|
Negligence Per Se
Negligence ''per se'' is a doctrine in US law whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute (or regulation). The doctrine is effectively a form of strict liability. Negligence ''per se'' means greater liability than contributory negligence. Elements In order to prove negligence ''per se'', the plaintiff usually must show that: # the defendant violated a common law duty of care or a duty of care under statute, # the act caused harm or all harm the statute was designed to prevent, and # the plaintiff was the victim suffering harm due to the breach of the duty of care generally and as a member of the statute's protected class. The Common Law will not be abrogated by statute but may be adopted by statute. The Common Law will always remain our tradition and the basis of principles that inform the appropriate development of statutory laws and codes. New arrivals to the discussion may not like the word "owe" in the formulation of the discussion involving duties o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
US Law
The law of the United States comprises many levels of Codification (law), codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the supreme law is the nation's Constitution of the United States, Constitution, which prescribes the foundation of the federal government of the United States, federal government of the United States, as well as various civil liberties. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of Act of Congress, Acts of Congress, treaty, treaties ratified by the United States Senate, Senate, regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the United States federal courts, federal judiciary. The United States Code is the official compilation and Codification (law), codification of general and permanent federal statutory law. The Constitution provides that it, as well as federal laws and treaties that are made pursuant to it, preempt conflicting state and territorial laws in the 50 U.S. states and in the territor ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
New York Court Of Appeals
The New York Court of Appeals is the supreme court, highest court in the Judiciary of New York (state), Unified Court System of the New York (state), State of New York. It consists of seven judges: the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, chief judge and six associate judges, who are appointed by the Governor of New York, governor and confirmed by the New York State Senate, state senate to 14-year terms. The chief judge of the Court of Appeals also heads administration of the state's court system, and thus is also known as the chief judge of the State of New York. The Court of Appeals was founded in 1847 and is located in the New York Court of Appeals Building in Albany, New York. Nomenclature New York uses an unusual nomenclature for its state courts. In the Federal judiciary of the United States, federal court system and in all other U.S. states, the court of last resort is known as the "Supreme Court". New York, however, calls its lower courts the "New York State Sup ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Illegal Per Se
In US law, the term illegal ''per se'' means that the act is inherently illegal. Thus, an act is illegal without extrinsic proof of any surrounding circumstances such as lack of ''scienter'' (knowledge) or other defenses. Acts are made illegal ''per se'' by statute, constitution or case law. Drunk driving Many drunk driving laws make driving with a blood alcohol content over a certain limit (such as 0.05% or 0.08%) an act which is illegal ''per se''. Antitrust In the United States, illegal ''wikt:per se, per se'' often refers to categories of Anti-competitive practices, anti-competitive behavior in antitrust law conclusively presumed to be an "unreasonable restraint on trade" and thus anti competitive. The United States Supreme Court has, in the past, determined activities such as price fixing, geographic market division, and group boycott to be illegal ''per se'' regardless of the reasonableness of such actions. Traditionally, illegal ''per se'' anti-trust acts describe horizon ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mens Rea
In criminal law, (; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of ''mens rea'' and '' actus reus'' ("guilty act") before the defendant can be found guilty. Introduction The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase ,1 Subst. Crim. L. § 5.1(a) (3d ed.) i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law.". . . a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense." Model Penal Code § 2.02(1) Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 127 Moreover, when a person intends a harm, but as a result of bad aim or other cause the intent is transferred from an intended victi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sweet V Parsley
''Sweet v Parsley'' was an important English criminal law case concerning the reaffirming of presumption of mens rea in criminal law. The case defendant landlady of a farmhouse (which was let to students and which she visited infrequently) was charged under a 1965 Act "of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis". Even though she had neither knowledge of nor privity with the offence, it took place on her property and at first instance she was convicted, being deemed "liable without fault". This conviction was later quashed by the House of Lords on the grounds that knowledge of the use of the premises was essential to the offence. Since she had no such knowledge, she did not commit the offence as the presumption that mens rea was required was rebutted. Effectively the absence of express words imposing the requirement of proving mens rea is not conclusive that the offence is one of strict liability. Requirement of ''mens rea'' Lord Reid decl ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hughes V Lord Advocate
Hughes v Lord Advocate is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement" ''per se''). The case's main significance is that, after the shift within the common law of negligence from strict liability to a reasonable standard of care, this case advocated a middle way, namely: *Even if the loss or harm is not itself foreseeable, liability may arise provided the actual loss falls with a "foreseeable class of harm". This idea was neither developed nor expanded upon, and only one year later the claimant in '' Doughty v Turner Manufacturing'' obtained no remedy ''via'' this "middle way". However, the case was followed in subsequent cases on occupiers' liability. Facts One evening in November 1958, two boys aged 8 and 10 were walking down Russell Road, Edinburgh where some Post Office workers were repairing cables under the st ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd V Morts Dock And Engineering Co Ltd
''Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd'',. commonly known as ''Wagon Mound (No. 1)'', is a Lists of landmark court decisions, landmark tort law case, which imposed a Remoteness in English law, remoteness rule for causation in negligence. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance. ''The Wagon Mound (No 1)'' should not be confused with the successor case of the ''Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship'' or "Wagon Mound (No 2)", which concerned the standard of the reasonable man in breach of the duty of care.. Facts In October 1951, ''Wagon Mound'', a ship of Overseas Tankship, docked in Sydney Harbour. The crew allowed furnace oil, also referred to as Bunker oil, to leak from the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Donoghue V Stevenson
''Donoghue v Stevenson'' [1932] AC 562 was a Lists of landmark court decisions, landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care. Also known as the "Paisley Snail" or "Snail in the Bottle" case, the case involved Mrs May Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. Unknown to her or anybody else, a decomposed snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and subsequently sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers. Prior to ''Donoghue v Steven ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Re Polemis
'' In Re'' ''Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd'' (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. The case is an example of strict liability, a concept which has generally fallen out of favour with the common law courts. The case may now be considered "bad law", having been superseded by the landmark decisions of ''Donoghue v Stevenson'' and '' The Wagon Mound (No 1)''. Facts Defendant's stevedore employees were loading cargo into a ship. An employee negligently caused a plank to fall into the ship's hold. The plank caused a spark, which ignited some petrol vapour in the hold, causing an explosion that resulted in the ship becoming a total loss. The matter was taken to arbitration. Judgment The arbitrator found that the defendant's negligence caused the plank to f ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Benjamin N
Benjamin ( ''Bīnyāmīn''; "Son of (the) right")blue letter bible: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3225/kjv/wlc/0-1/ H3225 - yāmîn - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) was the younger of the two sons of Jacob and Rachel, and Jacob's twelfth and youngest son overall in Jewish, Christian and Islamic tradition. He was also considered the progenitor of the Israelites, Israelite Tribe of Benjamin. Unlike Rachel's first son, Joseph (Genesis), Joseph, Benjamin was born in Canaan according to biblical narrative. In the Samaritan Pentateuch, Benjamin's name appears as "" (Samaritan Hebrew: , "son of days"). In the Quran, Benjamin is referred to as a righteous young child, who remained with Jacob when the older brothers plotted against Joseph. Later rabbinic traditions name him as one of four ancient Israelites who died without sin, the other three being Chileab, Jesse (biblical figure), Jesse and Amram. Name The name is first mentioned in letters from King Sîn-kāšid of Uruk (1 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Martin V
Pope Martin V (; ; January/February 1369 – 20 February 1431), born Oddone Colonna, was the head of the Catholic Church and ruler of the Papal States from 11 November 1417 to his death in February 1431. His election effectively ended the Western Schism of 1378–1417. As of 2025, he remains the last pope to have taken the pontifical name "Martin". Biography Oddone Colonna was born between 26 January and 20 February 1369 at Genazzano, the son of Agapito Colonna family, Colonna, Lord of Genazzano, Capranica Prenestina, San Vito Romano, San Vito and Ciciliano from 1374, who died after 23 May 1398, and wife Caterina Conti di Segni, Conti. He belonged to one of the oldest and most distinguished families of Rome. His brother Giordano, Lord of Genazzano, Capranica Prenestina, San Vito and Ciciliano, a Neapolitan General, Patrician of Naples in 1417, was shortly Prince of Salerno and Duke of Venosa from 3 August 1419, dying of plague on 16 August 1422, having married Mascia Annibaldi, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fitzroy Kelly
Sir Fitzroy Edward Kelly (9 October 1796 – 18 September 1880) was an English commercial lawyer, Tory politician and judge. He was the last Chief Baron of the Exchequer. Background and education Kelly was born in London, the son of Robert Hawke Kelly (died in or before 1807), a captain in the Royal Navy. His mother was the novelist Isabella Kelly, daughter of Captain William Fordyce, Groom of the Privy Chamber to George III. In 1824, he was called to the bar by Lincoln's Inn, having already gained a reputation as a skilled special pleader. Career In 1834 Kelly was made a King's Counsel, remarkably after only ten years' call. A strong Tory, he was returned as Member of Parliament for Ipswich in 1835, but was unseated on petition. In 1837 however he again became member for that town. From 1843 to 1847 he was MP for Cambridge, and in 1852 was elected member for Harwich, but with a vacancy suddenly occurring in East Suffolk, he preferred to contest that seat and was elect ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
