Actus Reus refers to the physical part of a crime, which can be an act or an omission. There are several types of duties that can give rise to criminal liability for an omission, including statutory, contractual, and voluntary duties. Causation examines whether a defendant should be blamed for an offense and involves tests for factual and legal causation. Several rules apply to the causation analysis, such as the thin skull rule and rules regarding medical treatment, the victim's actions, and other intervening events.
Law according to the john austin vaibhav goyalVaibhav Goyal
John Austin is considered as the “Father of English Jurisprudence”. He is the founder of the Analytical school. He was greatly influenced by the scientific treatment of the Roman law and, therefore, he started scientific arrangement of the English law too. He applied the English method and avoided the metaphysical method which was prevalent in Germany and had German characteristics. Like Bentham, Austin believed that “law” is only an aggregate of individual laws. In his view, all laws are rules the majority of which regulate behaviour. These are either directives or those imposed by general opinion. A directive, whether general or particular, is the expression or intimation of your wish “that another shall do or forbear, issued in the form of a command”. Accordingly, a law in its most comprehensive signification is “rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him”.
Business Law Presentation for The Rules of interpretation and various cases connected to it .
R V Allen
Re Sigsworth
London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman [1946] AC 278
Advanatges and Problems of the Golden Rule
Advanatges and Problems of the Literal Rule
Advanatges and Problems of the Mischief Rule
Law according to the john austin vaibhav goyalVaibhav Goyal
John Austin is considered as the “Father of English Jurisprudence”. He is the founder of the Analytical school. He was greatly influenced by the scientific treatment of the Roman law and, therefore, he started scientific arrangement of the English law too. He applied the English method and avoided the metaphysical method which was prevalent in Germany and had German characteristics. Like Bentham, Austin believed that “law” is only an aggregate of individual laws. In his view, all laws are rules the majority of which regulate behaviour. These are either directives or those imposed by general opinion. A directive, whether general or particular, is the expression or intimation of your wish “that another shall do or forbear, issued in the form of a command”. Accordingly, a law in its most comprehensive signification is “rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him”.
Business Law Presentation for The Rules of interpretation and various cases connected to it .
R V Allen
Re Sigsworth
London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman [1946] AC 278
Advanatges and Problems of the Golden Rule
Advanatges and Problems of the Literal Rule
Advanatges and Problems of the Mischief Rule
Course ResourceDualplex 360
Notice: Contains confidential information.
Colossal Corporation maintains a subsidiary in Serafini, a small country in Eastern Europe. This subsidiary is incorporated in the state of Delaware as New Brand Design, Inc. (NBD), a company that designs, brands, and manufactures innovative electronic products, and markets and distributes them for resale across the globe. NBD has been admitted to conduct business in Serafini.
NBD has been manufacturing and distributing a laptop computer with 360-degree technology. The thin tablet can easily convert into a laptop by flipping the screen over and locking it in place against the back of the keyboard. The laptop, marketed under the name Dualplex 360 is very popular and is distributed primarily in Western Europe, North America, and South Africa.
The Dualplex 360 went on the market six months ago, and the product is selling out in the United States and Europe. Unfortunately, consumers have reported that some laptops that were shipped to the United States have overheated and ignited when they have remained plugged into a power source for too long. In a few cases, the laptops have burned users and damaged property.
NBD’s research and development team was fully aware of the overheating problem when putting the Dualplex 360 on the market but performed a cost-benefit analysis and determined that the payouts from lawsuits would be less than the cost of redesigning and manufacturing a new laptop. The research and development team covered up the defect but included the following disclaimer in the instruction manual:
DO NOT LEAVE THE DUALPLEX 360 PLUGGED IN TO A POWER SOURCE AFTER THE BATTERY IS FULLY CHARGED. SELLER EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES. SELLER MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE. NOR IS THERE ANY OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY.
The instruction manual contained no other warnings regarding the possibility of overheating or danger. To date, all instances of overheating have resulted from consumers ignoring the warning and leaving their computers plugged in after the battery is fully charged, although some claim they never read the instruction manual so did not see the warning.
The executive board of NBD has reached out to the CEO of Colossal to discuss these issues and the potential that NBD will be held liable for the overheating laptops and resulting injuries and damage to property. The CEO informed the board that the company’s international task force will research and address these concerns.
Learning ResourceFraud and Negligence Torts
Types of Torts
There are three broad categories of torts:
· intentional torts—Intentional torts, as the name implies, are characterized by the mental intent of the tortfeasor. The tortfeasor undertakes an activity with either the desire to bring about an intended result or with the knowledge that the result is “substantially certain." When the action results in an identifiable harm or loss to a third .
Stop the Line – Empowering Clinicians to Recognize and Act on Impending Adver...marcus evans Network
Sara Atwell, RN, MHA, Oakwood Healthcare System - Speaker at the marcus evans National Healthcare CNO Summit 2012, held in Hollywood, FL, April 26-27, 2012, delivered her presentation entitled Stop the Line – Empowering Clinicians to Recognize and Act on Impending Adverse Events
These slides have been produced for MobiMOOC a free Massive Open Online Course as part of the week 3 theme on MHealth. See http://mobimooc.wikispaces.com/Mobile+health+%28mHealth%29 The slides will also be made available as well.
SEVEN THINGS THE BEST LEGAL RECRUITERS DO THAT YOU CANNOT DO YOURSELF.pptxBCG Attorney Search
In this webinar with Harrison Barnes, you will learn:
- Why you need a legal recruiter to get an interview with major law firms.
- How to choose the right recruiter for your needs.
- How a legal recruiting firm is paid and why it does not hurt your chances of getting interviews.
https://www.bcgsearch.com/candidate_login.php
Presentation on Negligence
Made By:
Edited By: Ayush Patria, Sangam University, Bhilwara
Follow us on Instagram: @law_laboratory
Website: www.lawlaboratory.in
Evaluate Your Argument on the IssueIn this chapter you will lear.docxgitagrimston
Evaluate Your Argument on the Issue
In this chapter you will learn how to identify and overcome errors in reasoning. This is a special step that applies only to issues because resolving issues involves finding the most reasonable belief.
Two broad kinds of errors are examined—errors affecting the truth of your ideas and errors affecting the quality of your reasoning. A step-by-step approach to evaluate arguments is also included.
Because your main objective in addressing an issue is not to find the most effective action but to determine the most reasonable belief, your main task in refining an issue is to evaluate your argument to be sure that it is free of error. Two broad kinds of error must be considered. The first affects the truth of the argument’s premises or assertions. The second affects the argument’s validity—that is, the legitimacy of the reasoning by which the conclusion was reached. A sound argument is both true and valid.
Errors Affecting Truth
Errors affecting truth are found by testing the accuracy of the premises and the conclusion as individual statements. The first and most common error in this category is simple factual inaccuracy. If we have investigated the issue properly and have taken care to verify our evidence whenever possible, such errors should not be present. We will therefore limit our consideration to the more subtle and common errors:
· Either/or thinking
· Avoiding the issue
· Overgeneralizing
· Oversimplifying
· Double standard
· Shifting the burden of proof
· Irrational appeal
Either/Or Thinking
This error consists of believing that only two choices are possible in situations in which there are actually more than two choices. A common example of either/or thinking occurs in the creationism-versus-evolution debate. Both sides are often guilty of the error. “The biblical story of creation and scientific evolution cannot both be right,” they say. “It must be either one or the other.” They are mistaken. There is a third possibility: that there is a God who created everything but did so through evolution. Whether this position is the best one may, of course, be disputed. But it is an error to ignore its existence.
Either/or thinking undoubtedly occurs because, in controversy, the spotlight is usually on the most obvious positions, those most clearly in conflict. Any other position, especially a subtle one, is ignored. Such thinking is best overcome by conscientiously searching out all possible views before choosing one. If you find either/or thinking in your position on an issue, ask yourself, “Why must it be one view or the other? Why not both or neither?”
Avoiding the Issue
The attorney was just beginning to try the case in court when her associate learned that their key witness had changed his mind about testifying. The associate handed the attorney this note: “Have no case. Abuse the other side.” That is the form avoiding the issue often takes: deliberately attacking the person with the opposing view i ...
1. Click this
side of the Click this
screen to
Actus Reus
side of the
move screen to
backwards move
on all slides forwards on
all slides
Omissions and Causation
2. Actus Reus- an Introduction
• Actus Reus is the physical
part of a crime.
• It can be an act.
• It can be a failure to act
(an Omission).
• It can be a state of affairs
case- Larsonneur.
• It usually has to be
voluntary with D
conscious of his actions-
Hill V Baxter.
3. Omissions- Introduction
• This is a failure to act. It usually won’t
make D guilty of an offence. It means
that if I stood there and watched
someone died I wouldn’t be guilty of an
offence.
• There are however some exceptions to
this rule…
4. The Duties
• Statutory Duty- A duty imposed by a statute. Road
Traffic Act- Failure to provide a specimen of breath.
• Contractual Duty- A duty arising because of a
contractual agreement. Pitwood.
• Relationship Duty- A duty arising because of a
relationship. Gibbons and Proctor.
• Voluntary Duty- A duty someone has taken
voluntarily. Stone and Dobinson.
• A duty because of official Position- Where a certain
job or position creates the duty. Dytham.
• A duty because a dangerous set of events has been
set in motion- Where D has set some dangerous
events in motion and omits to act upon it. Miller
5. Further Duties
• Khan and Khan says there
could be more than those
six duties.
• Duty of Doctors- If it is
within the patients best
interest, the Doctor can
withdraw feed from a
patient. Airedale NHS
Trust V Bland.
• Euthanasia is unlawful.
6. Good about Omissions
• It is fair that the Police have a duty to
protect the public.
• It is good that parents have a duty of care
over their children.
• It is fair that those who set a dangerous
chain of events in motion are expected to
take reasonable steps to solve it.
• It is fair that those who undertake duties
voluntary are expected to live up to what
they agree to do.
7. Bad about Omissions
• Khan and Khan says there could be more than
six duties. It does not specify what they are and
for what they apply. Someone could be omitting
and not even know it.
• Duties from a statute can be applied to lots of
different scenarios, too many for anyone to
know.
• Too many statutes impose duties. It is
impossible for someone to know them all.
• Duty of Doctor’s is a difficult subject. Nothing
defines the line between best interest and
euthanasia.
8. Causation- Introduction
• Causation tests whether someone should
be blamed for an offence or not. There are
two tests to answer this question.
• The first test is Factual Causation. This
asks if D committed the Actus Reus or not.
“But for D’s actions, would V be in that
situation”.
• The second test is Legal Causation. This
tests whether it is fair to blame D or not.
Has D made more than a minimal
contribution to the consequence.
9. Causation- The Tests
• Factual- “But for D’s actions would V be in
situation?”. This means that if D hadn’t
done what he apparently did, would V still
be in the consequence? Pagett.
• Legal- The legal test tests whether it is fair
to blame D or not. This tests whether D
made more than a minimal contribution
and is it fair to blame D from this
contribution. Marchant and Muntz.
10. Causation- A few Points
• More than one act can contribute to the
consequence. The rule is that D’s act
should be more than minimal.
• D’s actions don’t have to be the main
cause or a substantial cause, it just has
to be more than minimal. There should
be more than a slight trifling link
between D’s act and the outcome.
Kimsey.
11. Causation- The Thin Skull Rule
• D takes V as he finds him.
• If V has some other
condition that D is
unaware of, and D
commits the Actus Reus
and the unknown
condition is made worse as
a result, D will still be
liable. Blaue.
12. Causation- Chain of Causation
• There is a chain between what D did and
the result on V.
• This chain can be broken by the act of a
third party. This could be medical.
• It can be broken by V’s own acts.
• It can be broken by an unpredictable
natural event.
• To break the chain it must be very separate
from D’s original act.
• If D’s act causes a likely response from a
third party he is still likely to be guilty.
Pagett.
13. Causation- Medical Treatment
• Medical treatment is unlikely to break
the chain of causation unless it is so
potent and so separate from D’s act it
renders the act as insignificant.
• Smith and Cheshire show poor medical
treatment with D still being guilty. This
is usually the way it goes.
• Jordan showed D being guilty. This is
rare and unusual.
14. Causation- Fright or Flight Rule
• If V tries to escape and dies as a result of
the escape or during the escape, or even
becomes more injured, it is likely D will
still be guilty. Roberts. Corbett.
• If V’s actions are reasonably foreseeable it
is likely D will still be guilty. Marjoram.
• The chain will be broken if D does
something so daft or unexpected that no
reasonable person could foresee it.
Williams.
15. Causation- V’s Self Neglect
• If V mistreats or neglects his injuries it
will not break the chain of causation.
Holland. Blaue. Dear.
• D must accept that V could be irrational,
stupid, religious, afraid of hospital or
refuses treatment. D will still be guilty.
16. Causation- The Good
• It is fair that it tests that D actually did
it and if it is fair to blame D for it.
• It is fair that D gets convicted if thin
skull rule appropriate, as it was his
actions that caused it.
• It’s fair that unpredictable natural
events break the chain of causation.
17. Causation- The Bad
• It is unfair that if V refuses treatment D is
still responsible.
• It is unfair that if bad medical treatment
kills V, D could still be liable.
• It is unfair that V not taking care of
himself doesn’t break the chain.
• It isn’t fair that if D’s act isn’t the main
cause he may still be guilty.
• What defines a “slight or trifling link?” or
“minimal contribution?”