In “The Douglas Tragedy,” William is responsible for physically killing Lady Margret’s brothers, but who is morally responsible for these deaths? 4. Many of the ballads we have studied concern the tension between personal desire and social responsibility. This concern is apparently present in both “Barbara Allen” and “Fair Margaret and Sweet William.” Do we have more sympathy for Sweet William than we do for Barbara Allen? If so, what actions, context or traits make William more worthy of our sympathy?
One needs to consider whether the sinking of the ship was an isolated event that was easily corrected, or whether it was a serious flaw that would require costly repairs. What needs to be answered regarding the flaw is whether the vendor, Captain Jack Sparrow, should have been aware of such a flaw; that is, was the flaw as a result of a patent or latent defect. If such defect was latent, was it known to the vendor. At common law, Davey Jones should also consider the principles of product liability, a branch of negligence law, arguing that Captain Jack Sparrow Inc. sold him a defective product that was not fit for its intended and known purpose. Davey Jones could also argue misrepresentation—he was induced to enter into the contract based on representations made about the quality of the ship.
An article published by the A-level law review, written by Ian Yule and entitled ‘Murder most foul?’ has two very important statements in the opening paragraph from people or groups who have first-hand knowledge of what is failing the British legal system when it comes to the decisions regarding cases of murder and voluntary manslaughter. Ken Macdonald QC, the director of public prosecutions, stated that ‘There should be degrees of homicide, not just murder and manslaughter but three or four degrees’. It is evident that our existing homicide laws are in urgent need of reform when even the Director of public prosecutions criticises them. The second is from the Law Commission itself in 2004 published a report relating to the partial defences for murder declaring ‘the present law of murder in England and Wales is a mess’ and also in the same report the Law Commission said that there was ‘a pressing need for a review of the whole law of murder rather than merely some partial defences’. The current law serves to confirm and underline how seriously flawed the present law on homicide is.
Explain the importance of maintaining a person or child centred approach when establishing proactive strategies. 2.5 - . Explain the importance of reinforcing positive behaviour with individuals. 2.6 - . Evaluate the impact on an individual's well being of using reactive rather than proactive strategies.
Law Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council shows that unsigned exclusion clauses need to be clearly defined to a reasonable person. Another case highlighting the need for exclusions to be clearly informed to the other party is the case of Causer v Browne. As for the case of White v John Warwick & Co Ltd the court held that the company providing defective product is liable for their negligence. If reasonably sufficient notice is given as to the existence of an exemption clause, then it is accepted by the courts that that clause becomes parts of the contract. The case that set this dictum, and which laid our the guidelines for testing the reasonableness and sufficiency of the notice
The law of murder encapsulates the notion of how the common law deals in homicide cases. Murder carries the legal definition of ‘the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen’s peace, with malice aforethought’. There are two fundamental elements that need to be present in order to prove murder. The first element, actus reus, is the act itself that proliferated the consequence of death and the second element, mens rea, is the intention or mental element that caused the death of another human being. However, the question really begs whether or not the law of murder is in need of a reform in situations where one or both of its fundamental elements are absent?
With respect to murder, the penal code under section 200 explicitly states that any person who of malice aforethought’; thus, demands the need of the mens rea. Malice aforethought relates to the state of mind of the accused person at the time he caused the death of the deceased. malice aforethought may be either express malice which demands an intention to cause death or do grievous bodily harm, implied malice which entails proof of knowledge (knowledge that may be accompanied by indifference) that the act or omission will probably result into causing death or grievous harm to the person or constructive malice which requires the accused person to cause death while attempting or committing a felony. On the other hand, the mens rea of murder which is malice aforethought is not linked to manslaughter. This is why manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder.
The “but for” test is used to determine actual causation. This can be applied to “Erin Brockavich” as such: but for PG&E’s irresponsibility, the people of Hinkley would not have suffered hexavalent chromium-related injuries/illnesses. Proximate cause: An event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held to be the cause of that injury. Can be tested through foreseeability, unbroken chain, and zone of danger. In the case of People of Hinkley vs. PG&E all three tests could apply, but I will asses the unbroken chain: The Hinkley PG&E plant knowingly dumped hexavalent chromium into the ground without lining the pools, the chemical seeped into the ground and infiltrated the water system, the people of Hinkley used the water and became sick.
Kaplan University Different forms of Patient Consent “The Standard of Care refers to the degree of attentiveness, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would exercise. Failure to meet the standard is negligence, and the person who fails to meet the standard is liable for any damages caused by such negligence” (Standard of Care Law & Legal Definition) (2014). In Sandra’s case the appropriate Standard of Care is determined by her symptoms and mental state of mind. The correct Standard of Care is also taken into consideration in ways that other experts would agree most appropriate in her situation. If something was to happen and it lead to a malpractice lawsuit the lawyer of the physician would want to prove
1) The Eumenides centres on the matricide committed by Orestes in recompense for the murder of his father and the arguments which determines whether this act was one of justice or one deserving of punishment. Apollo arguing in support of Orestes presents forth the argument that the act of matricide was justified on the basis that the mother is not really a parent but merely a vessel and that the man is the ‘source of life’ (Aeschylus, p.260). As such the act of murder caused upon the man and the breach of the sacred yet artificially constructed relationship between husband and wife is much worse than that of an unrecognised mother and son relationship. The very fact that the verdict goes in the favour of Orestes, Apollo and Athena portrays a male dominated reflection of gender roles and relations in ancient Greece. It can be said that the God Apollo is a physical and symbolic representation of the male in ancient Greece.