The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff 2.) The defendant breached that duty 3.) The plaintiff suffered a legally recognizable injury 4.) The defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injury When these elements are brought together, they unitedly constitute actionable negligence. The test of negligence is what a person of ordinary prudence or a reasonable person would or would not do in the same or similar circumstances.
For example, when someone commits theft they must've physically taken something. The three C's of Actus Reus must be taken into account when investigating a crime they are: * Conduct - this is the act of damaging or destroying something/someone. * Circumstances - this is the fact that the property must belong to another. * Consent - this is the resulting damage or destruction of the act. Causation Causation, also known as result crimes is when a consequence has come about as a result of the Actus Reus being committed.
Task 3 Case Study – “I am Sam” In everyone’s lives Advocacy is important, but it is even more important should you have a disability. In this case study I will be expressing my opinion on where an advocate would of helped Sam and his daughter (Lucy) from the movie “I am Sam”. It is quiet chilling that Sam and Lucy did not get help in so many parts of this movie. It really shows you how people can slip through the system when professionals do not recognise intervention from the beginning could actually prevent so much hard ache for many families. Sam had a few people in his life during his journey of parenthood on his own.
The negligence was certainly made by the driver , but in what capacity. Proximate: This form of negligence requires foreseeability of what happened Causation: The basis upon which a lawsuit may be brought to the court Negligence: would be carelessness except the following did occur: The tortfeasor was under a duty to use due care. The tortfeasor breached that duty of due care. The tortfeasor’s act was the actual cause of injuries or damages. The tortfeasor’s act was the proximate cause of injuries or damages.
In order for legal causation to be established the question to be asked is whether it is fair to attribute blame to the defendant, if the jury believe the defendant can be blamed for the consequence then he is also the legal cause of the consequence. There must also be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence; this is known as the chain of causation and so therefore in order for the defendant to be guilty of the consequence then there cannot be any major intervening acts. Intervening acts can include the actions of a third party, the victim’s own act or a natural but unpredictable event. Naturally there are issues with the rules on causation which I will discuss in detail in the remainder of this essay, the first issue comes with defining what is meant by more than a ‘slight or trifling’ link as this is a very vague phrase it can be difficult for juries to understand and so therefore may be misused. The second issue involves the thin skull rule which involves the defendant having to take the victim as he finds him which can be seen as unfair.
Defenses and Due Process Kylee Rivers CJS/220 Defenses and Due Process According to Gardner and Anderson (2011), an individual is only charged for a crime he/she committed intentionally. He suggests that such a crime must be without defense so that an individual is declared guilty. Defenses are situations that can stop or lessen the guilt in a case. Presentations of evidence for such situations ensure an accused person is defended from guilt. According to Gardner and Anderson (2011), the common elements of defense include insanity, entrapment and self-defense.
Negligence can be defined as the “the failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances”. The entity or individual can be held responsible for conduct where reasonable care was not exercised. There are five elements that are required to prove negligence: a legal duty to exercise reasonable care, failure in exercising reasonable care, negligent actions caused physical harm, that harm caused actual damages, and the harm was within the scope of liability. (1) The legal theory of vicarious liability is the underpinnings of the legal doctrine of respondeat superior. This legal doctrine supports the concept of holding the employer or principal legally responsible for the negligent acts of the employee or agent.
Bertrande was married off to Martin whilst they were both very young. They were like two strangers that lived together; Martin didn’t treat her the way she wanted to or thought she deserved to be treated. He then went to war and was absent for a long period of time. While he was at war he befriended Arnaud du Tilh; which had the same facial features as Martin. Martin shared very personal stories about himself, his family and his wife to Arnaud.
Effective Risk Management Law/531 December 5, 2011 Effective Risk Management A tort is defined as a civil wrong between people and/or entities (Cheeseman 2010). There are two types of torts. The two are intentional and unintentional torts. An intentional tort is when there is intent to cause harm on another. An unintentional tort is when a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions due to negligence (Cheeseman 2010).
The Concern or Need A. Reason for Request of Service The reason for the request of service is due to the lack of care for children. School officials have a concern that the family is in need of food, clothing, shelter, and child care. B. History of Concern or Need Client states that a little over a year ago her husband passed away, and since that time she has had a difficult time maintaining the bills on just her income.