求翻译：政策的考量。如前所述，共同过失抗辩的基础并非是这样的理念：一个潜在的受害人有义务去保护一个潜在的加害人的利益。其基础毋宁是，任何人一旦未能采取合理措施保护自己的利益就要承担相应的责任。既然合理的自我保护的标准可能要比保护他人的标准更低，那么，随之而来的结论就是：受害人共同过失的标准也要比引发对他人的侵权责任的过错判定标准更低。是什么意思？

Policy considerations. As mentioned earlier, the basis for the defense of contributory negligence is not such a concept: a potential obligation to protect a potential victim of the offender's interests. Based rather that once a person failed to take reasonable measures to protect their own interests

Policy considerations. As mentioned earlier, common fault defense is not the basis the concept: a potential victim has the obligation to protect one of the potential harm of the interests of the people. Its basis is incensed, once a person has failed to take reasonable measures to protect their own

Policy consideration.As mentioned above, the common error contradicts the foundation is by no means such idea: A potential victim has the duty to protect a potential party causing an injury's benefit.Rather its foundation is, once anybody has not been able to take the reasonable measure to protect o

Policy considerations. As mentioned earlier, contributory negligence defence Foundation are not such ideas: a potential victim a obligation to protect potential perpetrators of interest. It is based on rather is, a person who fails to take reasonable measures to protect their own interests would hav

Policy consideration.As mentioned above, the common error contradicts the foundation is by no means such idea: A potential victim has the duty to protect a potential party causing an injury's benefit.Rather its foundation is, once anybody has not been able to take the reasonable measure to protect o