Q: The jury believes the expert testimony presented for plaintiffs. Why did their judgment not stand? Their judgment could stand because one of the parties believed that there was an error of law; some areas that can include mistakes about the substantive law that was made during the trial. Bases for appeal include failure by the trial judge to admit or exclude certain evidence, improper instruction being given to the jury, and the granting or denying the motion to dismiss the case. Usually the party appealing must show that the mistake would have affected the outcome.
Legal Defense Justification and excuse is the two forms of legal defense. Justification is when the defendant admits to committing the act in question but claims it was necessary in order to avoid some greater evil. Whereas, excuse is when a defendant claims some personal condition or circumstance at the time of the act was such that he or she should not be held accountable under the criminal law (Schmalleger, Hall,
The outcomes of some negligence cases depend on whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff. Such a duty arises when the law recognizes a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff, and due to this relationship, the defendant is obligated to act in a certain manner toward the plaintiff. A judge, rather than a jury, ordinarily determines whether a defendant owed a duty of care to a plaintiff. Where a reasonable person would find that a duty exists under a particular set of circumstances, the court will generally find that such a duty exists. A defendant is liable for negligence when the defendant breaches the duty that the defendant owes to the plaintiff.
For the non-fatal offences, the courts will look at the nature and degree of harm consented to, as whether the harm was intended. Consent can also be both express or implied. The availability of the defence is closely linked to public policy considerations, this means what judges consider to be in the public interest. "it is not in the public interest that people should try to cause, or should cause, each other bodily harm for no reason." Lord Lane (LCJ) in AG’s Ref No.
Once it has been determined that a duty existed, then it is determined whether or not the duty was breached. A duty has been breached when a defendant knowingly exposed another to possible injury. Even if the defendant did not realize he was exposing another to injury, he should recognize the probability that any other reasonable person would have recognized; therefore, also being a breach of duty (Shestokas, 2009). After establishing a duty existed and there was a breach of that duty, the plaintiff must show that there was a loss or injury to recover. This requirement is important if a defendant is unable to deny his negligence, but the plaintiff suffered no apparent injuries as a consequence.
The rule is that the defendant can be found guilty if his conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence, but the defendants conduct need not be the substantial cause. In certain cases the
Explain using examples the meaning of the term duty of care Duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on individuals which requires them to adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing acts that could foreseeably harm others. In a negligence claim, duty of care is the first element that must be proved. It depends entirely on the court to determine if a duty of care is owed exist or should. People, generally, are mostly negligent in their daily lives; however, there are some certain steps required of a right thinking person to must have taken to avert a potential harm to anyone, which a duty of care is legally owed to. It’s entirely up to the court of law to determine if a duty of care exists in some certain negligence cases.
Additional requirement for admissibility of multiple hearsay A hearsay statement is not admissible to prove the fact that an earlier hearsay statement was made unless: either of the statements is admissible or all the parties to the proceedings agree; or the court is satisfied that the value of the evidence in question, taking into account how reliable the statements appear to be, is so high that the interests of justice require the later statement to be admissible for that purpose. ‘Hearsay statement’ means a statement, not made in oral evidence, that is relied on as evidence of a matter stated in it. Memory refreshing A witness giving oral evidence in court may use a document to refresh his or her memory, provided that the document was made (or verified) by him at an earlier time, and provided: he states that the document records his recollections of the matter at that earlier time and his recollection of the matter is likely to have been significantly better at the time the document was made, than at the time of his oral evidence. Running head: UNIT 5 ASSIGNMENT 10
Full knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the case can help the defense to sufficiently conduct the case legally and appropriately in the court room (Meyer & Grant, 2003). One of the key concerns of maintaining attorney-client confidentiality is when an attorney has to decide whether to report their client to the court if he or she confesses guilt to a crime. Even though an admission of guilt is made by the client, this information still considered to be privileged. If in the interim other unrelated charges are disclosed, the attorney is not legally responsible for reporting this information. If a defense counsel has cause to believe that his or her client has intensions of breaking the law, is the only instance when the confidentiality requirements change.
For successful conviction by prosecution, it is not sufficient to be found guilty for an act alone. The defendant’s state of mind (mens rea) is of equal importance, except in cases of strict liability. Mens rea translated literally is the guilty mind. Intention (direct and oblique), subjective recklessness, negligence and sometimes knowledge are further elements of mens rea that create different degrees of blameworthiness. This essay will attempt to establish the core characteristics the elements of mens rea, Intention (direct and oblique) and Subjective recklessness and explore the differences between these elements.