Current California Tort Law Dubbed by Prosser the "little brother of conversion," the tort of trespass to chattels allows recovery for interferences with possession of personal property "not sufficiently important to be classed as conversion, and so to compel the defendant to pay the full value of the thing with which he has interfered." (Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed.1984) § 14, pp. 85-86.) Though not amounting to conversion, the defendant's interference must, to be actionable, have caused some injury to the chattel or to the plaintiff's rights in it. Under California law, trespass to chattels "lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury."
After reviewing and studing the first ethics case briefly and discussing with my group members carefully, the answer to the questions is obvious. Scott ought to tell Tom that he will inform the superior to prevent Tom to go ahead. Tom and Scott 's choice, taking care of the problem themselves rather than paying someone else to dispose of chemicals, is improper course of action. Assuming Scott has a chance to appear at a court hearing, he should frankly and unreservedly confess, state, testify true guilty action what ABC or Tom took, without concerning violation to his former company and head. And reasons for these answers will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
An eyewitness is an individual who was present during an event and is called by a party in a lawsuit to testify as to what he or she observed. Eyewitnesses cannot be intoxicated or insane at the time of the controverted event occurred will be prevented from testifying, regardless of whether he or she was the only eyewitness to the occurrence. Recent DNA exoneration cases have corroborated the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness misidentification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of these innocent people, especially those who are in death row. There have been many wrongful deaths because of misidentification testimonies and men/women have lost many years in prison due to eyewitnesses misidentifying them. How can the government assure us that they found a better way of sentencing the right people and not making mistakes?
Issues to be decided are if someone who voluntarily participates in a competition like this with knowledge of the risks of the activity should be responsible or if the risks of the competition were even open and existed which would be the fault of the defendant. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, concluding that a question of fact regarding whether the risks of the competition were open and the obvious existed. Defendant was correct and the law does recognize varying degree of risk and imposes varying degrees of responsibility on landowners based on those risks and the nature of the conditions involved. However the jury instructions
This particular highlight of the case initiates something Smith and I finally disagree on. Continuing on the account of George Zimmerman, Smith goes on to say that “I personally do not agree with the statement of Zimmerman. Look at size and make up. Was a deadly force justified, was the situation a danger to him or any other citizen based on logic? And as far as Zimmerman claiming the Stand Your Ground law, does that mean someone should die at every quarrel because they have the right to ‘stand their ground?” Smith makes another valid point with his last statement.
ANALYSIS -The court of Appeals found out that Alexander was negligent because he failed to check the Hairston’s car which was on the road. The article states “These negligent acts of Alexander -- new and independent of any negligent acts of Haygood -- constitute the proximate cause of injury and the death of plaintiff's intestate, and the negligence of Haygood was shielded by the subsequent acts of negligence by Alexander." Therefore, the Alexander’s act of crashing the Hairston’s car considered to be a proximate cause of injury and death. CONCLUSION -The decision had reversed and remanded because of the entry of judgment in agreement with the jury’s
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.
It appears as though Ms. Tom is suing Kresge’s, Co. for negligence due to her slip and fall accident that happened in their store. She believes Kresge is liable for her injury because it occurred as a result of a condition created by Kresge’s "mode of operation." Mrs. Tom contends that Kresge’s should be held liable because the condition that she said caused the accident had existed for a length of time that if Kresge had exercised normal use of ordinary care, Kresge’s employees at the store should have known of the condition and taken action to remedy it. The “mode of operation” rule looks to a business’s choice of a particular mode of operation and not the particular events surrounding the plaintiff’s accident. Typically, under the rule, the plaintiff is not required to prove notice if the defendant
The person who is accused must have committed an act of omission or commission; this act must have been in breach of the person’s duty; and this must have caused harm to the injured person. The complainant must prove the allegation against the doctor by citing the best evidence available in medical science and by presenting expert opinion. In some situations the complainant can invoke the principle of res ispa loquitur or “the thing speaks for itself”. In certain circumstances no proof of negligence is required beyond the accident itself. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission applied this principle in Dr Janak Kantimathi Nathan vs Murlidhar Eknath Masane.
This paper will then end with the current state of the insanity defense and conclusions of this research. History of the Insanity Defense Pre-McNaughton Today, the insanity defense is an affirmative defense, this means the defendant must raise the argument that they are insane, and if they were found insane, it would negate the elements of a crime. The burden of proof is also on the defendant and the defendant must prove the defense of insanity by “clear and convincing evidence”[1] (Garner, 2001). The insanity defense has evolved over centuries. People have always believed that it is immoral to punish a person who is not responsible for their criminal behavior, because if a person does not know what they are doing at the time of a crime they should not have to be punished for it.