Chapter 1: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) • Definition o How the action and conduct of corporation affect society. Corporate have the duty to improve and protect society through the business. • Four Different Perspective o Economic Responsibility: Maximize profits. Fair pricing and quality products. Stakeholders in Corporation: Shareholders. Employee. Upper Management. Customer/Consumer. Vendors/Supplier. The key is to be able to balance and decide which
Premium Law Common law Court
attach liability to either Chemical Supply or Industrial Estates under the tort of Rylands v Fletcher. Chemical Supply’s Liability Rylands v Fletcher established that a person who “for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes‚ must keep it in at his peril‚ and if he does not do so ‚ is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” The rule therefore imposes strict liability on the
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
circulatory failure and then death. The executor of Lake’s estate sued the manufacturer of the air conditioner for damages resulting from breach of warranty. Is the manufacturer (or anyone else) liable for Lake’s death under either a negligence or a strict liability cause of action? What is the difference between these two claims‚ and how do they differ from a breach of warranty claim? Try and be as specific as possible‚ preferably running through the elements using the facts from the Lake case. “Research
Premium
required duty of care. Negligence is an unintentional tort‚ which the tortfeasor neither wishes to bring the consequences of the act nor believes that they will occur. In this case‚ we have one negligences: Ruth left her car in neutral‚ and one strict liability: the barn’s owner have dynamite. The first negligence‚ Ruth fails to comply a duty of care‚ creating the car to roll down the hill and knocking an electric line‚ causing a fire that burns the barn. However‚ Ruth’s negligence is not foreseeable
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
HOGESCHOOL UTRECHT Law Chapter 4 Tort Tort Contents 1) 2) Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1) Tort and Crime .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.2) Tort and Contract ............................................................................................................
Premium Tort Tort law
firm of Gallivan‚ White and Boyd gave their opinion that “Just because a product can cause serious injury when handled negligently doesn’t not mean that product is unreasonably dangerous when and if used properly” (The Original Hot Coffee Product Liability Case‚ Gwblawfirm.com). I believe the severity of Liebeck’s injuries and her old age is what made the jury feel sympathetic and side against McDonalds restaurants. Liebeck argued that there was no warning label on the McDonalds coffee cup to inform
Premium Family English-language films Burn
would sue for both negligence and strict liability because the above case allows for me to. According to Strict Liability‚ a product must be unreasonable dangerous. The charms on the Dolls sold by CARDWARE are not sewed properly by the manufacturer. The dolls and sweaters should be marketed towards early year teenagers around the ages of 9 to 12 instead of "babies". In the above case the plaintiff is physically harmed which is another requirement for strict liability (cut in her esophagus). I would
Premium Childhood The Child Abuse
1. I believe there are 3 theories that relate to product liability in which Kolchek could sue to recover for Litishas’s injuries. They are; + Product liability based on misrepresentation because the misrepresentation is of a material fact‚ and the seller intended to induce the buyer’s reliance on the misrepresentation. +Product Liability based on negligence because there clearly a failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable‚ prudent person would have exercised under the circumstance
Premium Law Tort Tort law
121). Many states have adopted the strict liability doctrine to determine product liability cases. Under strict liability‚ defendants can be determined liable despite following all necessary preparations from manufacturing to sale; this concept is known as liability without fault (Cheeseman‚ 2013‚ p. 121). Therefore‚ all parties in the supply chain of distribution are liable for any injury caused by
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
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