Is Liz Liable for Assault or Murder

Nicole can also sue Caroline for assault on the fact that she threw her shoe at her, which caused her a reasonable apprehension of harm, even though the shoe did not hit her. This is reinforced using the case of Stephens v Myers as assault without battery. Also for an assault to be committed there must be ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’ which is present in this scenario even though Caroline may try to hide under the protection of self-defence. That may not be possible because, there is a principle in self-defence that says both the action and reaction has to be proportionate. The case of Lane v Holloway supports this. In Cockcroft v Smith according to Holt CJ “hitting a man a little blow with a little stick on the shoulder, is not a reason for him to draw a sword and cut and hew the other”. The remedy available for this is damage and maybe damage and injunction if the court thinks that Caroline may want to retaliate still.

Both Ginger and Fred are liable, regardless of the circumstances, by virtue of the fact that they are partners.

Conclusion: Sylvia and Arnold are not held liable for a negligent tort against Betty because even though they didn’t warn her of unsafe conditions on their property, she simply wasn’t involved in a recreational activity upon entering their premises.

During a verbal altercation, Mrs. Bennett threw a hammer narrowly missing Mr. Darcy’s head. The issue is whether Mrs. Bennett possessed sufficient intent to establish a aggravated assault case. She claimed that she did not wish to harm Darcy. The author believes there is probably not enough to establish the element of intent to commit aggravated assault without any injury. In Commonwealth v. Matthew, the court held that intent may be inferred from the defendants conduct or words. The author argues that Mrs.Bennett never threatened to harm Darcy and walked away to wait for the cops. In Commonwealth v. Alexander, court that held that circumstantial evidence was not enough to prove intent to inflict serious injury. Mrs. Bennett’s claim that she

The plaintiff, Wilbur, bears the burden of proof, thus the impact the accuser must come across in order to win their case. About two months ago, Wilbur was attending an anger management counseling session with Chuck, who works for a Limited Liability Company XYZ Counseling Agency. During the session, Chuck became very angry at Wilbur for failing to improve and beat him up. In this case, Chuck’s assault towards Wilbur is

R/s around November 05, 2014, Calli (8) was severely injured. R/s Calli had extensive bruising to her face, two black eyes, facial swallowing, and bruising to her jaw. R/s also bruises was on the child’s lower back and upper leg. R/s it was reported that Calli could have had skull fracture. R/s the injuries was reported as suspicious nonaccidental trauma. R/s at the time of the incident Calli and her stepmother, Karen were the only two people at home. R/s Calli’s father Patrick was traveling out town for work. R/s on November 06, 2014, Patrick found Calli with the injuries to her face and the child was taken to the ER at Palmetto Health. R/s Karen pretended to the Calli’s mother. R/s according to Karen, Calli had fallen several times the few

When it comes to premises liability, it is necessary to ascertain the degree of reasonable person standard. Martha Merriweather was playing on a balcony with three other children, pulling herself upon the edge of the railing in an attempt to balance. She could have known the risks of such actions. However, children are not held the same standard of conduct as adults. In fact, a child generally is not expected to act as a reasonable adult would act. children do not comprehend obvious dangers, as well as cause and effect, the same way a more mature person would. Instead, courts hold children to a modified standard. Under this standard, a child's actions are compared with the conduct of other children of the same age, experience, and intelligence.

Lillian Hummel is the daughter of Eleanor Mingle. Just after 9 a.m. on August 6, 2014, Hummel saw her mother into the elevator on the twelfth floor of their apartment building. After a brief stop on the ninth floor, the elevator plummeted into the ground floor killing Mingle. Hummel then brought claim for negligent infliction of emotion distress (“NIED”) against Elite Elevator Company (“Elite”), which maintained the elevator. To recover for NIED, a party must [1] be closely related to the injury victim, [2] be present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs, [3] be aware that it is causing injury to the victim and [4] as a result suffer emotional distress beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness. Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 645 (1989). This memorandum will address only the first three elements of the four elements set forth in Thing. Hummel will likely be able to establish that she was closely related to the victim, present at the scene, and aware that the incident contemporaneously injured her mother because she was reasonably certain that Mingle was on the elevator at the time of the crash.

Joan was eventually put to death. In 1430, King Charles had Joan defend the town of Compiégne from an assault, but King Charles knew she wouldn’t be able to win and had basically handed Joan over to the English. Joan was held in Rouen for a year and tried at the English stronghold stationed in the city. She had 70 charges against her from sorcery to horse theft. By May, 1431, they had been brought down to just 12. She signed a contract saying that she had never received divine support. About a week later, after countless threats from guards, she put her male clothes back on and took her confession back, which sealed her fate. English soldiers led her to the center marketplace in Rouen on May 30, 1431, to be burned at the steak. It is said that

As mentioned above Katy caused Cheryl to be badly dazed by the throwing of the pint of beer, because Cheryl was hit in the head and therefore badly dazed Katy can be seen to have committed assault occasioning to actual bodily harm (ABH), this is found under s. 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (OAPA). It states that. “ Whoever shall be convicted upon indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm…to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding five years. “ that means that Katy is likely to serve the maximum of 5 years in jail. The reasons why will now be explained further, the Actus Reus for ABH is the assault or battery that is the throwing of the pint beer at Cheryl causes ABH that is the head injury that Cheryl receives.

This can be determined as any act that can breach a criminal law. A serious assault was stated as being an unlawful act. As an intentional blow is an act of assault, this can be considered serious as it was to the head and not soft, this is a breach of criminal law and thus makes it unlawful. Thus, as the act of serious assault and assault are both breaches of criminal law this would render the blow by Wilson as unlawful. Furthermore, for the defence of self-defence to be used, the punch must be considered as unlawful. There is no doubt that the act was intentional, as Wilson had agreed to the blow to the deceased, which makes it voluntary and intentional. This gratifies the mens rea component of manslaughter, in which that act was intentional. The justices further determined this, in that Wilson was in no real danger as he could of walked away, especially considering that Cumming was also there in support in case any imminent danger arose.

“Libby. You’re going to have to prepare yourself. The police want to talk to you, ask you a few questions. They’ve been waiting for you to wake up” (17). Libby’s mother told Libby that she needs to ready for the police, because Libby was going to get charged by the police. “Am i going to jail?” My voice was shaking(17). Libby felt so guilty, because she was drunk driving. Libby started to feel scared and shocked, she doesn’t want to see anyone, she just wanted to cry alone, she felt so guilt and sad for what she did. “Libby ... that night ... you hit someone with the car” (31). Libby hit someone who has been seriously injured. “The accident, the police, the guy I hit, Nate - my self-pity was increasing by the minute. I started to cry harder, until all my tears were gone and I’d practically hyperventilated” (33). She felt more guilty after she knew that she hit someone. “I wondered what kind of trouble he’d be in. But compared to what I’d done? “I’m guilty of way worse things””(52). After Kasey had a conversation with Cal, she knew that Cal is also in trouble, but compared to Cal, she felt that the thing she did is way more worse than Cal. Drunk driving is very dangerous, it will lead to accidents. If Libby didn’t drive after she was drunk, she would not get in trouble, and she would not kill her friend Kasey. The story is related to present days, drunk driving accident happens everyday. In the nowadays society, “Motor vehicle

result she suffered clinical depression. The courts’ ruling was that there was immediacy present and words could amount to an assault. If this were not the case then Eddy would not be liable for assault.

In order for Susie to sue Paul in the tort of Battery, she would have to prove that a direct positive act committed against her (Holmes v Mather) , made direct contact with her person (Hutchinson v Maughn) against her wishes/ without her consent (William v Holland) and Marion’s case, with the slightest application of force (Cole v Turner) , she does not have to prove anger as in modern tort anger is not necessary to establish Battery as in ( Rixon v Star) ,and without lawful justification (Fontin v Katapodis) , Here, Paul’s act of directly grabbing her hand, made contact with her body and the facts indicate that she felt intimidated, meaning she didn’t consent to it, and there is no justification for his action. Element satisfied.

- A slapped B and B fell on the ground and died. A is liable for the death of B even if it was mere slapping.