Strict Liability

A strict liability offence is one where it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove any mens rea. In most cases of strict liability even if one did not have the intent to commit a crime, however reasonable, in relation to a particular element of the actus reus of an offence, they can still be convicted. This can be shown in reference to Prince and Hibbert. Prince (1875) the girl was taken by Prince even though he knew she was in the possession of her father as he believed she was 18. Mens rea was needed for him to be sentenced and this was recognized as he had the necessary intention to remove her. Hibbert (1869) the defendant had sexual intercourse with a 14 year old

Certain criteria should be considered when looking at a negligence case. Questions to be asked are; did the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff? Did the defendant breach that duty? Did the plaintiff suffer a recognizable injury? Did the defendant’s breach cause the plaintiff’s injury (p.114, Miller)? The answer to all of these questions is yes when looking at this particular case. The defendant had a duty to report the chromium leaks to the people it could have affected. A breach of that duty occurred when the plaintiffs were not informed of the chemical in their water supply. The plaintiffs then suffered multiple injuries of various degrees because they were not informed of the chemical in their water. Because PG&E did not inform the people in the area, these injuries did occur.

There are three theories of liability direct, vicarious, and enterprise. Direct liability has four types that are direct one of which is the principle in the 1st degree aka "the Perpetrator" which is someone who committed the crime willing on his own accord. The second is the principle in the 2nd degree aka "the Accomplice" which is someone who assisted the assailant with the delegation of the crime while also wanting to commit the crime at the same time he/she is also present during the scene of the crime. An accessory before the Fact is not present in the area of where the crime was committed, but helped by either counseling, encouraging, or urging the delegation of a crime. The Pinkerton Rule states that all accessories are liable for predictable actions that lead to being criminalized hence the violation of the criminal agreement. Even if the accomplice is not present at the scene of a committed felony crime they are still guilty. The two aspects are the specific resolve towards committing the crime the aiding of crime or encouragement towards the committing of a crime. A death penalty is only ever enforced on those who have committed the murder. The next type is the accessory after the fact which is someone who knows he/she has committed a crime and still aid with disturbing the case like hiding the assailant away from the police for example. They will also be charged with the felony since they know they committed the crime. Relations like with family is a type of

I read the article “No Delays Anticipated in 2017 Tax Filing Season, IRS Commissioner says” by Paul Bonner. It talked about filing deadlines for the next tax year and what to expect when filing. The IRS is projected to start accepting tax returns as early as the end of January. An exact date has not been stated, according to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

The Plaintiff attempted to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic to enter a gas station. The defendants' driver was speeding and ran a yellow light then struck the plaintiffs' car.

This scenario clearly states that the nurse-anesthetist had the duty of care when administering the anesthesia to the patient. With the assistance of the physician she neglected her duties by not properly inserting the tube into the patient’s trachea, instead it was placed into the patient’s esophagus causing an eruption and lack of the proper oxygen to the patent.

A.C. 1.3 - Identify organisational and personal responsibilities and liabilities under equality legislation and/or codes of practice

Trip and fall or slip and fall cases are also referred to a premises liability. A claim such as this generally arises due to a defect in the property’s floor that causes an individual to trip or slip and fall. The act of tripping or slipping on someone’s property does not automatically trigger liability. The fact that the defect exists is irrelevant unless evidence establishes that the property owner was aware of the defect and neglected to fix it.

The last two questions need to be covered. Who will the court rule in favor of and why? Up to this point it was been covered why Bob can bring suit against Eagle Tool, Inc. Let’s not forget Eagle Tool, Inc has the opportunity to provide a defense to the claim. With the information provided they have no defense under Assumption of risk, Product misuse, nor comparative negligence. It was covered above in the fifth element that there is room to argue the defective condition was the proximate cause of harm. Dan, Carl’s employee was handling the

S 402.A Special liability of seller of product for physical harm to user or consumer states “One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or his property”. For

Before students can participate in a club sport, they must sign a waiver of liability, an assumption of risk, and indemnity agreement (see Appendix ). With this agreement, the college wants to transfer liability risk to the student. Under Minnesota statute 604.055 (Waiver of Liability for Negligent Conduct), liability waivers are enforceable unless conduct that “constitutes greater than ordinary negligence is against public policy” is involved. Also, the statute gives a judge latitude to find fault under other statutes regardless of the waiver.

Contingent Liability is a condition that refers to the possibility of a future event happening and addresses the responsibility of the party liable should the event take place. In today’s real estate market both sellers and buyers may have contingencies stated in the terms and conditions for selling and purchasing a home. The most common contingent liability are guarantees to debt.

According to Miller (2013) in order to achieve the legal standard of negligence the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty for care and breeched that duty. In this case Myra must prove that Cardware had a duty to protect her from injury during the modeling event held at the Easton Hotel. This includes defining and or proving four elements in her case which are:

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.

Without the ability to assign liability, the environment of continually shifting responsibility will continue to foster lackluster security practices by all parties on the Internet and create undesirable economic costs. To address this issue, it is necessary to assess the parts of the problem including the costs of malicious traffic, the actors on the Internet, and issues around assigning liability. Following establishment of the factors is a recommendation for assigning liability.