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. Under the traditional rules in negligence cases, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's actions actually caused the plaintiff's injury. This is often referred to as "but-for" causation.
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.
Legal defenses can have a signification effect on disposition of the case. Factual Defense In a criminal trial when factual defense is used the defendant and attorney are claiming to the courts the defendant had nothing to do with the crime which took place. The defendant is insisting he or she is not to be held criminally liable for the charges brought forth by the state. The defendant may say he or she was in was not in the location of the crime at the time of the crime and may have an alibi as evidence (Schmalleger, Hall, Dolatowski, 2010). Legal Defense Justification and excuse is the two forms of legal defense.
57 Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 798 (2014) Contributory negligence is defined as the injured party that can be partly responsible for the part they played in the incident. This means that the injured person should not recover damages when it appeared that the incident could have been avoided” but for” the plaintiff’s behavior. The plaintiff should not ask for others to exercise more care than he would from himself.
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.
The principle of negligence is to determine a guilty party when someone acts in a careless manner and causes injury to another person. Negligence names the careless person legally liable. In order to win, the plaintiff must prove four different elements. The first element that must be proven is Duty of Care. The defendant must have owed the plaintiff legal duty of care.
Criminal justice professionals play an important role in the court system, and if they lie on accusations and evidence, the innocent become victims of the dishonesty. A second quality that is good to see in the criminal justice professions is to be objective. It is important for our law enforcement and public servants to not let their personal goals, feelings, or prejudice to get in the way of the criminal justice goals. Objectivity ensures that the professionals will make the right choices even when they have reasons that should make them choose otherwise. A simple example of this trait could be a law enforcement officer writing a ticket to someone regardless of the relationship they may or may not have.
Thus an ophthalmologist is expected to act in accordance with the standards of practice and care of other similarly situated ophthalmologists. In other words, a person in a specific role has an obligation to members of the public. However, if a duty of care is not met, then the person responsible can be held accountable for allowing negligence to occur thus providing the basis for a lawsuit. In the conventional law of negligence, it is vital if a claim is to succeed that the defendant be in breach of a duty of care.
Another case example is Pagett (1983) where the defendant was found guilty for the muder of his girlfriend a had it not been ‘but for’ his actions she would not have been killed by police bullets. Secondly it needs to proved that the defendant’s conduct was the legal cause of the consequence. Under this principle, there is the de minimus rule. In such cases there may be more than one act contributing to the consequence, some of which may have been caused by people other than the defendant. 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.