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.
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,
Jason Davis failed to look around him to see if others were too close by, as a reasonable person would have taken a moment to take a slow turn and monitor his surroundings. Being an employee of the show’s producer, he should be aware of the crowded situation. Also, by speaking up and saying “excuse me” before making an abrupt movement, he would have allowed others to know he was about to move and given them a chance to move out of the way or speak up that they were right there behind him. As explained by Miller and Jentz(2007), “The tort of negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because another’s failure to live up the required duty of care.” In this situation, the reasonable person standard would be used in regards to Davis’ actions, and the store location is held accountable with the duty of landowners. Under these circumstances, I feel that Davis is in fault of negligence due to not taking the time to make himself aware of his surroundings.
When applying Louisiana law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit noted the factors that indicated whether or not Davis owed Esposito a duty of care. Negligence is this case is defined as conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against an unreasonable risk of harm (FindLaw, 1995). The tort of negligence occurs when a person suffers injury due to the failure of another to live up to the duty of care. This type of tort must be of unintentional nature to the person suffering injury. Since Davis worked for MKS Productions and show intentional reason to injure Esposito, this case was moved under Business Tort laws.
It is an attorney’s obligation, in fact, to break that attorney-client privilege in order to prevent future harm (Meyer & Grant, 2003). Attorneys may also report intents to commit perjury in order to prevent an act of fraud against a court. These and many other issues are what make the concept of attorney-client privilege so important in regard to the court system. Bibliography
Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging ISSUE(S): Does the failure to take preventative steps against, a situation which results in some level of physical harm and/or unconsented offensive touching constitute [an] intentional tort(s)? If such failure to take preventative steps (and/or disclose) is an intentional tort, can the plaintiff obtain damages above and beyond compensatory damages? RULE(S): A tort is a “civil wrong” and there are essentially two main types, intentional torts and negligence. The former involves some form of intent or “recklessness” on the part of the defendant, whereas negligence is generally defined as the absence of the exercise of reasonable care by defendant, with harm occurring to the plaintiff as a result. The types of intentional torts implicated here are battery and fraud.
The prosecution must without a reasonable doubt prove the defendant is responsible for committing the crime. And in doing so must remain within the regulations of the courts. Sometimes the prosecution’s personal, ethical. Organizational, or political beliefs can becomea driving force into a trail which can have negative effects on the courts when misconduct occurs or mistakes are made. When misconduct or mistakes are made it can have very damaging effects on individuals and their lives, but also to the credibility of the criminal justice system.
The results of some negligence cases are contingent upon whether or not the offender owed a specific duty to the complainant. These duties arise when the law identifies the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. Based on the findings within that relationship, it is determined if the defendant was obligated to act within a certain standard of care toward the plaintiff. The court will find if a duty existed based on the act of a equitable person under the same particular set of circumstances (Reuters, 2012). Once it has been determined that a duty existed, then it is determined whether or not the duty was breached.
The definition for justification is a type of legal defense in which the defendant admits to committing the act in question but claims it was necessary to avoid some greater evil (Schmallege, Hall, & Dolatowski, 2010). Basically, the defendant was either protecting him or herself from an assault by another person in which the other person was injured or even worse killed from the actions of the defendant. The defense is different in this case because the defendant has admitted to these actions, so what the need here is to prove that such actions were necessary by the defendant in this case. In Texas a person has a right to protect him or herself home from invaders, so if a person broke into someone’s home and the assailant was shot or harmed in the act; the homeowner is not charged with a crime based on justification that the homeowner did so in the act of protecting his or her home. Justification is an offender admits that he or she has done the crime they are charged with but did the crime because it would avoid a greater crime or evil.
Breach of Duty A defendant is liable for negligence when the defendant breaches the duty that the defendant owes to the plaintiff. A defendant breaches such a duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the duty. Unlike the question of whether a duty exists, the issue of whether a defendant breached a duty of care is decided by a jury as a question of fact. Thus, in the example above, a jury would decide whether the defendant exercised reasonable care