Midterm Contracts

Causation: Had the offender not hit the victim whilst he was walking across the driveway there is no chance he could have died. His death was a direct result of the offender’s actions, as the wounds sustained from the attack killed him shortly after an ambulance arrived on scene.

battle with his rationalization of the murders. He claimed that since Alyona, the first murder victim, was such a parasite to people, it was acceptable to kill her. He never mentions his other victim, Lizaveta, because she was the sweet and harmless one who’s murder he could not

I am here to discuss how there was a lot more to it than the murder of

a murderer, at the hands of the town mob that includes Antonio's dad is justified or not

Jenson, Caruso’s lawyer, wanted to call two girls from the party to testify against Guadagno. Judge Locallo said the state would then be allowed to call Deena, Caruso’s ex girlfriend, to testify. Deena’s statement would then not only implicate Guadagno in the case but it would also place Caruso, Jenson’s client, at the scene of the crime (Bogira 329). If Guadagno would have been forced to testify he would have been viewed as the third criminal and could have cleared Kwidzinski of any charges.

Application: There is no indirect causation in the crime of killing Norm. However, in the case of the stray bullet hurting Wanda, there is the act of homicide is a felony that is inherently dangerous and Wanda's death is the result of a direct action of Hal's murder of Norm.

2. Intent. Again, it would seem clear that, by firing the gun at Art, Charlie intended to

Mark was found outside the only exit Nancy could use, in his pickup truck drunk and asleep. When the police officer arrived, they had charged mark with an invasion of privacy for violating the terms of the protective order and public intoxication. Then the state of Indiana charged mark with attempted murder, a jury trial was held and the jury found Mark guilty. Mark was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and after completing his time five years of probation. The Indiana court had accepted mark collier appeal for his attempted murder charge, Mark had said that the evidence was insufficient and his acts were a preparation for the murder. The acts that mark had done makes the courts believe that mark was going to go through with the crime. The facts that were presented to the jury would make them believe that Mark had to take the substantial step for the crime of attempted murder. If Mark was awake, was going into the hospital, and opened to door, Mark would be guilty of attempted murder. The Indiana Supreme Court made a decision that mark was not guilty of attempted murder. Mark was not near Nancy since he was in the back of the parking

When someone doesn’t live up to their responsibility of exercising care, and that failure leads to another person’s injury or death, the action or lack of action is referred to as negligence. As an example, say someone causes a fatal accident because they were speeding. In this case, the driver who was driving above the speed limit acted negligently, and therefore can be held liable in court for damages caused. The victim’s surviving family members can also file a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the driver who caused the crash owes them damages associated with that untimely and unnecessary death.

“If the behavior of the defendant that killed a person did it on purpose and whether that person expected to have his/her actions to cause death.”

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

By shooting her husband, the Defendant is the proximate cause of Mrs. Summer’s injury of situational anxiety and psychological hysteria. In order to show that a defendant is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff must show that there was a sufficiently close, actual, causal connection between defendants conduct and the actual damage suffered by plaintiff. Rickstad v. Holmberg, 456 P.2d 355 (Wash. 1969). There are two elements in displaying the casual connection. First, plaintiff must show that the defendant’s action is the cause in fact plaintiff’s injury. Second, plaintiff must show that the defendant is the legal cause of her

Proximate cause or cause in fact must ordinarily be elements of proof in all personal injury actions. In negligence actions, the plaintiff must establish essentially four elements: 1) duty; 2) Breach of duty; 3) Causation; and 4) Damages. Obviously cause in fact and proximate cause are part of the causation element.

This is case that faces Mary Barnett. The issue in this case is that On January 23, the litigant, Mary Barnett, left Chicago to visit her life partner in San Francisco having left her six-month-old little girl, Alison, unattended in the apartment. Mary Barnett returned home a week later to find that her child had died of dehydration. She called the police and at first, to let them know that she had left her kid with a baby sitter. She later expressed that she had left the child and she didn 't mean to return, and that she knew Alison would die in a day or two. She has been accused of wrongdoing of second-degree murder; purposeful homicide without intention. In the event that she is sentenced, she could face up to eighteen years in prison. This piece of writing tries to give the verdict of the case after critically examining both prosecution and defendant side.

Whether the breach of duty has caused the plaintiff’s injury is the third element of negligence. Requirements for causation are causation in fact and proximate cause. Causation in fact is determined by the “but for” test, which means if it was not for the defendant’s breach of duty, harm or injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause is when the connection between the action (breach of duty) and the injury is strong enough to impose liability. Another issue that needs to be considered is foreseeability because the defendant’s action must have created a foreseeable risk of injury. In this case, the crew of Titanic was navigating the ship during the night at high rate of speed in water with