The duty of care imposed by law is measured by the degree of carefulness that a reasonable person would exercise in a given situation. Duty to act is a person is under a duty to everyone at all times to exercise reasonable care for the safety and protection of the people and their property. However, in certain special cases, no one is required to aid another in risk. Factual cause is when the defendant’s actions are factual causes of the harm when the harm would not have occurred without such conducts, while scope of liability is a limited liability to those harms that result from risks that made the defendant’s actions tortious. Scope of liability is divided into two parts; foreseeability, which excludes liability for harms that were sufficiently unforeseeable at the time of the tortious act that were not among the risks that made the defendant negligent; and superseding cause, which is an intervening act that relieves the defendant of liability.
At times criminal intent is used in the sense of mens rea-the mental element requisite for guilt of the offense charged. Knowledge; the law can presume knowledge of facts under the doctrine of notice where a person would have known if he had made proper enquiries. Recklessness must be judged under two scenarios firstly was the risk taken unjustifiable, secondly it may sometimes be seen to be justifiable on the basis of social utility, circumstances must be taken into consideration. The question is as to whether the recklessness in question shall be judged subjectively or objectively. Subjective recklessness involves the conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk.
This objection states that the guidance that lex provides is often wrong as it requires the state to be responsible for inflicting the same deeds on criminals which ultimately compromises the morality of law enforcement (186). This objection is relatively easy to support, however, there is potential to highlight the shortcomings within its argument. For example, it can be argued that there are rare situations in which rape can be justified and therefore not a punishable offence. The claim that there is a situation that rape could ever be considered a feasible action is preposterous in today's society, however, it is a situation in which this objection could be
This is a critical element of a crime in the sense that the occurrence of a criminal offense is either voluntary or purposeful. A crime act usually comes from what is popularly referred to as ancient maxim that is the “act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty.” As such, it is required that for on to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused not only committed the particular offense (actus reus) but also that the crime was committed with the sole intention of committing the crime (the defendant had the mens rea when committing the crime. (Karlen H. Peter
CHAPTER VII IMPLICATIONS OF HAVING A CLEAR DEFINITION WITH ITS CORRESPONDING ELEMENTS FOR THE CRIME OF UNJUST VEXATION Substantially, defining the crime of unjust Vexation with corresponding elements would bar any challenges against its constitutionality based on the grounds mentioned in Chapter V of this paper. Procedurally, defining the crime of Unjust Vexation with corresponding elements will also help both the prosecution and the accused avail of several procedures recognized under our criminal procedure, such as: Plea Bargaining The rule on the provisions on Pre –Trial indicates that plea bargaining is one of the matters to be considered during the pre-trial stage, a proceeding conducted before the trial. “Rule 116, Sec. 2: Plea of
Evidence is typically introduced to a judge or a jury to prove a point or element in a case. In criminal law, evidence is used to prove a defendant 's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, before evidence can even be used in a criminal case, it must be considered “admissible”. Whether evidence is admissible or not depends on several different factors that the court must analyze. Many different items and statements are often excluded from evidence in a criminal trial because it is considered “inadmissible”.
Torts are considered unfair acts that result in loss, causing damage or injury to anyone else in the form of “body, property, or legal rights”. The reason behind this is the violation of duty that was owed as decreed by law. Tort laws are considered civil wrong and the individual who is wronged can sue in the civil court either as compensation or some form of equitable remedy to have prevented repetitive actions. When parties are bound by contracts, contractual liability also exists. Companies and individuals are all applicable for Tort Laws.
The basis of the case was that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer, such that there was no harmful substance in his product, that he ahd breached his duty of care and that the appellant had suffered injury as a result. The House of Lords reviewed the few precedents and by a majority of two out of three decided in favour of the appellant, thus establishing the existence of tort of negligence for the first time. However, although it is possible to find cases in which it is arbitrated purely on the basis of foresight that a duty of care exists, it is too primitive to consider foresight or ‘reasonable contemplation of harm’ alone is the test to prove the presence of duty of care. For instance, in Marc Rich & Co. v Bishop Rock Marine , the House of Lords were of the view that, whatever be the nature of the harm caused, the court should consider foresight, proximity and whether in all the circumstances it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. 2.1.2.
The use of force can be justified in self-defence and the prevention of crime by determining the burden of proof. In some situations there can be an overlap, where the claimant cannot rely solely on statutory defence. In the situation of a person not being capable of committing a crime – for example underage, or insane then they would have to rely upon the Common Law. The amount of force used in both must be reasonable. In the case of R v Cousins (1982) it was held that both defences are available to an
It is considered that motive is a must for a criminal act. A mere commission of act does not prove a person guilty. Law recognise the concept “ actus non facit reum , nisi mens sit rea “ i.e the physical act alone does not make a person guilty ; the component in the form of evil intent ( guilty mind ) is equally important. Insanity or mental abnormality is one of the general exception to criminal liability recognised by IPC. The justification for providing unsoundness of mind as a complete defence is that an insane person is incapable of forming criminal intent.