Theories Of Liability Direct, Vicarious, And Enterprise

Accomplice liability consents the court to find a person or persons criminally liable for actions committed by another person. Criminal liability is when a person is commits the crime or act and that he or she intent to commit the crime at that moment. Sergeant Cotton was acquitted of all criminal charges against him in the criminal side. However, the Robert and Marian Tolan felt that the lower court’s decision was not fair. I do agree with the Tolans. I believe that courts did not take the evidence that was present to them inconsideration that Cotton was guilty. Cotton carelessly made an error on typing in the car tag number that Robert Tolan and his cousin was driving. Since, he made that mistake he is responsible criminal and civil. He should have been since to prison time and he should be responsible of the wellbeing of Robert Tolan. On the other hand Cotton was found not criminal liability for the charges in criminal court but Tolan took his case to the Supreme Court. Cotton then was found responsible in civil court.

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

This happens when there are parties to a crime which includes: Principal in the first degree (The killer), principal in the second degree (The gun supplier), accesory before the fact (Friend that helped plan the killing) and accesory after the fact (Helped drive getaway vehicle).

There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen. The 'neighbour principle' was established in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932).

A moral hazard is an occasion in which there is a lack of incentives to prevent against possible risks because one is protected from the consequences that could occur. Such a moral hazard can regularly occur in a crisis in terms of how people in higher positions react to handling such a situation. If someone like a banker has the confidence that they would be bailed out if a crisis occurs it provides them with an incentive to practice risker business practices. In the situation of a crisis that is already underway the government is unable to let large and prominent financial institutions fail. As a result they must bail them out and in such an action they create a moral hazard. It provides the financial sector an incentive to practice

For example a person who breaks in to a home with the intention of committing a felony is criminally liable for the crime of burglary. A person who agreed to drive the person to the home who knows the first person committed a crime has accomplice liability. An accomplice is a person who acts as an enabler for the principal perpetrator of the crime. In Graham v. Connor there was no criminal liability or accomplice liability because no crime occurred.

Within certain circumstances, liability is based on the accused 's action, which is also known as an act of omission or negative act. Regardless of the defendant 's motive, the failure to act supports a finding of criminal liability only when the s/he is under a binding legal duty, has the necessary knowledge to behave aptly and carrying out his or her responsibility is possible. Even so, there are instances when the issue of guilt results from a lack thereof. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided as a matter of law by the court. With regard to any crime, all criminal elements are distinguishable and identifiable for the careful analysis of each issue. Take for example the difference between points of dispute in Proctor v. State (1918) and People v. Newton (1973) when reading Criminal Law: Cases and Methods.

This essay will explain the concepts of separate personality and limited liability and their significance in company law. The principle of separate personality is defined in the Companies Act 2006(CA) ; “subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company are a body corporate by the name contained in memorandum.” This essentially means that a company is a separate legal personality to its members and therefore can itself be sued and enter into contracts. This theory was birthed into company law through the case of Salomon v Salomon and Co LTD 1872. This case involved a company entering liquidation and the unsecured creditors not being able to claim assets to compensate them. The issue in this case was whether Mr Salomon owed the money or the company did. In the end, the House of Lords held that the company was not an agent of Mr Salomon and so the debts were that of the company thus creating the “corporate Veil” .

1. Teddy's Supplies' CEO has asked you to advise him on the facts of the case and your opinion of their potential liability. Write a memo to him that states your view of whether the company is exposed to liability on all issues you feel are in play. Include in your memo any laws that apply and any precedent cases either for or against Teddy's case that impact liability. Include your opinion of the "worst case" of damages the company may have to pay to Virginia. (Points : 30)

As a starting note, any mention of concurrent liability should be assumed to mean concurrently liability in tort and contract. Traditionally the distinction between contract and tort was that contract concerns the improvement of the claimant 's position, whereas tort is concerned with dealing with their position worsening. There has been dispute around concurrent liability and its ambiguity has led to varying decision in cases and statute making as Taylor puts it “the basis of concurrent liability uncertain”. This essay will argue Tort has and is extending itself beyond its traditional role due to judges presumption of morality leading to the unclear concurrent liability we see today. Whilst this concurrent liability shows some

Complicity, better known as accomplice liability, is the act of assisting or encouraging another to commit a crime. Often times this term is correlated with the act of aiding or abetting which can be interpreted easily. Although an accomplice did not directly act within the crime, their actions that positively affected the crime can lead to their conviction as an accomplice. This can be a person who stood by and watched a crime happen, a person who helped plan out the process of a crime, or even a person who ignorantly aided one another with a crime. In two different cases studied, Pace vs. State of Indiana and Settles vs U.S, the appellants on trial are fighting against their involvement in their separate crimes. For Pace, his involvement with a robbery taken place within his vehicle that he failed to stop rules him liable as an accomplice. With his driving during the robbery and assisting the criminals escape from the victim, a trial could be formed to convict him as an accomplice. In the Settles case, a man, Whitley, is on trial for being an accomplice to a kidnapping and sexual assault committed by Settles. Without knowledge if Whitley had any involvement in the planning process of the crime, the trial stands to convict Whitley for standing watch out and allowing a crime to occur. A testimony by the victim claiming that Whitley was seen running away from the scene of the crime with Settles also ads to the evidence being used to convict him as an accomplice.

In this age of endless lawsuits and litigation from everyone suing everyone else, one must ask the question “where does product liability end and consumer responsibility begin?” This question has been further complicated by occurrences that stretch to the most far-reaching ends of this spectrum, the spectrum ranging from strict product liability of the company to complete consumer responsibility. On the strict product liability of the company side, we have the cigarette industry where the CEOs of the largest cigarette companies denied that their product was liable for the cause of addiction. Almost all consumers know that the ingredient nicotine in cigarettes is addictive, due to extensive scientific testing and reports on this fact. What

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.

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.

The English Law on Vicarious Liability An employer is responsible for damage caused by the torts of his employees acting in the course of employment. This is known as ‘vicarious liability’[1]. Essentially, vicarious liability is where the employer is generally substituted in terms of liability for the employee, the employee also has liability but the resources of the employer such as insurance makes them more financially attractive to the claimant. The mechanism of vicarious liability is arguably the best compromise between the needs of tort victims and the freedom of businesses as the employer usually has insurance to cover the tort of the employee, making it more financially viable to the