Good Samaritan Law
'The Good Samaritan Law' The Good Samaritan Law is a legal principle that indemnifies a 'rescuer' who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being sued for 'wrongdoing'. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions in the event that they made some mistake while rendering assistance. It is worth helping out a road accident victim to give one a certain sense of accomplishment and peace of mind. Every year Road Safety Week is celebrated to make society aware about road safety and reaffirm our own responsibility. However, in spite of our best efforts, road accidents are common in India. It is found that every 12 minutes, an Indian dies on the road and ten times that number get injured. That a majority of accident victims are found to succumb in the absence of prompt medical assistance, is a fact we tend to overlook. It is really hard to believe that people who are otherwise rational and caring do not always come forward to assist victims of road accidents. Go to hospitals, there are umpteen cases where the victim is not given prompt medical attention. But why is this so? Over the years people have hesitated to involve themselves with helping people in peril, for fear of being sued. The fear of police harassment often plays strongly in the minds of bystanders preventing them from helping a road accident
Evaluation of Murder
Homework- Evaluation of Murder A good law should be clear so both the judge and jury can apply it in a reasonable way, this makes it easier for the jury to follow and provides a consistent outcome. It should be consistent, if not one person could do exactly the same crime as another and they could have completely different sentences. Consistency makes the law fair which is another important element of a good law. The law should reflect the degree of fault and punish the defendant in a suitable way; this also provides justice for the family within the law. It should also provide a defence this also makes the law fair and also provides justice for the defendant as it will reflect the degree of fault. A good law could also be flexible. The actus Reus of murder involves the time limit. The law reform act abolished the original year and a day rule and introduced a new time limit. This meant the "death must occur within three years, after that the attorney general's permission to prosecute must be obtained." This introduction has meant it provides justice for the victim and reflects the defendant's degree of fault. The three year rule also deals with causation as the attorney general's permission is needed. As for causation it could be said that it is too easy to pass the "but for" test and substantial cause tests as it is very easy to find a causal link between the defendant's
Discuss the persuasive techniques used by Michael Moore in three scenes from his film Bowling for Columbine
Discuss the persuasive techniques used by Michael Moore in three scenes from his film 'Bowling for Columbine' Michael Moore produced the film Bowling for Columbine with the intention of persuading the viewers that gun laws are too relaxed in the United States. He believes that these laws have both contributed and added to, what he describes as a state of perpetual paranoia and a culture of fear amongst all of America's citizens. Although Moore himself is not against guns since he is actually a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA). He does hold the opinion that the fear mongering and trepidation encouraged by both the media and politicians, intensifies the potential dangers of individual gun ownership, by reducing the nationwide threshold with regards to violence with firearms, and thus exposing many innocent people to violent attacks. Moore uses an array of persuasive techniques through the course of his polemic; with the most effective being irony and satirical humor, scene sequencing and sound effects and finally intelligent manipulation of background music. The first key scene A Wonderful World rebuts the conception that the US is a benevolent force around the world and that it does not use its military strength to physically impose and cause deliberate harm. In confrontation to this view, Moore is attempting to show that the USA's propensity for violence
Describe the system of trial by jury within the English legal system.
Law coursework Charlotte Gregory Describe the system of trial by jury within the English legal system. Introduction The concept of trial by jury was first introduced to the British legal system in 1215, when king John signed the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta states that "no free man shall be imprisoned, except by the judgement of his equals, or the law of the land." This introduced that the decision of a persons guilt or innocence would be decided, to some extent, by his or her peers. In 1670, Bushel's case had a great influence on jurors, and the way that the legal system worked. This case established that jurors alone should make the decision of guilt or innocence without interference from the judge. The public felt that with a system, which had public involvement, was a more reliable and democratic system. Another milestone in the history of jurors was the criminal justice act 1967. This act allowed judges to accept a majority verdict of 10-2 instead of only a unanimous verdict. The next big change to the jury system was made in the jury's act 1974. This is where the law setting out what juries should do, and how they should be selected etc. can be found. The final main change to the process of trial by jury was the criminal justice act 2003. This made amendments to the jury's act 1974. In particular it tightened up the laws on who should, and shouldn't serve on a jury.
'Gillett v. Holt is a watershed in the law of estoppel. The need to
'Gillett v. Holt is a watershed in the law of estoppel. The need to "look at the case in the round" means that many more cases will be successful.' The doctrine of proprietary estoppel is an equitable intervention in cases where the enforcement of legal rights is considered by the courts to be unconscionably unfair. The essence of the doctrine arises, as defined by Snell: '[when] one (A) is encouraged to act to his detriment by the representations or encouragement of another (O) so that it would be unconscionable for O to insist on his strict legal rights.' (McGhee, 2000, p.637) In the absence of a written agreement, estoppel acts as an evidentiary tool with which the courts can help ensure fair interaction in property dealings. Proprietary estoppel is a method by which informal arrangements are recognized as being capable of creating proprietary interests. Given that it lies within the domain of equity, the case law indicates a great flexibility in its application, both in the substantive requirements of proof demanded by the courts and in the manner in which the courts will satisfy the equity. It is the first of these aspects of the doctrine that I will examine in this essay. I will look at the shift in the evidentiary requirements and what a representation (or an assurance of rights), a reliance (a change of position on the basis of that assurance) and a detriment (or
1st Legal Problem- The boundary fence dispute
st Legal Problem- The boundary fence dispute Summary of Legal problem This problem that Alice faces does not seem like a legal problem at all, but instead a common dispute. Alice has raised the issue about the boundary fence being in poor condition to her neighbour Boris, and that she wanted to have it replaced or at least repaired, but Boris refused to even consider paying his share. This is not just a common dispute, but indeed a legal problem. Alice shouldn't have to pay the full price for the repair of a fence which they both share, but instead the costs should be shared between the both of them. But since Boris has refused to pay his share of the repair of the fence, a legal problem has occurred. Description of various sources of legal assistance available to Alice In a dispute such as this, there is not much the law can actually do to solve the problem until all other methods of dealing with the dispute have been tried out. These methods start off from negotiating with the neighbour, through to mediation, which is a process that includes a third party of two mediators to help assist the two parties to reach an agreement between themselves. Mediation is seen as a better alternative than taking a dispute to court simply because of its informality and flexibility. It is less time consuming and less expensive, which is a great benefit when dealing with minor disputes
Lay Magistrates. Lay Magistrates deal with the vast majority of criminal cases in the English Legal System.
Lay magistrates: What are lay magistrates?:Lay Magistrates deal with the vast majority of criminal cases in the English Legal System. All criminal cases start in the Magistrates' Court and around one million cases a year are heard by Magistrates.They uphold the important principle in our legal system of trial by one's peers. One of the great strengths of the English legal system is the participation of ordinary people in the administration of justice. The other area where this is seen in the criminal justice system is in the Crown Court where juries are used. How lay magistrates appointed?:There are approximately 29,000 Lay Magistrates in England and Wales .(In 2005 there were 28,253 Lay Magistrates) They are unpaid volunteers and they work part time - 26 half days per year. Lay Magistrates are appointed by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Lord Chancellor on the advice of the Local Advisory Committees.Lay Magistrates do not need to have any formal legal qualifications. There are however some requirements which were set out by the Lord Chancellor in 1998. These are known as the six key qualities, and are as follows; good character understanding and communication social awareness maturity and sound temperament sound judgement commitment and reliability There are some other more formal requirements; be aged between 18 - 65 be prepared to
The question of abortion?
Abortion? This question is like ones that we have encountered before to do with the seven commandments: If a man's family is starving and there is an unattended lorry filled with food outside his house should he steal from the lorry to feed his family, but in doing this break a commandment. Or should he leave the food so his family dies, but he does not break the commandment. One type of thinking would say that the commandments say "thou shalt not steal" so you should not steal. Another type of thinking would ask the question "which would bring about the greater good, him stealing the food or not?", and once they had looked at the individual circumstances they would probably come to the conclusion that the greatest good would come about him stealing the food.If this way of thinking is then applied to the title, then having one strict law would be like having the commandment and should under no circumstances be broken. Having each request for abortion be judged on its own merits would be the one where someone asks the question "what would bring around the greatest good, this woman having abortion or not?" So if each request for abortion is going to be judged on its own merits then someone has to make the decision. Someone has to make a decision. Who? Has a special court got to be set up in order to decide wetter or not people can have abortions or not. This would not work
In order to analyse the differing approaches, concerning formalities and incompletely constituted trusts within the modern tradition of equity, it is important to understand the history and development of Equity.
In order to analyse the differing approaches, concerning formalities and incompletely constituted trusts within the modern tradition of equity, it is important to understand the history and development of Equity. Equity is the body of law developed by the Court of Chancery in England before 1873. Its justification was that it corrected, supplemented and amended the common law. It softened and changed many injustices inherent in common law and provided remedies where at law they were either inadequate or non-existent. Equity looks to substance rather than form, thus enabling it to give effect to the true intentions of parties to a transaction where the strict legal position does not reflect those intentions. Equity does not operate on its own. There never is equity without law. Wherever the Common Law grants rights and duties to the civilian population at large, equity regulates the conscientious use of those legal powers and the discharge of the legal duties. Equity is not distinct from law but a distinct feature of law. Equity's origin was the exercise, by the Chancellor, of the residual discretionary power of the King to do justice among his subjects in circumstances in which, for one reason or another, justice could not be obtained in a common law court. In the early seventeenth century the competition between 'common law' and 'Chancery' came to a head in the Earl of
The process of Bankruptcy.
Research Paper Bankruptcy November 25, 2005 The process of Bankruptcy was put in to place in order to assist corporations and individuals the opportunity to discharge from unpaid debts. This research paper will discuss the history of bankruptcy and the new laws that changed the status of filing bankruptcy. The first identified bankruptcy law was passed in England in 1542 in order to give creditors a solution (other than imprisonment) against debtors who did not pay their bills. Under this law debtors were considered "quasi criminals" (Skeel) In 1570, England passed a second bankruptcy law that indicated the following: * Only a creditor could instigate a bankruptcy case, basically bankruptcy was involuntary for the debtor. * Only a merchant could be a debtor. (Ordinary people were being thrown in jail) * During the bankruptcy a commissioner seized the bankruptcy assets, sold and distributed them pro rata to the creditors. * At the end of the case, the debtor did not obtain a discharge of the balance; therefore creditor could continue their collection efforts. (History of Bankruptcy) In the next 100 years Parliament made many changes to this bankruptcy law, more so to let the commissioner take more of the bankrupt's assets and to increase penalties for noncompliance. A 1604 amendment allowed the debtor's ear to be cut off. (Skeel) In 1705, Parliament then made some
