Answer:
possibly
Explanation:
We use the term the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could possibly be relied on because, if the court deemed that there's considerable evidence there was a probability that the bottler was negligent with regard to the safety of the bottle of soda.
However, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may not be relied on if there's evidence of an absence of negligence by the bottler with regard to the safety of the bottle of soda. In other words, evidence shows that there's a greater probability that the waitress may have mishandled the bottle of soda or was negligent in some way leading her injuries.
Escola might be able to recover damages under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This legal principle implies negligence if an event happens that wouldn't normally happen without negligence. However, the court's interpretation, local laws, and other factors would play roles in the final decision.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a legal principle that allows negligence to be presumed if an event occurs that would not ordinarily happen unless someone was negligent. Escola, the waitress who was injured by the exploding bottle of soda, may be able to use this doctrine to pursue a claim against the bottling company, in spite of not being able to prove specific acts of negligence.
The principle rests on the premise that certain accidents are so obviously a result of negligence that direct proof is unnecessary. It typically applies where the defendant had exclusive control of the thing that caused the injury, and the accident is such that it ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negligence. Based on the provided details, the injury caused to Escola by the exploding bottle that had gone through standard industry testing and had remained undisturbed for 36 hours, can indeed be construed as an event that ordinarily does not happen unless there was negligence involved.
However, the final decision would depend on courts' interpretations, the specifics of the jurisdiction's laws, and other circumstances of the case.
#SPJ12
Answer:
the 4th amendment.
Answer:
the fourth amendment
Answer:
The Balancing test.
Explanation:
Answer:
Free public transport for senior citizens, thats good because as they get older they most probably can't drive vehicle themselves and most of them maybe poor.
senior citizens are the people who worked for years to make this world as it looks now. they helped this new generations to come up.
so they should get free public transport facilities.
Answer:
positively,yea, i'm getting married after all this coronavirus cr.ap ends.
so i'm pretty sure
Answer: no you have a shrimp, but sometimes the truth hurts, and if you dont have a shrimp for a peen send me a pic on snap Thelitgoat69
Explanation:
Let's review the runaway dog example. When you see Lulu escape, you shout, "Come back, Lulu!" but Lulu the Labrador has already run through one neighbor's yard and is racing down the street. You decide that pursuing her in your fuel-efficient Focus would be the best course of action. However, you can't possibly end your phone conversation. After all, you are discussing the latest Dame Daisy video and analyzing it minute by minute. With your phone in one hand, car keys in the other, you rev up your car and head off to find Lulu. Jamie, Lulu's ten-year-old owner whom you are also babysitting, jumps in the car with you.
As you are driving (a little faster than the speed limit) and talking on your phone, an annoying fly starts to buzz around your head. You shake your head and as you refocus and look ahead, there is Lulu—right in front of your car. You slam on your brakes and turn the wheels of the car sharply to the right with all your might to avoid hitting Lulu. A motorist opposite you drives onto the curb and bangs up the side of his car as he avoids hitting your vehicle. You slam into a utility pole, which was badly in need of repair, and knock it down. The pole hits a tree that smashes into a house and severely damages the front porch.
Luckily, Lulu is fine. So is the motorist, who is very angry. Jamie is complaining that her wrist feels like it is all twisted. You cannot help thinking, "Oh boy, am I in trouble!"
But you are "just a kid," right? Where do you start to sort out this mess?
You start by contacting your cousin, Marjorie, who is a first-year law student at State University. You tell her every little detail you remember, including all events leading up to the accident. She wants to help you determine to whom you may have owed a duty of care and to whom you breached this duty. She sends you an email with the questions listed below. Please answer them.
Marjorie's Questions:
Who was involved in the accident?
Did you owe a duty to anyone? If so, what duty or duties and to which particular individuals?
Which duties did you breach?
Were your actions the cause of any injuries? Were you actions an actual cause or a proximate cause, or both?
For what damages could you be held liable? Are there any defenses against potential plaintiffs? If so, what are they?
Provide a brief four- to five-paragraph answer.
Project Part B: A Fire near Gidgits Galore
Gidgits Galore borders a privately owned ten-acre forest. Pete owns the land. It is zoned "mixed," so businesses and residences can be found throughout the neighborhood. Through the forest is a multiresidence apartment building. Danny, a high-school senior who lives in one of the apartments, has crammed all night for his economics final and needs a break. He has decided to take a morning walk down one of the forest's paths, prodding the piles of leaves and clumps of moss with his walking stick. He sees what appeared to be a recently-used campfire, and pokes around it with his stick. As he wanders farther, he doesn't realize that he has reignited the fire.
To make matters worse, it is unexpectedly windy that day. As the wind picks up, the flames leap over 200 feet to a storage shed used by the apartment building's maintenance workers. One of them, Don, has just arrived to get his lawnmower. He calls 911. While waiting, he tries to extinguish the flames with his jacket, but he stops when his work shirt catches fire.
The flames also reach the tent of Cassie, the camper who lit the campfire the previous night. Cassie thought she had extinguished the fire as she set up her tent nearby. Cassie wakes up coughing from smoke inhalation and manages to exit the tent before it is destroyed by fire. One of Gidgits Galore's managers, Dianne, arrives to open up the store but is detoured by the smoke she sees in the distance. Soon she too is overwhelmed by its acrid smell, which brings on a severe asthma attack. As quickly as the flames started, the wind stops, and they die down. Firefighters who arrive on the scene are able to quickly extinguish the fire.
You are a member of a mock jury in a negligence case. As a juror, one of your duties is to find the facts from the evidence presented and determine if there is enough evidence to show that the defendant was negligent. Sort out the facts in the present case.
Prepare a brief argument (three to four paragraphs) outlining why Danny could be held negligent against the potential plaintiffs listed below.
Don the maintenance worker
Cassie the camper
Dianne the GidgitsGalore employee
Pete the landowner
Prepare a brief argument (two to three paragraphs) showing why Danny's conduct did not amount to negligence against any of the potential plaintiffs listed above.
took me 20 mintues but here
At that time little Lulu was wearing only a sweater, a ruffled skirt, and tights. After the serious punishment Lulu began to do things as her mother ordered. Chua was determined to raise an obedient Chinese child—in the West, obedience is associated with dogs and the caste system, but in Chinese culture, it is considered among the highest of virtues.
“But run where when there are 30,000 teenagers who have fled their homes in New York and only 400 emergency shelter beds, 13,000 runaways in New Jersey with a safe haven for only 300, and 10,000 in Connecticut with room for just 115? Even if a runaway finds a bed in a crisis center, where does he or she go after reaching the 30 days federal limit for sanctuary in an emergency shelter?” (Gross, 1) It is a sad thing that these are ordinary numbers, that these numbers for runaway children are realistic at all. There are not enough youth shelters, for kids to be able to flee to a haven when their home isn’t safe.
And also the fact that Curley’s wife does not have a name, but is only referred to as “Curley’s wife” and that Slim’s dog is given a name – “Lulu” – shows the reader that dogs were treated better than women at those times. The failure of Curley’s wife’s dream leads to her death, which also takes place in late afternoon, as the days ends so does her life. John Steinbeck tells us through this cyclical novel that dreams are futile.
Runaway Kids When children and teens have to deal with abuse, family, depression, or any other issues for an extensive period of time without getting the help they may run away. When a kid has these problems and they are unable to get help then why would they stick around and wait for dad to come home? The process in which our government finds and helps runaway children is not up to a standard that keeps them from falling into the streets and succumbing to sex, drugs, and violence.
Candy wants people to treat him once he is canned like this. This is because he “won’t have no place to go, an’ he can’t get no more jobs”. The other ranch hands say that he can replace the dog with one of Lulu’s pups, but of course that wouldn’t be the same, never is anyone or anything the equivalent, everyone and everything is unique.
Candy wants people to treat him once he is canned like this. This is because he “won’t have no place to go, an’ he can’t get no more jobs”. The other ranch hands say that he can replace the dog with one of Lulu’s pups, but of course that wouldn’t be the same, never is anyone or anything the equivalent, everyone and everything is unique.
1. What economic questions does this case require the townb to ask? What is a dog park and how does it benefit the community? Can people or dogs get hurt at a dog park? How will dogs fight be avoided? If a dog park is built, will there be space available for an affordable recreation facility? 2. List the possible resources that the town would need to construct and maintain the park?
This action evinces that Candy is apologising to the dog on Carlson’s behalf. Candy treats his dog like a human as his dog is his only companion. However, the workers at the ranch see him only as a dog. When Carlson mentions to Candy about shooting his dog, Candy’s actions and dialogues convey how Candy feels about this idea.
Dogs like to be free, and they like to run and play instead of being chained down. Secondly, it provides dog owners with a chance to do things with their pets that they can’t do because of limited space. Lastly, having a dog park will prove that the town is family friendly, attracting more families to the town, and for all of the reasons, a dog park should be constructed in the town of Martinsville.
Teens may turn to drugs and or drink at sometimes a very young age to cope with the hardships they face at home, school, or with personal issues. Whether they turn to them before running away and being exposed to the streets or beforehand, there is a high likelihood of it. The law about runaways differs from that of abductees.
[Original source: https://essaytoolbox.com/essay-maker]
Answer:
1. First Everybody involved is Lulu for running away. Jamie for being in the car with you. The motorist who almost got hit and messed up his bike. And the home owner who needs to repair his house. And of course the protagonist (we'll call dave).
Dave's duties were to watch Jamie. On top of that he should have been taking care of Lulu. He let Lulu escape and almost hit her, voiding this duty. He also put Jamie in danger when he was driving recklessly.
Lulu was in his care so we can assume her escaping is actual cause. Another actual cause is him letting Jamie get hurt. How ever The utility pole hitting the house can be equated to proximate cause. Same goes for the motorist messing up his car.
Jamie can be liable to basically anyone here. He hit the pole which went into the house. His reckless driving ran a dude off the road. And now Jamie's hand is likely twisted because of him. He is fully liable.
2. Danny is liable to everyone here by proximate cause . Pete's land is the land he burned. It doesn't matter that he didn't realize the consequences he still was messing with some he had not business messing with.
That campfire was near enough to Cassie's tent that she actually inhaled much smoke. This could have gave her lung damage. Many people die from smoke inhalation a year and she could have been one of them. Not only that but she was near enough to the fire that it actually consumed her tent eventually. The smoke from a fire could have actually lured her into a deeper sleep. This means that either the smoke or the fire would have killed her.
Then we have Don who was actually there when the she caught flames, to pick up his lawnmower. This puts him directly into danger. Not only that but his stuff is now burned. He most likely suffer burns considering that his shirt caught fire.
Dianne came the closest to death. She was just trying to work her when the smoke catches up to her. This causes her to have terrible asthma. Considering this that mean that her lungs may be damaged. She came the closest to death because of his recklessness.
Danny is not liable to anyone here. Pete is the one you could easiest argue he is liable to, but Cassie is liable. Cassie should have made sure that the fire was actually all the way down before she went to bed. If all he did was poke it and it reignited, that should say that it was nowhere near out. This means by proximate cause she is just as liable as him
Then we have Don. Although he may have been around when it caught fire he had an obvious window of opportunity to leave. Instead he put property over health. That was his choice. He knew the possible consequences, unlike my client who just thought that it was safe. Any damages done to himself was not a cause of Dan.
Dianne who most likely suffered the most isn't innocent either. She saw the flames and decided to stay at her job. For her own safety she should have left but she didn't. This mean that the cause here isn't Danny.
Answer:
Can you do it in English