefore, in this case, three elements are meeting and MIKE can be prosecuted for negligence of this appliance drilling company.
生产厂家，对MIKE附有谨慎爱护之责吗？我们可以从两个方面来考虑，首先，合理的可预见性，生产厂家明知道自己的产品有问题会导致事故的发生，却不回收和修补，从而导致了MIKE受了很严重的伤害，这是可以预见的，其次是亲近性（proximity）
Dose the manufacturer has the duty of care to Mike? We can see from these two aspects to consider, first of all, a reasonable foreseeability that the manufacturers know their products have problems and will lead to accidents but without recoverying and repairing, resulting in the serious injury of Mike, which is expected, followed by proximity.
而生产厂家应该对FRED的损失做出赔偿吗？很显然，我认为是的，因为FRED所受的损失是纯经济损失（pure economic loss)而寻求赔偿其纯经济损失的第三方需要满足一些前提条件：因为生产厂家，明知道这批电钻大约有5%质量有问题，电路会融化，会导致购买者受到电击，却不回收修理或者提醒购买者，就应该会预想到这批产品会导致事故，从而给消费者带来事故，可能会影响很大地方，所以，我认为这是可以预见的，第二点是所受到的纯经济损失具有亲近性（proximity），我认为，生产厂家的过失，导致了MIKE的遭受 电击，从而影响了FRED的工作，所以，我认为这之间是有因果联系的，是因果关系的亲近，所以，这两点全都符合，所以厂家应该对FRED的损失给与适当赔偿。
Did the manufacturers make compensation for the loss of FRED? Obviously, I think it is, because the loss FRED suffered is pure economic loss and the third-party who seeking compensation for pure economic loss need to meet some of the prerequisite conditions: ,Producers who know there are 5% of the drills have some problems of quality that is to say the circuit will melt and it will lead to electric shocks of the purchasers do not repair or recovery the product ,neither remind the purchaser, it should be expected that these products will lead to accidents, thus it will bring accidents to consumers which may affect the great place, so I think this is foreseeable, the second point is that the pure economic loss has the proximity, I believe that the fault of the manufacturer, resulting in the suffering of MIKE of electric shocks which affected the work of FRED, I think that there is a causal link between them and it is the proximity. Therefore, manufacturers should give appropriate compensation to FRED in the case that the two aspects all meet .
而MIKE应该对Fred的损失做出赔偿吗?我认为这是不用的，因为MIKE在本身的操作上没有失误，是因为产品质量原因造成的事故，而导致Fred的工作受到了影响，造成了经济上的损失，这是不可预见的。所以MIKE 不应该对FRED 承担责任。
so because MIKE himself did not has a failure of the operation , it is because the quality of the products that caused the accident, which led to the affection of Fred's work, resulting in the economic loss, which is unpredictable .So MIKE should not be held responsible for FRED.
厂家可以有什么理由辩解吗？我认为没有，因为疏忽大意的抗辩有两个条件： 一 原告自己也有粗心大意，二 原告自愿承担了风险，这二者此案例中都没有，所以这个公司应承担全部责任，没有什么辩解的。
Is there any reasons manufacturers can justify it? I do not think so, because there are two conditions of the negligence defense: a plaintiff also has its own carelessness, the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, which in this case the two are not, so the company should take full responsibility, there is no excuse.
疏忽的行为必须造成损失，这是证明有疏忽大意民事侵权存在的第三个要素。首先要考虑的事，损失是否由于被告疏忽大意引起的。这就是因果关系的因素。要问的就是“原告所遭受到得损失是因为被告违背了其谨慎爱护责任引起的吗？”第二个要考虑的是损失不能太遥远，太间接。只有可预见的损失能够得到补偿
It is the third factor to prove the existence of civil tort carelessness if the careless behaviors which has a damage. First thing to consider is whether the loss caused by defendant’s carelessness. This is the causal relationship between factors. Which has to ask is that "did the loss the plaintiff suffered is due to the breach of duty of care caused by defendant?” The second to consider is the loss can not too far nor indirect. Only foreseeable loss can be compensated.
纯手工翻译，可能有错，但比软件翻得强，那个没有语法的