Chapter 4 Torts and Cyber Torts true/false questions 1. Tort law provides legal remedies for property damage. ANSWER: T PAGE: 102 TYPE: + MISC: AACSB Analytic Skill Level: AICPA Legal 2. Punitive damages are intended to punish a wrongdoer and deter others. answer: T PAGE: 103 TYPE: N MISC: AACSB Analytic Skill Level: AICPA Legal 3. A person may commit an intentional tort if he or she acts knowing with substantial certainty that certain consequences will
Premium
Strict liability offences do not require proof of mens rea in respect of at least one element of the actus reus‚ usually the essential one. However‚ proof of mens rea may be required for some of the elements of the actus reus. Absolute liability offences do not require proof of any mens rea element‚ but are satisfied by proof of the actus reus only. Second‚ the distinction can be seen by examining the issue of causation In strict liability‚ the prosecution is required to prove the causation of
Free Criminal law
criminalise results in themselves‚ but rather the causation of results). Conduct: in rape: penetration. Circumstance: property belongs to another. All crimes have an AR. It is possible to have missing MR elements but this is not so for AR. Omissions Stephen LJ: “It is not a crime to cause death or injury‚ even intentionally‚ by any omission”. This is not strictly true‚ but we are usually unwilling to prosecute for omissions: Criminal liability for failure to act breaches autonomy. It is less burdensome
Premium Tort law Causality Actus reus
TORTS CAN – FALL 2010 - GOOLD Lecture 1: Introduction to the Law of Torts Tort= area of law that deals with wrongdoing. Criminal=public wrongs‚ tort=private Tort= law concerned w/ rights & remedies associated with legal relationships between individuals. - What is wrong with this definition of torts? Fails to take into account key aspects of tort law. Three ways to define torts: (1) Areas of law recognised by courts as torts (e.g. the subjects in the syllabus) (2) Area of law concerned
Premium Tort
reasonable doubt. With the exception of strict liability offences for a criminal offence to have occurred‚ the accused must have committed both elements of the crime: Actus reus: refers to the actions (or in rare cases the failure to act/the omission) of the accused; that is that the accused actually did the act Mens rea: refers to the mental state of the accused; i.e. that the accused intended the actions. Strict Liability Offences 1.3 Strict liability offences are minor in nature e.g. speeding
Premium Criminal law
then left without calling for assistance or summoning an ambulance. The Omission was the defendant not helping the man outside the club from being beaten up and not calling for assistance. Causation – Causation is the direct link between the act of the defendant and the outcome of the crime. Causation is the finding out of what caused the outcome of the crime. Blaue‚ R v [1975] CA D stabbed an 18-year-old woman V and punctured her lung. At the hospital‚ V was told she would need a blood transfusion
Premium Crime Criminology Criminal law
Week 8 Lecture Aspects of the Tort of Negligence 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Introduction The general principles of liability for negligence Product liability Liability for negligent misstatement Vicarious liability THE LAW OF TORT (民事侵權法) 1. What is Tort? One party suffers damage or loss as the result of the action of another No need for a contractual relationship The law of tort regulates the behaviour of individuals and legal persons 2 1. Introduction Tort: “Wrong”
Premium Tort Tort law
TORT LAW REVISION GUIDE: LLB/LLM PROGRAMME 2014 General Guidance All topics covered on the Tort module are potential examination topics. This revision guide covers only those potential examination topics deemed core areas of knowledge in tort law. All students‚ whether studying toward the LLB or LLM‚ must have full command of these core topics for any assessment in tort law. Unless these notes expressly state otherwise‚ students can expect core examination topics to appear in either essay
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
PART 5 : CAUSATION ( Neethling‚ Potgieter‚ Visser: Law of Delict‚ p 159 – 193 • Minister of Police v Skosana 1977 (1) SA 31 (A) • S v Mokgethi en Andere 1990 (1) SA 32 (A) • Meevis v Sheriff‚ Pretoria East 1999 (2) SA 389 (T) • Mukheiber v Raath and Another 1999 (3) SA 1065 (SCA) • Road Accident Fund v Russell 2001 (2) SA 34 (SCA) • Gibson v Berkowitz and Another [1997] 1 All SA 99 (W) • Groenewald v Groenewald [1998] 2 All SA 335 (A) • Minister of Safety & Security v Hamilton
Premium Causality Law
The harm that was suffered by the plaintiffs “could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable‚” in that if the gust lock had been as Gulfstream asserted and prevented the throttles of the airplane from being advanced from beyond a low setting‚ the airplane would not have reached the speed that it did and the harm that the plaintiffs suffered could have been avoided. In this case‚ the gust lock mechanism allowed the pilots involved in the crash to advance the speed of the airplane
Premium Causation Criminal law Plaintiff