TAILIEUCHUNG - Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 5 P53

Gale Encyclopedia of American Law Volume 5 P53 fully illuminates today's leading cases, major statutes, legal terms and concepts, notable persons involved with the law, important documents and more. Legal issues are fully discussed in easy-to-understand language, including such high-profile topics as the Americans with Disabilities Act, capital punishment, domestic violence, gay and lesbian rights, physician-assisted suicide and thousands more. | 508 INTERVENING CAUSE CROSS REFERENCES Federalism Supremacy Clause. INTERVENING CAUSE A separate act or omission that breaks the direct connection between the defendant s actions and an injury or loss to another person and may relieve the defendant of liability for the injury or loss. Civil and criminal defendants alike may invoke the intervening cause doctrine to escape liability for their actions. A defendant is held liable for an injury or loss to another person if the defendant s negligent or reckless conduct was the proximate cause of the resulting injury or loss. This means that the defendant s conduct must have played a substantial part in bringing about or directly causing the injury or loss. However the defendant may escape liability by showing that a subsequent act or event or intervening cause was the real cause of the injury. Not all intervening causes relieve a defendant of liability. An intervening cause relieves a defendant of liability only if it would not have been foreseeable to a reasonable person and only if damage resulting from the defendant s own actions would not have been foreseeable to a reasonable person. For example assume that a farmer agrees to store a large heavy sculpture for an artist. The sculpture is designed for outdoor display so the farmer leaves it in her backyard. A tornado throws the sculpture several thousand feet ruining it. If the artist sues the farmer for damage to the sculpture the farmer may argue that the tornado intervened between her negligent storage and the damage relieving her from any liability. The farmer may claim that she could not have anticipated any detrimental effects of outdoor storage on the sculpture because the sculpture was made for outdoor display. At trial the issue of the farmer s liability is a question of fact to be determined by the judge or jury. The judge or jury asks whether a reasonable person would have anticipated a tornado. Generally extraordinary weather conditions are deemed an .

TAILIEUCHUNG - Chia sẻ tài liệu không giới hạn
Địa chỉ : 444 Hoang Hoa Tham, Hanoi, Viet Nam
Website : tailieuchung.com
Email : tailieuchung20@gmail.com
Tailieuchung.com là thư viện tài liệu trực tuyến, nơi chia sẽ trao đổi hàng triệu tài liệu như luận văn đồ án, sách, giáo trình, đề thi.
Chúng tôi không chịu trách nhiệm liên quan đến các vấn đề bản quyền nội dung tài liệu được thành viên tự nguyện đăng tải lên, nếu phát hiện thấy tài liệu xấu hoặc tài liệu có bản quyền xin hãy email cho chúng tôi.
Đã phát hiện trình chặn quảng cáo AdBlock
Trang web này phụ thuộc vào doanh thu từ số lần hiển thị quảng cáo để tồn tại. Vui lòng tắt trình chặn quảng cáo của bạn hoặc tạm dừng tính năng chặn quảng cáo cho trang web này.