Trespass

In the last four years New York City taxpayers have paid out approximately $1 billion in awards for personal injury actions. Well over half of that amount was attributable to “pain and suffering,” a highly subjective and amorphous concept, as opposed to economic damages such as lost earnings or medical expenses. Of the total amount paid, 33 to 40 percent went to attorneys in the form of contingency fees or to experts or other in reimbursements for expenses. In FY 1977 the City’s total payout in tort actions was less than $25 million compared to $120 million in FY 1987 a mere ten year difference, and a staggering $282 million for FY 1996. Would you believe half of that money could have been used to hire 2,800 police officers or over 3,600 teachers? The time for corrective legislative action for New York has come.

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

Rida Elias wrote this case under the supervision of Professor Roderick E. White solely to provide material for class discussion. The

John Hopper and Wendy Lush were charged with Aggravated Serious Criminal Trespass in a Place of Residence under Section 170 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935. The possible punishments of this offence are maximum penalties of either 15 years for a basic offence, however, for an aggravated offence it could be lifetime in prison. For a lesser offence, the maximum penalty would be 3 years for a basic offence and 5 years for aggravated offences (see Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 170). This particular trial, including the charge and punishments, reflect the values of our society by showing that its not at all acceptable to force your way into a residential property and disrespect the privacy of a citizen.

Why is the speech of Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] All ER1; [1935] AC 462; (1935) 25 Cr App R 72, important?" This essay will explore (Woolmington 1935) and develop an understanding as to why (Fosters Crown Law 1762), (Sankey’s golden thread speech 1935) and the exceptions played a significant importance in the case of Woolmington v DPP.

Trespassing can cover a wide variety of offenses, whether it is against a person or property. Trespassing is entering someone's house or property without consent or being on premises in which you are not allowed to be on. There are many states that have laws for trespassing while many others do not. Before fearing for your life and actually putting weapons in thought you should secure yourself in a different form. Putting up signs around the area you do not want anyone near is one way. Even though some may not actually obey the sign put up many others who would just stand there without any negative intention behind it will obey.

shown in the case of Branson v Bower (No.1) where the claimant tried to sue on the

May it please the court that my name is Griffiths initial A, and I appear on behalf of the plaintiff Darcy Hanssen, in this matter. The facts of the case are not disputed, your honour. This incident concerns the tort of negligence whereby the Hanssen family seek compensation. Lifetime grievances have been sustained following the breach of “Duty of Care” from medical personal from the Peninsula Private Hospital, during the course of his birth. Your Honour, the plaintiff requests the disclosed amount be paid following the trail. As costs are extensive and necessary for Darcy’s medical well fare, the asking amount is to be in the millions.

Judges highlighted this in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, [2015] AC 1430, [2015] 2 All ER 1031.

This essay is going to look at the five situations where the trespass should be applied. The first one is whether Dobby is liable for trespassing to Draco’s factory site by using it for hand car-cleaning services even knowing that Draco is aware that it is being used. However there is no consent to do so. The second issue is whether Harry is trespassing the airspace of Draco’s property by flying a huge helium balloon several hundred feet above the park and by drifts in the wind it time to time passes over Draco’s land. The third issue is if Draco is liable for trespass to person when he throws Dobby into street. The fourth one arises when Harry tells Draco to ‘Piss off’ and the final the fifth issue is if Harry trespassed to person by

Later on in Silverman v. United States (1961) there had been a violation of the trespass doctrine. The evidence seized were incriminating conversations and nothing tangible. Nonetheless, the ruling stood on the grounds that since the spike mike broke the barrier of the wall on the defendant’s property it did violate the trespassed trespass doctrine.

In 1861, the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA 1861) was introduced to give distinction between various criminal acts towards other people. However, from its inception it has created the requirements for defences for the numerous offences. One of the most complex of these is the defence of consent, the one to be considered here. With regard to this problem, it is necessary to identify any crime that has been committed, examine how consent will apply and analyse how satisfactory the law is on this topic. I will first discuss what crimes Wilbur has committed followed by whether he can indeed use the defence of consent before finishing with my own thoughts on the law and how this area could possibly benefit from reform.

George P. Pozgar (2012), states, the basic objectives of tort law are as follows: (1) preservation of peace between individuals by providing a substitute

Presented are four separate cases that have been argued and settled in a court of law. Each of these cases represent a different kind of tort, a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, which can be either intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another (Hill & Hill n.d.). The torts are as listed, intentional, criminal, negligence, and liability as presented in the four researched cases.

SECTION 98: RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE AGAINST THE ACT OF A PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND