Causation: in result of factual and legal causation must be established. In other words there will be no liability if the D did not cause the result White. The decision on whether the D is at fault may depend on which test for legal causation is used by the courts; a D may escape liability if the ‘daftness’ test in Roberts/Williams is applied, whereas the harsher thins skull rule in Blaue may result in liability as it involves taking your victim as you find him however daft or unpredictable they are.
The plaintiff was a student of his class and the defendant evidence was that he was unaware of the firing of pellets but the if he had had been aware he would have without a doubt taken the actions to shut it down and stop the pellets being shot across the class room. If the defendant had taken actions to stop the students from doing these actions the chain of causations would have been avoided and the student wouldn’t have been struck in the eye by a paper pellet. A case related to this Johns v Minister of Education, Chinner and Beck (1981) 28 SASR 206 the defendant was being sued for negligence. The case was the defendant who had been teaching a class when she had become aware of two boys using catapults to fire ballpoint pens. The defendant told the students to throw the catapults in the bin and later in that lesson she was not aware that a student had retained a catapult and the plaintiff was struck in the eye when a ballpoint pen was discharged by a catapult. In this case the teacher cannot be found negligence because she had told all students to throw out the catapults and to her knowledge they had and so in comparison to the first case the teacher was not adequately supervising the class and had not stopped the students from shooting paper pellets across the
In this essay, I will describe the elements of a criminal act, address the law of factual impossibility, the law of legal impossibility, and distinguish whether the alleged crime in the scenario is a complete but imperfect attempt or an incomplete attempt. I will address the ethical or moralistic concerns associated with allowing a criminal defendant to avoid criminal responsibility by successfully asserting a legal defense such as impossibility. The court was clearly wrong to dismiss the charge against Jack of attempted murder of Bert.
There is the issue that causation does not have a moral base meaning blame plays a greater part than actual proof which makes it hard to amend the law for example when using the
Just because one, one person messing around caused a horrible accident, this wasn’t supposed to happen, at all. At 9:02 a.m., “rental truck packed with explosives, front of the nine-story Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City.” He decided to set it off. We don’t know if he was upset with someone in the building or if he was even upset but if he was there was no reason for everyone that died to die.
Because Nordlund does not satisfy one out of the three elements a bystander needs to establish to recover, the probability of her having a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim would be low.
This particular scenario is cumulative but still has two issues that must be dealt with separately. The first is psychiatric injury suffered by the claimant . Also, it must be established whether Bricks R Us can apply negligent contribution as their defence against Ronnie's claims. The final issue concerns the stabbing and if Ronnie was rightfully imprisoned.
While at the hospital, surgery is performed; however, the victim dies on the operating table. It is later discovered the hospital staff gave the patient medication during the procedure in which the victim was allergic to, but was not the cause of death. The cause of death was determined to be the severed artery and loss of blood. Even though the injuries were life threatening and the victim died anyway, the defendant could argue the hospital staff was the proximate cause of the victim’s death by giving them the medication they are allergic to. This should not release the defendant from a murder charge since the victim died from injuries they sustained from the stabbing. With the artery being severed, there was no hope for the victim. The medication given to the patient, while negligent in the dose administration, did not cause the death of the
During the argument David was racially abused by the patient. After the incident David was moved to another ward whilst the other patient remained on the ward. That night, whilst David was on the other ward, he lashed out and hit a nurse. Following this he was restrained by five nurses and a struggle developed. The correct procedures for restraining a patient were not followed; subsequently, David collapsed and died (NSCSHA, 2003).
Despite the fact that Nichol hadn’t said something as explicit as she saw David stabbing Gail, the prosecutor read her statement in front of the jury. Matters at David’s trial were worsened due to the emerging of a story involving a situation that occurred at a party back in May. Other teenagers had teased David of being a murder suspect, following which he stabbed a pillow and joked about killing Gail, due to being intoxicated. As a result, the jury members found David guilty of Gail’s rape and murder on January 31st 1970.
The bomb killed four girls, their names were Denise McNair, Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson and Cynthia Wesley. Denise McNair was eleven and the other three girls were fourteen. The girls that died were found in the bathroom or what was the bathroom. There was another girl in the bathroom. She lost her right eye. Her name was Sarah Collins Cox. Cox was there with her friend Addie Mae Collins.
Both were filling bags full of weapons and explosives. Then they were on their way to Columbine High School. It was a warm spring day, most of the students were outside enjoying the day while they were on their lunch break. At 11:19 a freshman named, Kelly Fleming was outside with some friends. The students in the cafeteria thought it was a normal school day until they heard gunshots. As they looked outside, they saw Kelly lying on the ground dead. She had been shot four times. Then it was time, the attack on Columbine had begun
Brian Anderson with glass, which only caused minor injuries. Patti escaped with similar injuries. Patti was the first person to call 911, which was approximately four minutes into the massacre. She warned students to get under their desk and be quiet, while she was still trapped in between the two sets of doors.
Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable
Simon, Mel and the caretaker are victims or not liable for any torts. Consideration will be given for the liability of the persons in this scenario Sharon, Cheryl and the Surgeon who have potentially committed the following torts;