The case of Dytham (1979), where a police officer was found guilty of misconduct in a public officer after failing to act when he saw a man being kicked to death, further demonstrates this principle – the officer was guilty as he had a contractual duty to act. It is clear that there was Kieran breached his duty, as he went home and was therefore unable to respond promptly to emergency
He had to now. don’t Bigger don’t. He was sorry, but he had to. He He could not help it,” (Wright 234). Bigger is panic-stricken so as a result, he goes into a delusional behavior, ignoring all the other vices he has committed as well as the problems he has created such as raping and killing Bessie.
ANALYSIS -The court of Appeals found out that Alexander was negligent because he failed to check the Hairston’s car which was on the road. The article states “These negligent acts of Alexander -- new and independent of any negligent acts of Haygood -- constitute the proximate cause of injury and the death of plaintiff's intestate, and the negligence of Haygood was shielded by the subsequent acts of negligence by Alexander." Therefore, the Alexander’s act of crashing the Hairston’s car considered to be a proximate cause of injury and death. CONCLUSION -The decision had reversed and remanded because of the entry of judgment in agreement with the jury’s
There was an old practice where a galvanometer was applied directly to each detonator for testing purposes. They were injured as a result of an explosion at the defendant's quarry caused by the brothers' negligence. They had insufficient wire to test a circuit to allow them to test from a shelter. Another worker had gone to fetch more wire but the brothers decided to go ahead and test with the shorter wire. Each brother claimed against the defendant based on their employer's vicarious liability for the negligence and breach of statutory duty of the other brother.
Jack, out selfishness for fame, ridicules a radio guest. He made the man upset which lead to the murder of Parry’s wife in the restaurant. As a result of the incident, he develops a fear of guilt and remorse for causing the event. He buries the emotions of guilt in the shadow. Since he hasn’t properly dealt with his guilt, he has residual emotions of shame which projects his emotions as low self-esteem.
He finds him and the pool in a floating bed and shoots and kills Gatsby and then he kills himself. So as you can analyze, because of both Gatsby’s and Daisy’s imperfections there were many consequences. Gatsby’s desire for Daisy cost him his life and just to see Daisy run off with Tom. Daisy just didn’t care about anyone’s feelings; she cared more about her money and her beauty. Her actions lead to so much chaos and people suffered because of her fault and she didn’t care.
Although Hackett has only been dead for one day, the narrator lies and says he has been dead for two or three, in an attempt to explain the smells. The narrator and Thompson attempt to move the box of guns, but it is too heavy. Through a series of misguided attempts by Thompson to mask the smell with various chemicals and other items, the smell gets so bad that the narrator and Thompson decide to spend the rest of the trip outside the train on the express car's platform. As a result, the narrator becomes sick with typhoid fever, which proves fatal two years later when he is telling the tale. A similar fate is
Issue: Did Mr. Ground commit INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS against Ms. Hadd? Rule: An act of extreme or outrageous conduct; Intent to cause severe emotional distress; Severe emotional distress is suffered; Proximate causation Analysis: It’s probable that Mr. Ground committed intentional infliction of emotional distress against Ms. Hadd by approaching her with a weapon and by committing an extreme conduct by striking her with the taser and causing severe emotional distress by stinging her with the taser causing her to hit the ground which was caused by his outrageous act. Conclusion: I believe that the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress did occur.
Even though he witnessed many horrible things, he could not believe in his Father’s true work. He died because he was not aware of what was happening in the concentration camps. (Boyne, page 213) it states, “He assumed that it had something to do with keeping the rain out and stopping people from catching colds.” This shows that Bruno had no idea that he was taken to a gas chamber. Standing in the big room, in between skinny, shaved head men, he was more concerned on catching cold than the vision in front of him. Another example of how Bruno was avoiding thinking about what was happening around him was when he said, “I expect we’ll have to wait here till it eases off and then I’ll get to go home” (Boyne, page 212).
In a case of a man who attempts to throw a baby into a fire rationality and morality become intertwined. Someone who is capable of trying to burn his baby in a fire and attempts to do so is seen as so morally corrupt that it causes doubt into this man’s rationality. Therefore, he is judged based on a moral standard as insane and found deserving of treatment. On the other hand, the character of the action (the actual attempts of throwing the baby into the fire not the man himself) is found as inhuman making him guilty and in turn rational. He would then be criminally responsible for his actions