The scenario of this case a very complex matter in terms of the law‚ on the one hand you have the breach of gun/firearms laws and criminal negligence and on the other hand you have involuntary harm to another person. In order to hold the correct person liable‚ we must first examine the core facts and issues of this case which will enable the application of the law to these facts‚ allowing the DPP to be advised in the most suitable and accurate manner. The first and foremost issue to be noted in
Premium Criminal law Tort Reasonable person
Under Washington case law‚ plaintiffs are required to prove causation with expert testimony if alleged injury involves obscure medical factors. [cite]. The trickier question is whether the expert needs to demonstrate a direct causal link between the alleged injuries and the negligent act or if the expert merely must demonstrate that the plaintiff’s injuries are of a type that can be caused by the negligent act. Washington courts have come down on both sides of this question. I. Plaintiffs are Required
Premium Medicine Health care Patient
unsafe. Plaintiff must prove that the product was the proximate cause of harm and that the defendant breached a duty to warn and that the failure to warn also was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. 12. Punitive damages‚ under the common law of torts‚ juries are free to award an injured plaintiff all sorts of damages‚ not only to compensate for damages or out-of-pocket medical expenses‚ but also for pain
Premium Tort Tort law
Week 3 You Decide 1. You are the judge in the case. Does Susie have a case against Ruthless? Is Ruthless the proximate cause of Susie’s injuries? I certainly do think that Susie has a case against Ruthless because of the simple fact that Susie told Ruthless that she wanted to wait for Orson or she could walk home since she only lived six blocks from the park‚ but Ruthless paid no attention to Susie‚ he did not acknowledge what she said and gave her no choice but ordered everyone to get
Premium Tort law Police English-language films
CH7 Crime-business community: Elements of crime(criminal law)1 actus reus(guilty act) wrongful behavior. 2 mens rea(guilty mind)wrongful state of mind. When liability is assessed without guilty mind it is liability without fault or strict liability ex. unknowingly selling alcohol to minor. Criminal burden of proof –guilty beyond reasonable doubt civil b.o.p-a preponderance of the evidence(more likely than not). Classification of crimes:1 felony serious crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one
Premium Tort Tort law
Raymond Smith recently bought a new car from a car dealership. The sales contract he signed contained language expressly denying liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car. It also limits the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replace the defective part. Unfortunately one month after purchasing the auto‚ Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car. I will determine
Premium Automobile Warranty Injury
Case Study Case 1 A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in a collision with another tram‚ which occurred after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with a system known as ‘dead man’s handle’‚ a system in use on Sydney’s trains. This would have stopped the tram and avoided the accident. The device had been rejected by the tramway authorities because it was felt that it could cause drivers
Premium Tort law Tram accident Accident
PRESENTATION ON CASE. Paul‚ a contractor‚ owned a corner shop where he ran a news agent stand and a tobacconist business. Neil advertised the business and premises for sale. Having seen the advertisement‚ Jenny visited the premises from which she lived 20 minutes away and was told by Paul that the purchase would be the best bargain in town and that the profits were 40‚000 pounds per annum‚ and that if she didn’t believe him she should look at the accounts which she declined but had she done so
Premium Misrepresentation Contract law
neighbour- Who‚ then‚ in law‚ is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question Donoghue v Stevenson Neighbour Principle: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour- Who‚ then‚ in law‚ is my neighbour? The
Premium Duty of care Tort Tort law
Gonzalo Prando Business law September 24‚ 2014 Chapter 5 and 6 5.3 Did Indiana Bell or Indianapolis Power breach their duty of care to Jacobs and proximately cause his death? No‚ Indiana Bell and Indianapolis Power are innocent and did not cause the death of Jacobs. When Indiana Bell and Indianapolis Power put up the polls they did not think that someone would drive double the speed limit and lose control and hit both telephone poles. The poles were twenty-five feet away from Edgewood Avenue. Twenty-five
Premium Tort law Bell System