I am assessing Jimmy’s liability for the death of Bruce. This question is set out under the field of Homicide‚ as there has been an unlawful killing. The likely charge against Jimmy is Murder. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with the intention to kill or cause GBH. (Moloney) for the first part of the question I will present the prosecution case and for the second part I will present the defence and lastly I will conclude. The actus Reus of murder is the unlawful killing
Premium Law Criminal law Legal terms
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals‚ Inc. ~ 509 U.S. 579‚ 113 S.Ct. 2786 CRM 344: Scientific Writing and Courtroom Testimony Professor Gardner Saint Leo University April 25‚ 2013 Abstract Daubert and other minors‚ suffered limb reduction birth defects; they claim the defects were caused when their mothers ingested drugs manufactured by the Defendant‚ Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals‚ Inc. (Defendant)‚ while they were pregnant. When the United States
Premium Evidence law Testimony Causality
unawareness of what might occur in the course of his actions. Causation Factual Causation The prosecution must show that the it was the act of the accused was the cause of death. If it wasn’t "but for" Angus having a loaded gun‚ Chris would not have died. Legal Causation The prosecution must show that the accused conduct was the substantive and operating cause of death and that any intervening act did not break the chain of causation. In R v Hallet‚ the accused rendered the victim unconscious
Premium Criminal law Crime
long before anticipated these arguments like the “First Cause” argument. 1. Everything must have a cause 2. God is considered the first cause of everything. 3. Buddhist theory of causation says that everything must have preconditions for existence. 4. Therefore God cannot exist because of the theory of causation. The argument most frequently used by Buddha is what is now called the “Argument from Evil” or the “Argument from Dukkha” (suffering or unsatisfactoriness). This argument states that
Premium Buddhism Noble Eightfold Path Gautama Buddha
Max Beerbohm once said‚ “History repeats itself. Historians repeat each other." Beerbohm’s quote completely differs from what historians do. Historian’s jobs are to study history of a particular period‚ geographical region‚ or social phenomenon. Even though historians may look at same issues‚ each historian brings a particular knowledge to the issue that may have never been noticed previously; therefore Beerborhm’s quote can be challenged. One way to see the different viewpoints historians may have
Premium Fiction History Literature
This question examines the criminal liability of Joe and Luo in the deaths of Karla and Mick. Joe could be charged with gross negligence manslaughter on the death of Karla. He cannot be charged for murder and voluntary manslaughter because he does not meet the mens rea requirements for intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. He cannot also be charged for unlawful act manslaughter because he has not committed an act but instead has failed to act. The court has established in the case of
Premium Law Tort law Tort
conviction under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) are based on the misdirection’s made by the judge during the trial. There are three main misdirection’s for the appeal‚ which can render the conviction unsafe‚ include: Consent‚ causation and intention. The appellant Billy was convicted under s.18 OAPA of the offences against the person act for causing grievous bodily harm to the victim Anita. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Billy and Anita was in a 12-year long relationship and they lived together
Premium Criminal law Acts of the Apostles Law
Although Mrs Costello did not work on the factory floor‚ her duties took her all over the premises. In common with other inhabitants of the local area‚ however‚ she would also have been exposed to a low level of asbestos in the general atmosphere. Causation The general rule at common law is that a person suffering injury must show on the balance of probabilities that the defendant’s tort (most commonly negligence) caused the injury or condition. But for the defendant’s wrongdoing‚ the claimant would
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Appeal Appellate court
Indeterminate Liability Liability is indeterminate only when the number of claims or the size of the claims cannot be realistically calculated. Therefore‚ indeterminacy depends upon what the defendant knew or ought to have known regarding the number of claimants and the nature of their likely claims. Hence‚ liability will not be imposed if it may lead to liability in an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class. In assessing indeterminacy in this case‚ 23andMe is a genome-testing organisation
Premium Free will Determinism Causality
Negligence‚ duty and Breach of Duty. To constitute a legal action against some one’s negligence‚ several requirements to be fulfilled. First one is that there must exist some duty of care towards the plaintiff by the defendant. The second one is that the defendant should breach such duty of care imposed on him. The third one is that the negligence done by the defendant should be the cause of the harm resulted to the plaintiff. The fourth one is that the harm should have some monetary value.
Premium Tort Law Negligence