The tort reform make clinicians have no full responsibilities to compensate for the malpractice, and they will not need pay for the cost. However, this is not mean that it is unfair to patients. For big medical treatments, such as surgeries, patients’ families usually need to sign a contract for possible medical risks that might happen. This is also a protection to doctors. With tort reform, the society become a physician-friendly practice environment.
It means that no person and in this case healthcare personnel will not be responsible for any events or situations that are unforeseen. Situations such as natural disasters like floods and earthquake, fire, and some events like accidents under this doctrine (“Publications/Veneble Mobile Site”). During these events, the healthcare staffs are not to hold negligent. The force majeure clause is also a contract provision that sets the person or persons free from performing their responsibilities and obligations when there are certain events that are beyond their control which makes their obligations impossible, impractical, illegal and inadvisable. This is very significant in managing the care of their patients since in the event of fires or any other disasters; they cannot save every patient without risking their own lives.
The first defense is based on the principle of vicarious liability. According to Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd  HCA44, the truck driver, an employee of Brown, can shift his liability to his employer. The key issue was whether the activities of the employee in committing the tort could be said to be within the scope of his employment. The second defense is based on contributory negligence. This situation is similar to the fact in Joslyn v Berryman  HCA34.
As the consequentialist theory implies that one should make decision after calculating its repercussions on others, this case shows that some cases cannot fit into the consequentialist theory as every decision in business cannot be monitored and its consequences predicted accurately beforehand. A non-consequentialist theory judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the intrinsic value, not on its consequences i.e. morality is based on duty. Consequentialisim, however is a doctrine where your action is judged on the consequence it bears. Non-consequentialism hence denies the fact that the wrongness or rightness of our conduct is determined solely by the goodness or badness of the consequences it
This is what Fuller terms as 8 principles of internal morality of law. Non-compliance of any of the criteria would mean that it is not law. Retroactivity can't be justified as it penalizes an individual for a crime which is not a crime before the passing of the law. Based on internal morality of law, Fuller stated that “retroactive law is not a law at all.” The same goes to the predecessor's law for not complete the purposive enterprise. Accordingly, in Fuller's view the predecessor law of conceding immunity would be invalid and there is no need for the enactment of a law retrospectively.
In case of both partial and complete integrations, the extrinsic evidence opposing the writing is eliminated, as per the parol evidence rule. Though, in case of partial integration, the supplementing terms to the writing are taken as admissible. The parol evidence rule is very strong; therefore, while construing a contract, the extrinsic evidence is avoided from being taken into consideration. This provision is known to be as the Four Corners Rule. There are two fundamental rules in this Four Corner Rule: • First, if the intention of the parties indicates a complete integrated agreement, the court will never consider any parol evidence, and • Second, the court will only consider the parol evidence, in case the written terms shows any
This is crucial in case of car or road accidents. Being covered will help you get protection in case of the unlikely event of an accident. In case it is not your fault, you would still want to be covered against someone with inadequate insurance. In Case of Injury/ Death If your family, kin or dear one is lost due to negligent driving or rash use of automobile you should file for compensation. The wrongful death or injury of a loved one is not something that you can compensate – but justice should prevail.
In that case, this really would be no different from hating specific race groups or other religions. Running a business, in this day and age, should not allow someone to turn customers away based solely on who they are or who they love. While some have compared it to the rule of “No shoes, No shirt, No service”, that would be likening someone’s identity down to something material and exchangeable. It is impossible for someone to change races or sexualities at the drop of a hat, but it’s much easier to get clothed and get served. Therefore, faulty comparisons that dehumanize the circumstances should be avoided at all cost because all they serve to do is offend and play down the importance of the
Which summarises that the use of drugs cannot be prevented but yet, death and misuse can be controlled. Fulton Gillespie shows in his writing that criminalisation will not help drug addicts but legalising drugs will. It can be seen in this example, “I am convinced that he would still be alive today if all the drugs had been legalised and controlled, because he would have no need to steal and would not have been in prison, the heroin would have been controlled and thus not toxic”. The same applies to Rupert Turner as he discusses to support and not punish those in need of help. This can is clear when Rupert states, “We pour millions into fighting the drug war, a war that cannot be won.
Although it is usually for self-protection, it might as well protect both parties; for instance, if one spouse has a debt, creditors might go after the marital property. By filing a prenuptial agreement, creditors cannot go after property which is not entirely from the debtor. There are as well some restrictions for a prenuptial agreement; for example, child support, child custody, or illegal matters cannot be treated as part of an agreement since no court would approve them. In child support and custody cases, it wouldn’t be approved since the court retains the power to decide what the best interests for the child are. There are other topics that might not be discussed in this type of agreements, like personal matters (i.e.