Regina V. G and Another Case Brief

* 2. newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a

A) The topic concerning this case is negligence law. The issue is whether Simon would be successful perusing a negligence claim.

El Chico Corp., 732 S.W.2d 306. For instance, in Bruce, the court held that the inebriated state of a pair of customers of the defendant’s restaurant may be deemed to have been sufficiently apparent to the restaurant based on circumstantial evidence alone even if the defendant had not possessed actual knowledge of the pair’s condition. Bruce v. K.K.B., Inc., 52 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2001). The plaintiffs in Bruce suffered serious injuries after his car was struck by an intoxicated driver (a member of the aforementioned pair), who die died in the crash, who was driving home from the defendant’s restaurant. Id. In spite of testimony to the contrary by both the restaurant’s employees and the surviving member of the pair, the court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to exhibit that the driver had been “obviously intoxicated to the extent that she presented a clear danger to herself and other” at the time of service. Id. Analogously, in Perseus, the inebriated nature of a patron of the defendant’s bar was deemed to have been sufficiently apparent to the defendant, even if the defendant lacked actual knowledge of the patron’s condition, since the defendant should have had knowledge of the customer’s condition. Perseus, Inc. 995 S.W.2d 202. The defendants in Perseus. were sued after the aforementioned patron hit and killed two people after leaving

In Handleman, the plaintiff alleged that he could not have foreseen that he could be injured by exposed outcropping of rock. Handleman at 13. Similarly, plaintiff Adair alleges that “none of us bargained on putting our lives on the line by climbing without an anchor on a practice climb.” The court in Handleman forecloses this line of inquiry into foreseeability by reasoning that assumption of risk does not require “clairvoyance to forsee the exact accident and injury that in fact occurs.” Id. Consequently, the court held that all that is required to prove assumption of risk is that the injury “be within the range of possibilities.” Id. Falling is certainly within the range of possibility for anyone who is climbing high up on a rock formation, and therefore Adair assumed the risk of falling in the instant case.

This case falls into criminal case law. This is known from the title of the case being R v Davis, R being the Queen and Davis being the accused. In addition, the conviction was based off of laws that were broken listed in the Criminal Code of Canada.

The appeals court ruled that there was no evidence to show that the defendant’s conduct was willful or wanton or in reckless disregard to safety.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Discuss the potential criminal liability of Jonty and Patrick for the non-fatal offences against the person, including any relevant defences (50 marks)

Last of all, Cost of avoiding harm needs to be taken into account. The argument that a danger was too costly to eliminate is not a legitimate argument. However courts do recognise a balance between the risk and the cost of eliminating it. If the risk is remote and the precautions needed to be taken are very expensive, the defendants lack of action by not doing anything may be justified. The greater the risk is and the more likely it is, the consideration is given towards the cost of the eliminating measures which the defendants may have taken to safeguard. The decision in these circumstances relies on whether the courts decide that the defendants had acted reasonable in the given

Koppersmith’s testimony of his actions portrayed a picture of unintentional events. The judge referred to the Woods case, “ there was some evidence that the appellant failed to perceive the risk that the victim might die as a result of his actions.” Because there was evidence that gave a reasonable theory that would have supported the jury receiving instructions on criminally negligent homicide, there was error in the trial court not giving the jury the instructions. Therefore the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

A defendant ran through a stop sign while driving an automobile and convincingly showed he had done so unintentionally. Should the court have acquitted him? (free from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.)

Conclusion: The burning of three separate apartments within one apartment building do not offend the Double Jeopardy

The prosecutor advised the jury to consider the extent to which Ford recklessly and knowingly trade profit over safety in the placement and design of the Pinto’s gas tank. Ford Company went ahead to manufacture the car even after the engineers did a crash test that

c) Offer acceptable reasons for the crime (e.g. didn’t mean to; was intoxicated; was an accident)

Most felt there is a “Low Risk” of foundation damage to every home in Houston and the surrounding areas, and there is likely no such thing as “No Risk.” A voir dire question can be authored on this concept to identify potentially dangerous jurors. This theme will especially resonate with jurors having family and friends living throughout the Gulf Coast area, as they will be well aware that street, sidewalk and driveway cracks are not unique to the plaintiff’s