Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000CA670,000

TRN305Y1 Lecture Notes - Intentional Tort, O. J. Simpson, Risk Compensation

19 views4 pages
ty74
12 Aug 2022
School
UTSG
Department
Trinity College Courses
Course
TRN305Y1
Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Liability that extends to representatives of the crown ex. Rooted in maxim that a king or queen could do no wrong which meant that, traditionally, a monarch could not be sued in court. As creator of courts itself could not be sued in those courts. Integrity of the crown, idea that crown was above the law raises numerous democratic legitimacy issues. View was gradually abandoned in favour of norms around the rule of law & democratic agencies legitimacy. Now crown can be sued under tort in most circumstances. Still creates a tension btw desire for transparency & the objectives of gov"t. Shouldn"t have to worry about being sued all the time, take preventative measures to avoid being liable shouldn"t be sued. But also purposes of tort (ex. reparations) should be sued. Certain forms of conduct that are inherently dangerous. Farmers would keep cows on farms, always possibility that cow would go onto other farm & eat their crops.

Get access

Grade+
$40 USD/m
Billed monthly
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
10 Verified Answers
Class+
$30 USD/m
Billed monthly
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
7 Verified Answers

Related Documents

TRN305Y1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 17: Toronto Star, Seven Deadly Sins, Birdwatching
ty74
LGLS 1000U Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Class Action, Cn Tower, Strict Liability
tealsalmon858
Management and Organizational Studies 2275A/B Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Strict Liability, Private Law, Criminal Conversion
tauperaccoon868

Related Questions

Through the Foundation’s Live Strong program, it has promotedcancer awareness by partnering with community programs, the YMCA,outreach and education and other avenues. Thus the foundation’scontributions and sales of merchandise (“program merchandise andservices”) has increased dramatically in recent years. Themerchandise sold included the ubiquitous yellow “Live Strong”bracelets intended to promote cancer awareness. In light of recentcontroversies concerning the legitimacy of Armstrong’s Tour deFrance victories, what questions might you raise regarding theability of the foundation to sustain the 2011 and 2010 levels ofrevenues? What are the risks? (Note: This question was originallywritten before Lance’s medals were nullified.)

Preacquisition Contingency On January 3, 2012, Prance Corporation purchased all of the business operations of Step Corporation for $1,440,000 cash. The acquisition is recorded as a merger. Step's identifiable assets and liabilities are listed below at their fair values: Current assets $680,000 Noncurrent assets 1,280,000 Estimated liability: defective product lawsuits (224,000) Other liabilities (400,000) The $224,000 estimated liability represented Step's best estimate of likely losses due to lawsuits pending as of January 3, 2012. Later in 2012, as favorable information regarding the January 3, 2012, status of defective products became available, the estimated liability was reduced to $160,000. Then, in late 2013, after observing large judgments awarded by courts in similar lawsuits against competitors, management revised the estimated liability upward to $280,000. Prepare the entries made by Prance to record the above events.

Original acquisition entry:

Change in pre-acquisition liability within measurement period:

Change in pre-acquisition liability after measurement period:

1. Suspicious that marijuana was being grown in eventual defendant DK's home, federal agents used a thermal imaging device to scan his home from a public street. The agents sought to determine whether the amount of heat emanating from the home (which was part of a triplex) was consistent with the amount emanated from high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. The scan showed that the roof and a side wall were relatively hot compared with the rest of the home and substantially warmer than the neighboring units. Based in part on the thermal imaging results, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search the home, where the agents found marijuana growing. After being indicted on a federal drug charge, DK unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home. He then entered a conditional guilty plea under which, on appeal, he could challenge the use of the thermal imaging device and the validity of the resulting warrant. The government took the position that the use of the device, when operated from a public street, was not a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and that DK, therefore, did not have a basis for his Fourth Amendment-based challenge. Was the government correct in this argument?

2. Mann was the attorney for the Town of Rye, a New York community. He filed a defamation lawsuit against a newspaper that served the Rye area and against the writer of that newspaper's Town Crier column. Mann based his case on statements that appeared in the column. The writer of the column referred to Mann as a "political hatchet man" and as "one of the biggest powers behind the throne in local government". The writer also asserted that "Mann pulls the strings" and raised the question of whether Mann was "leading the Town of Rye to destruction." What arguments should the defendants make to avoid defamation liability? Should Mann win his case?

Thanks! need a good start on these