Negligence Or Strict Liability?

Every day twenty-seven people die as a result of drunk driving which equates to approximately 10,000 people a year. Driving under the influence is a crime when a person’s blood level of alcohol exceeds the legal limit of 0.08%. Standard penalties against first time offenders include: having their driver’s licenses revoked and paying a fine ranging from $500-$2,000. All drunk drivers should be imprisoned for eight or more months because they are likely to repeat the offense, they cause most automobile fatalities/injuries, and drivers can participate in rehabilitation programs while incarcerated.

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

The legal consequences of drunk driving are also severe. The more a person drinks, the more their ability to make important decisions wear down and becomes impaired. After even just one drink a person can lose the ability to operate a vehicle. At certain parts in the state of intoxication, it becomes illegal to drive a car and if you get caught it can possible lead to fines, or even imprisonment. The legal limit of alcohol you can consume changes from state to state, but the penalty of driving under the influence is always severe. Getting arrested and maybe being forced to sleep in a drunk tank is just some of the problems you also have to carry the humiliation and the shame of being caught and that person might just end up with their name written up in the local news paper. Alcoholism is a disease and it can make you do some things you would not want to and to repeat you're past mistakes. More than one-third of drives arrested for intoxication are repeat offenders. Drivers with a prior DUI offense have a much higher likelihood to be in a fatal

The legal consequences of drunk driving are also severe. The more a person drinks, the more their ability to make important decisions wear down and becomes impaired. After even just one drink a person can lose the ability to operate a vehicle. At certain parts in the state of intoxication, it becomes illegal to drive a car and if you get caught it can possible lead to fines, or even imprisonment. The legal limit of alcohol you can consume changes from state to state, but the penalty of driving under the influence is always severe. Getting arrested and maybe being forced to sleep in a drunk tank is just some of the problems you also have to carry the humiliation and the shame of being caught and that person might just end up with their name written up in the local news paper. Alcoholism is a disease and it can make

Driving under the influence of alcohol has been a major issue in America, spanning all the way back to more than 50 years ago (Raymond). Many accidents are caused from drinking and driving yearly, resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries involving innocent people. When alcohol is mixed with driving a motor vehicle, there are no limits to who may be at risk. This means that drunk driving has been harming, hurting and killing many innocent people in America. Over the years I have witnessed many aftermaths of drunk driving accidents and have heard of multiple accidents resulting from alcohol use involving people I know, and people I do not know. Sometimes, in accidents like these, all parties involved may walk away from the accident with

Negligence per se is when there is a form of negligence on the violation of public duty when there is a failure of care administered. It is also applied when a person does something that is not part of reasonable behavior. A plaintiff does not necessarily have to prove otherwise that a reasonable person could have acted any different in a situation. The way for a plaintiff to generally try and prove that the defendant has violated the statute to where the acts of the defendant could have caused damage or pain to where it was against what the statute represents and prevents. For example, if a doctor was operating on a person and accidently leaves an instrument that was used inside of the person that would be considered negligent under those

Teacher's role in the classroom is to take place of the parents whilst in school. They also must take reasonable action to decrease the likelihood of injury to students. (Queensland teachers union, teachers and law 5th edition page 7)

Drunk Driving is an issue that could prompt the driver, the traveler, and onlookers harmed or most noticeably bad not withstanding harms to property. It's an avoidable circumstance that happens frequently at any rate. Plastered driving is characterized as "the demonstration of working or driving an engine vehicle while affected by liquor"—in spite of the fact that medications is frequently included when it is called "driving impaired" or "driving while inebriated". It turns into an offense when mental and engine aptitudes are traded off.

Our text defines a tort as “a civil wrong” and negligence as “a tort, a civil or personal wrong” (Pozgar, 2012). Negligence as it is related to healthcare is an unintentional commission or omission of an act that a reasonably prudent person or organization would or would not do under normal circumstances. Not following a recognized standard of care could be considered negligence. The case I have chosen to study is one from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City Maryland and is that of Enso Martinez a minor by and through his parent (Rebecca Fielding) vs The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore Maryland July 2013. I would describe this as a landmark, “David vs Goliath” case

If fines are not paid the driver would have more consequential issues. Lastly, drinking and driving causes severe and painful results. After the driver crashes the non-sober driver immediately has injuries or has injured a person or even killed one. “By comparison, the agency reports that 28 people are killed every day in accidents involving drunk drivers,” (Sweat). Many are killed every day because of this which sadly destroys the heart of love ones. In addition, not only is the person who is under the influence of alcohol belong affected but also their loved ones who are in grief after

Most of the states in the United States consider driver under the influence and kill someone, vehicular manslaughter. According to Stim (2015), Alaska, Montana, and Arizona are the only three states that more often than not charge defendants with murder over manslaughter in vehicular deaths caused by driving under the influence. To put it in perspective, 94% of the states in the United States prefer manslaughter convictions over homicide. Vehicular manslaughter is broken down into two divisions. Vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and vehicular manslaughter with ordinary negligence. Gross negligence comes from driving that is extremely reckless. Ordinary negligence spawns from the driver failing to take the precautions as a typical driver, and injury/death is caused. For example, if an intoxicated driver is swerving all over the road and strikes a car that results in death for the opposing driver, that would be gross negligence. Now if an intoxicated driver fails to yield properly and t-bones a car that results in death of the other driver, that would be ordinary negligence. If a defendant is found guilty of vehicular manslaughter, they face at least 4-10 years behind bars for each person killed. Therefore, if a car has two people in it that were killed, the sentencing can be doubled. In comparison, if a murder charge sticks, the defendant’s sentence can range from 10 years to lifelong imprisonment. McCurley (2014) argues that both of the drivers involved in the accident could be found to be intoxicated. “If one driver lives and the other dies, why should the driver that survives be charged with murder?” He is saying that both drivers can be at fault as they were both intoxicated. The reason we lock away homicidal people is because of their mental state. We do not want them to be able to roam the free world and possibly commit murder again. When people drive under the influence and take a life, that does

Alcohol can cause a major accident on the road that also affects other. Just by opening a can of beer can lead us or someone else to death. “Every 2-hours, three people are killed in alcohol-related highway crashes”(Chambers, 2010). It may be easy, but the consequences don’t come to mind before. The consequences of driving and drinking “are arrests, property damage, injuries, and thousands of deaths each year “ (Chambers, 2010). One of my friends lost her mom about two years ago because a guy was driving under the influence of alcohol and was speeding where he lost control of the car and crashed into the car. Yes, the guy is still alive and the only one affected was my friend’s mom, she passed away on her way to Colorado to visit her family but sadly she never made

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to

In this report is a fully reasoned quantification of, our client, Mr. Steven Pearson’s personal injury claim against Mr. Fred Prendergast.

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.