Law Encyc. Negligence $ 1). The rule of liability for negligence is the same whether the injured person is a child or an adult and a person is not liable unless there is a breach of duty owed to the child. Persons entrusted with children have a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care and supervision for the safety of children under their control. A caretaker is not an insurer of the safety of a child has no duty to foresee and guard against every possible hazard (21 Ind.
The circumstances mentioned above encompasses self defense, serious offenses against persons and apprehension to name a few, for the sake of this paper we are going to look at when law enforcement uses self-defense and its legality. However knowing the verbatim standard for self defense is important before discussing the cases that will appear later. The federal government defines it as the following under 10 CRF 1047.7 Section A "When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm."
These can include medical bills, property damage cost of repair, and even loss of pay. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate the injured for losses, but as a punishment for the wrong doer and to deter them from committing this act again, or prevent the same negligence in the future. The four elements of a negligence action that must exist for a plaintiff to win a negligence action are duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages/injury. The plaintiff must prove all of these elements in order to be successful in a negligence claim. The first element, Duty, can be looked at almost like the Golden Rule.
Ethical dilemmas arise one being the Lacks family had no idea that a sample of her tumour had been taken and sent to George Gey. In chapter three, Henrietta goes for her diagnosis and treatment and signs an operation permit form. I agree Dr. TeLinde’s research was important but not justifiable because he did not properly let his patient be conscious that her cells would be used. One questions whether or not appropriate consent was given because there was not any proper consent. I believe at least letting Henrietta know what they were doing would be the ethical thing to do.
------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION The general basis for imposing liability in criminal law is that the defendant must be proved to have committed a guilty act whilst having had a guilty state of mind. The physical elements are collectively called the actus reus and the accompanied mental state is called the mens rea. It is the fundamental duty of the prosecution to prove both of these elements of the offence to the satisfaction of the judge or jury beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof the defendant will be acquitted. ------------------------------------------------- ACTUS REUS An actus reus consists of more than just an act.
Element Two– Breach of Duty EXPLANATION: This is an action below an acceptable level of responsibilty or inaction of this responsibility can result in a breach of that required duty and may result in lawsuits from negligence, especially in a professional capacity (Professional negligence). Under Tort, negligence will need to be proved, to do this it has to be established whether such duty exist and if the duty was
There is no liability as long as D actually and reasonably believed consent existed. P’s physical integrity interests give way to D’s liberty interests. (3) Effectiveness of Consent (a) Consent can be ineffective if: (i) Don’t know about a certain risk (ii) Don’t have capability to consent (statutory questions) (4) Legal fiction of implied consent so people will give emergency medical care. iii) Self-Defense and Defense of Others (1) Victim has to actually and reasonably believe it is necessary to injure another to avoid imminent injuries to herself. Instigator must have tried to disengage to avail self of self-defense.
This chapter does not authorize euthanasia or any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying, including the withholding or withdrawing of life prolonging procedures under this chapter (FINDLAW.com). I do not agree with this law completely, hopelessly ill people who in the end will have to die in unbearable pain, wish to be freed from a life that has become a burden to them. They should not be compelled against their will to endure their meaningless suffering (Fenigsen, R. 2011). The government does not always think of how patients feel about the subject which is sad. Unfortunately the law that we follow is not made to think of how patients feel but how others will feel.
Whereas by definition, paternalism restricts a person’s right to autonomy, and takes another person’s autonomous right away and makes decision on their behalf, even if it is contrary to the wishes of the patient (Beauchamp and Childress 2001). Paternalism with Mrs Jones was not the case, yet with regards to safeguarding her from further harm justice, beneficence and non-malfeasance would have been insuring long term interest. To be deemed competent professionals work within trust guidelines and trust protocols and must treat patients fairly, without discriminating against them; ensuring that the patient is able to make autonomous decisions regarding their own care (NMC
NATURE OF A TORT The nature of a tort can best be understood by making a distinction between a tort and a crime. The main object of criminal proceedings is punishment, this means that if a person commits a crime they will be punished through imprisonment. Usually a crime is an offence against the general public or the state. Whereas the main object of proceedings in tort is not punishment but compensation to the plaintiff. A tort is committed against an individual or legal entity or company.