·Sometimes people excuse the damage they cause by saying this was a mistake or that they did not mean to cause the damage. Is this a valid excuse to avoid liability for damage caused? Explain your answer. With the above question about people that is liable to a damages due to their civil wrong and now finding an excuse to avoid damages. In law, there is no excuse and the defaulter would therefore be liable for their offence committed except if the judge in a court of law based of their reasonable doubt found that it was not proven true that such person would be liable for a damages.
Subjective recklessness involves the conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk. In other words, the accused was aware of the possibility that a certain harm might occur, but proceeded to act nonetheless. Objective recklessness must also involve the taking of an unjustifiable risk, but here it is not necessary for the accused to have considered the possibility that the
In the case of recklessness it is sufficient that a person not think about the possible results or take risk on the fact they don’t think the outcome is likely. Where as for knowledge, similar to oblique intention the defendant “ shuts his eyes and fails to enquire because he is virtually certain what the answer will be” (e.g. Ross v.Moss  2QB 369), in this case the court will invoke the doctrine of wilful blindness, the defendant will be considered to have actual knowledge. Therefore the extent to what the defendant foresaw is key. On the other hand the argument could be that its not a distinguishing factor due to the similarities regarding foresight between intention and knowledge.
The plaintiff has the onus of proving by a preponderance of justice that the defendant owed him a duty of care and that the defendant breached that duty. He should demonstrate that he suffered actual harm and that the defendant's carelessness was the proximate cause of the injury suffered. Even in cases where the plaintiff contributed to the injury by standing in the way knowing they can be injured, the plaintiff will still be entitled to damages from the defendant as is stipulated in Title 42 Section 7102 of the 2010 Pennsylvania Code (Zipursky, 2015, p.2152). In light of the above explanation of negligence, apart from staff members of the student activity room, the supervisor, manager and the owner of the place, in this case, the sports and recreational department of Penn State University will be held liable in the event of an
Secondly, defeasibility, whenever a statement is found in question to be false by showing proofs or evidences. Thirdly, accident, when it comes to show that the unpleasant incident was happened accidentally and unintentionally. The accused may retreat from the responsibility of this unpleasant accident. Lastly is about good intention. The accused may claims that this offensive act was doing in the best of intention but not in any form of recklessness.
Pi Ying’s senseless decision to take this type of action against Kelly, helps demonstrate that humans will make unethical decisions if they believe it is beneficial for them to progress in life. Another leading cause of unethical decisions is when humans decide to value others life
Two Encountered Dilemmas One ethical dilemma that mental health counselors encounter would be institutional policies against disclosure (Substance Abuse and mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA, 2005). In addition, it is important for counselors to identify their clients. Moreover, counselors may have one legal client, but faced with several ethical clients. Disclosure of information of client’s confidentiality need to be protected by counselors, which can be difficult when information has been court ordered.
Some of the influences on a physician’s decision making are defined in classical rhetoric as the triangle of persuasion or decision-making. The triangle of persuasion has three influences on decision-making: ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos involves trust and respect. This can be a doctor’s appeal to a document or a mentor. The Principles of Ethics could be an example of an ethos-centered approach to decision making.
Topic I. Mill offers one very simple principle to determine the legitimacy of state interference: the Harm Principle. This principle is meant to exclude paternalistic interferences, i.e., interferences to prevent harm to self or to others who voluntarily associate with you. What are Mill’s arguments for the Harm Principle and against paternalistic interferences? What is the strongest objection that someone who favors paternalistic interferences might offer against Mill and in favor of such interferences? In the end, are paternalistic interferences justified?
It then follows that it is wrong to commodify sexuality. While the first one is legitimate, doubt can be cast on the second one: is commodification as such necessarily degrading? III. Commodifying integral part of personhood necessarily degrading?
Legislation is defined as law which has been produced by regulatory bodies implementing a function of requirements, restrictions and conditions, setting standards in relation to any activity and securing compliance or enforcement. The regulators responsibility is to protect the service providers and its users. Compliance is either a state of being in accordance with established guidelines, specifications or legislation or the process of becoming so. One regulatory body, The NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) manages negligence and other claims against service providers in England. The NHSLA also helps to resolve disputes fairly, share learning about risks and standards in the NHS and help to improve safety for patients and staff.
If the choice causes them to be worse off, it is still better than not existing at all. Lastly, even if the action is considered morally wrong and harms the future person, it is still morally better to choose this action as opposed to denying this future person the right to live. The choice you are worried about will not affect the existence of these future people, but rather, it will only benefit or damage them but not violate them existing. (Serada, class notes). As Parfit states, “Since these two choices will be worse for no one, we need to explain why we have a moral reason not to make these choices.
Negligence is defined as the failure of a person to use reasonable care that may result in the harm of another person. In the case involving Paula and Ricardo negligence can be seen. The person responsible for negligence in this situation is Ricardo and Dean. As an employee Ricardo is expected to follow the rules and procedures associated with his job. As a person working with harmful chemicals, Ricardo is expected wear the proper safety equipment to prevent harm to himself.
Consensus Summary of Yolanda Pinnelas Case Study The purpose of this paper is to discuss a case study involving a 21-year-old patient, Yolanda Pinnelas, who was studying to be a musical conductor, and who was being treated with chemotherapy. The toxic medication allegedly caused severe deformity of the patient’s hand when it seeped out of the intravenous (IV) catheter and into the surrounding tissues with minimal intervention by the hospital staff noted. This malpractice case will be reviewed thoroughly by each one of the group members and a discussion of the issues relating to duty, documentation, liability, damages and more will be discussed in detail within this paper.
Working in a sports related field requires some legal background when dealing with other individuals as it relates to injuries. Even though injuries may occur, sometimes they are minor but at times they are major injuries and one may feel the need to field suit. The purpose of this assignment is to understand and evaluate negligence and challenges that may affect interscholastic sports. This assignment assist of ten discussion question with a range of negligence challenges in today’s sports. I will address each question throughout this assignment.