LAW 534 Study Guide - Final Guide: Morgan Stanley, Cumulative Distribution Function, U.S. Securities And Exchange Commission
11 Dec 2016
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
2)foreseeability of effect, including abnormal sensitivities: v rio algom, v vipound. The more dangerous, the more you will give to address the issue. Contaminated water, prosecution was satisfied since a seep is of less relevance that closing mine shafts which risked human lives. Supervisor advised he warned workers at previous jobs. He did nothing to avoid the harm on that day. Illustrates serious harm must be balanced by significant steps to avoid harm. (greater due diligence necessary) Court said legal advice was not official rejected defence. Court confirmed higher risk, the bar is set higher. Illustrates matrix of harm and probability is central concept of due diligence. Weather as reasonable person (in your position) would have seen the effect. The issue here is weather a reasonable person would have forseen the danger of the event occurring, and not merely weather this defendant in fact foresaw it.
