First, it seeks to compensate victims for injuries suffered by the culpable action orinaction of others. Second, it seeks to shift the cost of such injuries to the person or persons who are legally responsible forinflicting them. Third, it seeks to discourage injurious, careless, and risky behavior in the future. Fourth, it seeks to vindicatelegal rights and interests that have been compromised, diminished, or emasculated. In theory these objectives are servedwhen tort liability is imposed on tortfeasors for intentional wrongdoing, Negligence, and ultrahazardous activities.
The one thing you want to keep in mind with torts is that when an employee brings a tort claim against his or her employer, that employee may be entitled not only to compensatory damages (remember, to make them whole again) but also “punitive damages,” designed to punish the offending party and discourage others from doing the same. These awards tend to involve a lot of money. Breach of contract claims are bad but tort claims are really bad. In other words, you’ll want to settle tort
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 consequence of torts result in damages owed to the injured party. The law specifically provides rectification to persons and entities that are harmed by the tortuous actions of others (Cheeseman 2010). Tort damages are monetary damages that are intended to compensate
The liabilities BUGusa, Inc. may have with Walter’s actions are intentional tort of employee and negligence of employee. Walter is responsible for his actions, but because he is working within the scope of this employment, WIRETIME, Inc will be held liable for his actions. Keeping Steven for six hours can be considered false imprisonment and that he was threatened with bodily harm only made the case for Walter and WIRETIME, Inc worse. Walter could have received the same information by contacting a supervisor and notifying them of Steve’s actions. The first tort to discuss is intentional tort.
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.
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. Negligence that renders one liable to another who is injured thereby is the doing of some act or thing that it is his or her duty to refrain from doing or in failing to do some act or thing that it is such
Discuss the extent to which liability in English Law is, and should be fault based. ‘Fault’ is given to a person when they have done something wrong, i.e in terms of ‘blame’ or ‘responsibility’. A person may be blamed and justifiably made liable for actions that can be described as being their fault.When it comes to criminal law, it is the prosecutions role to establish that the defendant has carried out the unlawful act, known as the actus reus, and at that time the defendant had the guilty mind, known as the mens rea. Simply, the deft is made accountable for the fact that he is at ‘fault’ for his actions. If he is responsible he should be ‘blamed’ through a conviction and then ‘punished’ with his sentence.
The tortfeasor’s act was the proximate cause of injuries or damages. Damages were incurred. (Textbook p.150) ANALYSIS The fact remain that there was an accident, an injury occurred from the accident and negligence was evident. Officer Ruthless was negligent but was justified in the decision. He had to uphold the curfew law.
Firstly ken would be likely to be looking at theft. A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive that other of it. The fact that ken has appropriated the property ‘services done’ and had the ‘intention to permanently deprive’ has obviously been satisfied. One of the problems is ‘property belonging to another’ it may be argued that Norma’s ‘services done’ on the jacket rise the question of who is in ‘possession or control’ of them. This can be seen in the cause of Turner where Norma has formed a ‘proprietary right or interest’ by ‘services done’.
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.