Tort reform

Finally, in Mainor, the clients claimed that their attorney conspired to deprive their son of his money and as a result he received insufficient compensation. Mainor v. Nault, 101 P.3d 308, 310 (Nev. 2004). They allege their attorney violated the rules of professional conduct. Id. The court in Mainor stated that “An attorney's violation of professional rules of responsibility does not create a private right of action, but is relevant to the standard of care owed by an attorney.” Id. at 321.…

James Whitten will likely fail to satisfy the requirements of the affirmative defense of necessity because he should not have reasonably believed his circumstances were life-threatening or sufficiently urgent. To claim the affirmative defense of necessity in Garner, the defendant must first prove that he “was compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another,” and “[t]he urgency of the circumstances made it necessary for [him] to violate the law.” Gar.…

Police v Will and Amena Issue: Can Amena and Will be charged with Actus Rea and Mens Rea Rule: Actus Rea: An act that is voluntary or there is an omission Mens Rea: A person is not guilty of an offensive unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently. Analysis: Mens Rea Issue: Did Will and Amena act purposely? Rule: Purposely: a person acts purposely when they have a conscious object to engage in a conduct. Analysis: The state will argue, Will and Amena making plans…

Milne v Harrower Milne v Harrower tackles the crime of threatening or abusive behaviour in s. 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. Within this section it is stated that a person has committed the crime if their behaviour “would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm” , as well as the accused “intends by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm” . This definition was clarified…

Every year, over 1.35 million children sustain a serious injury while participating in a sports related activity (Healy, 2013). Each of these injuries represents potential negligence litigation against athletic leaders including coaches. As a result, organizations have developed legal duties derived from lawsuits against coaches and schools where negligence contributed to an athlete’s injuries. These fourteen legal duties represent the standards or obligations expected of athletic leaders.…

TABLE OF CONTENT 1. WHY SHOULD WE KNOW ABOUT CONTRACT? ......3 2. PROJECT CLAIM MANAGEMENT…………………….4 3. BASIC STEPS- CLAIM MANAGEMENT……………….5 4. OBJECTIVES OF CLAIM MANAGEMENT…………….7 5. CLAIM MANAGEMENT- BEST PRACTICES………….8 6. INPUT/T&T AND OUTPUT………………………………9 7. CONCLUSION…………………………………………….10 8. REFERENCE……………………………………………....10 WHY SHOULD WE KNOW ABOUT CONTRACT? Let’s consider we are managing a project, which can be a smaller project or complex type project. Before proceeding to the…

Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3B & S 826 Introduction The case of Taylor v Caldwell is a fundamental case in the area of frustration with regards to contract law. Taylor v Caldwell is an extremely important case, as Murray states, "frustration developed to alleviate harshness of absolute obligation rule". Frustration comes about in circumstances where the courts will discharge the parties of obligations under the contract, therefore meaning that the parties are not liable for any further…

In considering reparations, Waldron first discusses the counterfactual approach where the ultimate aim of reparation is a full demand to rectify the injustice to the extent that the community affected is similarly placed in a situation had it not occur (7). Waldron largely draws from Robert Nozick’s principle of rectification in his theory of historic entitlement, stating that causal laws and subjunctive information may be applied to determine the equivalent future (8). However, Waldron points…

Now that Stark vs. Ford Motor Co. has been resolved it is important to review both the ethical and business implications resulting from the decision. In particular, was Indiana’s law just in the judgement of this case or should it be different? I believe Indiana law was reasonable in distributing remedies for contributory negligence because there was material evidence unlike in Whitted vs. General Motor Corporation. In this case, a man whom was in a car crash was injured because his seatbelt…

The mechanical importation of the criteria of ‘forum non conveniens’ to anti-suit injunctions was criticized on the ground that while the atonement of criteria in respect of stay of proceedings meant greater submission towards international comity, when the same criteria were applied in reverse for the granting of anti-suit injunctions it resulted in an unnecessary and unjustified interference with the foreign proceedings. Nevertheless, the reasoning adopted in Castahno was adopted in…