Is Liz Liable for Assault or Murder

Both Ginger and Fred are liable, regardless of the circumstances, by virtue of the fact that they are partners.

Holding: Kelbel's conflicting explanations for Kailyn's injuries did not coincide with testimonies given my medical examiners, Lindsey, Olster, and a neighbor, so the court holds that evidence presented is sufficient for the jury to reach a verdict. The court also concludes

Conclusion: Sylvia and Arnold are not held liable for a negligent tort against Betty because even though they didn’t warn her of unsafe conditions on their property, she simply wasn’t involved in a recreational activity upon entering their premises.

The plaintiff, Wilbur, bears the burden of proof, thus the impact the accuser must come across in order to win their case. About two months ago, Wilbur was attending an anger management counseling session with Chuck, who works for a Limited Liability Company XYZ Counseling Agency. During the session, Chuck became very angry at Wilbur for failing to improve and beat him up. In this case, Chuck’s assault towards Wilbur is

During a verbal altercation, Mrs. Bennett threw a hammer narrowly missing Mr. Darcy’s head. The issue is whether Mrs. Bennett possessed sufficient intent to establish a aggravated assault case. She claimed that she did not wish to harm Darcy. The author believes there is probably not enough to establish the element of intent to commit aggravated assault without any injury. In Commonwealth v. Matthew, the court held that intent may be inferred from the defendants conduct or words. The author argues that Mrs.Bennett never threatened to harm Darcy and walked away to wait for the cops. In Commonwealth v. Alexander, court that held that circumstantial evidence was not enough to prove intent to inflict serious injury. Mrs. Bennett’s claim that she

R/s around November 05, 2014, Calli (8) was severely injured. R/s Calli had extensive bruising to her face, two black eyes, facial swallowing, and bruising to her jaw. R/s also bruises was on the child’s lower back and upper leg. R/s it was reported that Calli could have had skull fracture. R/s the injuries was reported as suspicious nonaccidental trauma. R/s at the time of the incident Calli and her stepmother, Karen were the only two people at home. R/s Calli’s father Patrick was traveling out town for work. R/s on November 06, 2014, Patrick found Calli with the injuries to her face and the child was taken to the ER at Palmetto Health. R/s Karen pretended to the Calli’s mother. R/s according to Karen, Calli had fallen several times the few

As mentioned above Katy caused Cheryl to be badly dazed by the throwing of the pint of beer, because Cheryl was hit in the head and therefore badly dazed Katy can be seen to have committed assault occasioning to actual bodily harm (ABH), this is found under s. 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (OAPA). It states that. “ Whoever shall be convicted upon indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm…to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding five years. “ that means that Katy is likely to serve the maximum of 5 years in jail. The reasons why will now be explained further, the Actus Reus for ABH is the assault or battery that is the throwing of the pint beer at Cheryl causes ABH that is the head injury that Cheryl receives.

When it comes to premises liability, it is necessary to ascertain the degree of reasonable person standard. Martha Merriweather was playing on a balcony with three other children, pulling herself upon the edge of the railing in an attempt to balance. She could have known the risks of such actions. However, children are not held the same standard of conduct as adults. In fact, a child generally is not expected to act as a reasonable adult would act. children do not comprehend obvious dangers, as well as cause and effect, the same way a more mature person would. Instead, courts hold children to a modified standard. Under this standard, a child's actions are compared with the conduct of other children of the same age, experience, and intelligence.

result she suffered clinical depression. The courts’ ruling was that there was immediacy present and words could amount to an assault. If this were not the case then Eddy would not be liable for assault.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: 1. the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; 2. the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and 3. the conduct must be the cause 4. of severe emotional distress. This is exactly what happened din this case. Steve Steel not only knocked the phone out of Prudence’s hand but also broke down the door and threatened Prudence with force and made her scared for her life. I do believe that negligence is a part of this case. A person who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. Steve Steel did not show a proper care of duty with Prudence. I think that Steve Steel should also be responsible for all of the physical and mental damages since he did not show reasonable care. I think the tort liability in this case would be assault and battery. An assault involves three things that we see in this case. An assault occurs when an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or

Lillian Hummel is the daughter of Eleanor Mingle. Just after 9 a.m. on August 6, 2014, Hummel saw her mother into the elevator on the twelfth floor of their apartment building. After a brief stop on the ninth floor, the elevator plummeted into the ground floor killing Mingle. Hummel then brought claim for negligent infliction of emotion distress (“NIED”) against Elite Elevator Company (“Elite”), which maintained the elevator. To recover for NIED, a party must [1] be closely related to the injury victim, [2] be present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs, [3] be aware that it is causing injury to the victim and [4] as a result suffer emotional distress beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness. Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 645 (1989). This memorandum will address only the first three elements of the four elements set forth in Thing. Hummel will likely be able to establish that she was closely related to the victim, present at the scene, and aware that the incident contemporaneously injured her mother because she was reasonably certain that Mingle was on the elevator at the time of the crash.

Joan was eventually put to death. In 1430, King Charles had Joan defend the town of Compiégne from an assault, but King Charles knew she wouldn’t be able to win and had basically handed Joan over to the English. Joan was held in Rouen for a year and tried at the English stronghold stationed in the city. She had 70 charges against her from sorcery to horse theft. By May, 1431, they had been brought down to just 12. She signed a contract saying that she had never received divine support. About a week later, after countless threats from guards, she put her male clothes back on and took her confession back, which sealed her fate. English soldiers led her to the center marketplace in Rouen on May 30, 1431, to be burned at the steak. It is said that

In order for Susie to sue Paul in the tort of Battery, she would have to prove that a direct positive act committed against her (Holmes v Mather) , made direct contact with her person (Hutchinson v Maughn) against her wishes/ without her consent (William v Holland) and Marion’s case, with the slightest application of force (Cole v Turner) , she does not have to prove anger as in modern tort anger is not necessary to establish Battery as in ( Rixon v Star) ,and without lawful justification (Fontin v Katapodis) , Here, Paul’s act of directly grabbing her hand, made contact with her body and the facts indicate that she felt intimidated, meaning she didn’t consent to it, and there is no justification for his action. Element satisfied.

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

- A slapped B and B fell on the ground and died. A is liable for the death of B even if it was mere slapping.