Negligence denotes a legal concept which should be proved before a person may hold an individual or an organization legally liable for the damage he/she went through. Proving negligence is obligatory in a majority of claims from injuries or accidents, for instance, "slip and fall" or car accidents cases.
The elements of negligence include duty, breach, causation, and harm/damages. When the suitable duty of care is established, the plaintiff should show the way the defendant broke this duty or failed to act as per the needed standard (Beatty, Samuelson & Abril, 2018). This is determined by revealing what the suitable duty of care is necessary and the manner in which the defendant’s deeds breached this standard. An important question which courts enquire when establishing if there existed a breach of duty of care is whether the defendant might foretell the possibility of damage to the plaintiff and did not inhibit the damage from happening.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Both the comparative and contributory negligence principles impact the capability of the plaintiff to collect damages for damage to which he/she has contributed. Under a contributory negligence theory, one is forbidden from reclaiming any damages if his/her own negligence resulted in the injury. Conversely, under comparative theory, an individual's compensation for damage is proportional to his extent of liability.
Strict liability denotes a legal principle which holds an entity liable for their products or actions, without the plaintiff needing to prove fault or negligence (Beatty, Samuelson & Abril, 2018). For instance, when a person involves himself in ultra-hazardous undertakings like producing faulty products, or keeping wild animals, using explosives, then he/she might be held answerable in case another person is hurt.
The two elements required to be convicted of an intent crime are actus reus and mens rea . Mens rea implies to possess "guilty thoughts." The reasoning behind the law is that it is not right for the community to punish persons who unintentionally cause damage. Conversely, actus reus literally implies "guilty action," and usually denotes an explicit deed in the continuance of an offense (Beatty, Samuelson & Abril, 2018). Necessitating an explicit action as a portion of an offense implies that the community has decided to punish merely bad actions, not bad minds.
The exclusionary rule inhibits the administration from utilizing most proof collected in defilement of the American Constitution (Milhizer, 2007). The rule makes proof unacceptable in court in case police officers got it through means outlawed by the Constitution, through court rules or statute.
References
Beatty, J. F., Samuelson, S. S., & Abril, P. (2018). Business law and the legal environment . Cengage Learning.
Milhizer, E. (2007). The Exclusionary Rule Lottery. U. Tol. L. Rev. , 39 , 755.
