Shaleneker V. Porter Case

However, due to this idea of strict liability offences not requiring proof of fault leads to the simple moral claim of ‘is it right to punish a person who had no intent to commit a crime, and took precautions not to let anyone get harmed in any way, to still be convicted?’ This opens the argument against the use of strict liability as it suggests that no matter what the opposing says, strict liability is a criminal offence and it is not vigorously enforced. This in turn lowers the respect to law and the criminal justice system as it appears that the justice system cannot

Issue: One day, Kelly Mala went to Crown Bay Marina to buy some fuel for his boat, so he asked a Crown Bay Marina’s attendant to watch his boat while he purchased fuel. However, when he returned, mala saw his boat’s tank was overflowing and fuel was spilling into the boat and into the water. Then Mala began cleaning up the fuel, but as he pulled away from the marina, his boat’s engine caught fire and exploded. Mala was thrown into the water and severely burning. His boat was unsalvageable. Therefore, Kelly Mala sued Crown Bay Marina after his boat exploded.

Certain criteria should be considered when looking at a negligence case. Questions to be asked are; did the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff? Did the defendant breach that duty? Did the plaintiff suffer a recognizable injury? Did the defendant’s breach cause the plaintiff’s injury (p.114, Miller)? The answer to all of these questions is yes when looking at this particular case. The defendant had a duty to report the chromium leaks to the people it could have affected. A breach of that duty occurred when the plaintiffs were not informed of the chemical in their water supply. The plaintiffs then suffered multiple injuries of various degrees because they were not informed of the chemical in their water. Because PG&E did not inform the people in the area, these injuries did occur.

There are two defences to an action in negligence: contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. (FoBL, 2005, p83) This case only involves contributory negligence.

The plaintiff Michael Aloe, widower of Robin Aleo, brought a suit individually and on behalf of his wife’s estate in Massachusetts/ U.S. First Circuit, against SLB Toys, Amazon.com Inc., Toys “R” Us, and Amazon.com Kids, Inc., after his wife dies from injuries sustained when an inflatable pool slide collapsed while she was sliding down. The decedent was attempting to slide down head first in an inflatable, in-ground swimming pool slide imported and sold by Toys R Us. The pool slide collapsed and caused her to strike her head on the concrete deck of the pool. The decedent fractured two cervical vertebrae and suffered a severed spinal cord. She died the following day after she was removed from life support.

2. Applying the facts you have from the case problem above only, lay out a case for negligence against the hotel. Use the elements to outline the case. Start with the first element, explain what facts you have for or against that element, and then continue through the five elements of negligence. If you do not have enough facts to make your case, explain what facts you would need to have in order to support a case of negligence. (Points : 10)

To determine Burov’s liability, two elements require further analysis: did Burov know or has a reason to know that children are likely to trespass and did the children realize the risks associated with meddling with the hot tub. If either element is met Burov will not be liable for Frank’s

In the case of Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, the plaintiff fractured her wrist while riding in a Rue le Dodge bumper car at an amusement park in California. The plaintiff filed a case of negligence against the defendant. To prove negligence, the plaintiff will have to establish all of the following requirements: (1) duty of due care, breach of duty, causation, and injury. The defendant had the Rue le Dodge ride inspected yearly by state safety regulators and daily by the park’s maintenance staff. This means they filled their duty of maintaining the ride, breach of duty than does not apply or causation, but there was injury.

A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.

Mr. James Bowan, Supervisor and Ms. Courtney Alday has been employed by the Domino Realty Management Company that manages the properties and upkeep at the Versailles on the Lake Properties. Lastly, these two witnesses had claimed that they were both employed within and during the time period of the alleged CT claim. Hence, these two witnesses whom each had direct contact and supervision of the claimant were not informed by the claimant or by any witnesses for the claimant any relevant documentation and evidence in support of the injuries pertaining to the claimants knees, neck, back and other multiple body parts, which have not specifically made within the CT claim.

To prove the negligence of the Big Slope Resort, Ben and Jerry must prove five elements of negligence. First, they must prove the resort’s duty. In this instance, duty is clear as Ben and Jerry are business visitors for whom the premises should be reasonably safe. Second, breach of duty must be proven. The resort’s failure to inspect the lift for guests prior to the shutdown satisfies that requirement. Third, the breach of duty must have caused damages. Ben and Jerry suffered physical injuries as a result of being stranded. Fourth, the breach of duty must have been the proximate cause of the damages. In other words, the breach of duty must be closely linked with the resulting damages. For this case, the actions of the resort were the only cause for the injuries. There were no other factors separating the cause and effect. Finally, there must be damage or injury. Ben and Jerry suffered from frostbite and other injuries, which qualify for this final criteria of

Once he and Mr. Montes arrived at City Yards, Claimant Gomez claimed he reported his right shoulder injury to Supervisor Roy Chavez and informed him that he was “going to call the nurse for precautionary measures.” Mr. Montes claimed he completed an incident report on the DOI: 10/22/2015 but never received authorization from Mr. Chavez to be seen at a medical clinic. The claimant stated the co. The nurse instructed him to ice his right shoulder and to take molten, without referring him for medical

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

It is the purpose of this essay to discuss whether the implementation of strict liability within criminal law system is a necessary means for combating crime, and if there is any justification for its use. Strict liability is the placing of liability upon the defendant(s), regardless of whether or not mens rea is present. This can include instances of negligence, carelessness or accident. There are a number of arguments for and against strict liability, and this essay will identify and explore these arguments.

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.