Strict Liability Essay

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

Senco is liable to Larkin for strict liability because of the defect that SN325 nail gun double fired causing Larkin’s injuries. Even though Larkin did not purchased the nail gun Seco is still liable to any person how uses the nail gun including bystanders who may become injured due to the malfunction of the product. Seco did not do enough testing and research to realize that the nail gun can potentially double fire causing the nail gun to recoil and causing damages or injury to any person using

The Strict Liability Theory Introduction Strict Liability in simplistic terms can imply an individual or company being liable for their deeds, conducts and outcomes that result in damages to others. A personal complaint of injury for a strict liability case is not as a consequence of a foreplanned action or careless deed (Boatright, 2012). The respondent's action should have triggered strict liability and that the complainant suffered harm. In fact, one cannot understand what strict liability

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

Negligence or Strict Liability? A Study In Biblical Tort Law The Bible, specifically, the Old Testament, provides numerous examples of torts and the remedies afforded for such offenses. The Bible is also the guide for moral conduct, with the best example being the Ten Commandments. In the Old testament, there are multiple references to moral and in-moral behavior, torts, civil and family matters. Exodus 21:18-22:6, provides the best examples of tort law in biblical times. To that end, the instructions

If you were bitten and injured by a dog in the state of Washington and you aren’t sure if you could press charges, there are some important facts that will pertain to your case. Washington has strict liability laws, and every dog owner must be responsible for their own pet, and must take liability for anything that their dog does. The incident must have happened within 3 years of the time that you file the case, or else too much time has passed and you won’t be eligible to press any charges. The

with freedom of choice and liberties of the individual, should be maximized by criminal law and always be taken into consideration when deliberating upon sentencing and judgements in cases. The Mercantile Theory deliberately opposes the idea of strict liability as it wishes for excuses to be welcomed in the law system to prevent excessive or wrongful punishment. By allowing excuses with The Mercantile Theory, we are allowed freedom in Hart’s view. Hart argues that if a person can enter a considerably

Cases that fall under the strict liability laws are a lot easier to proof in court and take less time to resolve. The public are encouraged to comply with the laws which helps prevents unreasonable defenses to be use as an excuse. For example, statutory rape falls under the strict liability crimes. In the majority of the cases is hard for the defendant to avoid been criminal liable because of their excuse

There are number of insurances, Marine insurance is one, which is a crucial part of letter-of-credit for exporting purposes. It has a wider range of responsibilities than the liability of ocean shipping. We should consider that the insurance is not responsible for any loss. General average and particular average both indicate partial and sectional losses that the insurance does not cover. If the partial damage has been occurred

law in the area of strict liability for animals which do not belong to a dangerous species and the effect which the case of Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] had on this area of law. Reference will be made in particular to section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 which is applicable to this case. The Animals Act 1971 was introduced as a result of the Law Commission report in 1967 on Civil Liability for Animals. The intention of this Act was to simplify the common law rules on strict liability for damage caused