Please provide response on the following three responses:
#1)(4-5 sentences)Please give examples of Criminal Law concept relating to a current event and gives cross-over issues such as yelling at a golf match or fire in a movie theather. Free speech or criminal conduct?
#2)your opinion(4-5 sentences)tort is defined as a civil wrong arising from a breach of legal duty that causes harm or injury to another individual, whether intentionally or not. The fisherman was negligent when he did not care to help the kid that he saw fall in the water. the parents are also responsible and were negligent becuase it is there duty to watch over their child at all times. the duty of care states that in our society people should be able to exercise a reasonable amount of care in dealings with others, the
fisherman did not care enough to help the kid out there for the kid almost or did die. the parents of the child showed no care or responsibility over watching the kid, both people would be found guilty in court becuase as the court considers the case and looks at the nature of the act and the manner the act was performed showed no intention for the kid
to jump or in or willingness to do so. if it were a lifegaurd watching the kid, i think he would get in even more trouble becuase not only is he getting paid to watch over and care for the people within hi/her vicinity but as a person to take duty to care over
another. is this were a lifegaurd it would be known as malpratice, personally i would say the parents show malpractice in their firld of profession as well as
In the causation in fact, if the fisherman would have helped the kid out maybe less injury would have happened, but if the parents instead of watching the sunset were watching their kid there would be no injury.There are three different defenses that could be used, but one being if the plaintiff voluntarily goes into a risky situation would not work in this case becuase children do not know better. secondly there was no superceding cause to which the kid would have fallen in the water, and thirdly is the contributory negligence which is one should be able to
look out for themselves to certain decree; in this case the child is too young to understand how to look out for himself. that is why with children parents and others have to be extra aware and cautious of the child.
#3)your opinion(4-5 sentences) I think Palsgraf is suing the wrong person. Palsgraf should sue the man with the package
under causation and negligence. The man knew he had a package of explosives and he ran to catch the moving train instead of waiting for the next one. The railroad guards were not negligent in their actions to
Palsgraf. Who would know that the package contained explosives? Only the owner of the package. So Palsgraf should sue the man instead of the railroad company.
There are three questions regarding different situations where you are required to give the relevant law, clarify the conflict and give your decision. One case relates to public events, you may continue with the examples you have given or you may give fresh examples from current affairs and newspaper reports. The second case relates to a tragedy to a child caused by multiple negligence by both the parents and the fisherman. Finally, the third case requires you to give your opinion about an explosion caused by one commuter in rail to another and the role of the railroad company in the damages caused.
<br>There are several assumptions, which the question makes. First, in cross-over cases on the face of it the question assumes that the purpose is to communicate his thoughts and ideas, however there could be other reasons, for instance the man yelling at the golf match may have been hired to distract certain golfers during crucial episodes of play. Second, the question presupposes that no injuries take place, this may not be true in case of several cross-over case, for instance in setting fire to movie theatres it is not uncommon for either and employee or a movie-goer getting injured or even burnt, in this case immediately on charges of murder or attempt-to-murder, criminal proceedings may begin. Third, in case of child negligence the question never addresses the issues of motivation of the parents. Have the parents taken out a life-insurance policy on the child, and if so, who is the beneficiary? Fourthly, the question omits mentioning the railroad rules with regards to explosives. If the rules state that persons traveling on rail are not allowed to ...