Reasonable suspicion Essays

Industries states that “a police officer may stop someone on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in wrongdoing; and may on a similarly reasonable basis--i.e., one that will hold up to scrutiny in the courtroom--"frisk" or search the subject.” (Net Industries). Additionally the officer, McFadden, had seen Terry and his friends walking around the block as if they were casing a job and he had reasonable suspicion that they were engaging in some sort of wrongdoing. McFadden saw the

articulable facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a person is armed and dangerous. It is not necessary for the officer

Should casino gambling be prohibited? My standing on this topic is Yes, casino gambling should be prohibited. I believe that it should be prohibited because it has several negative effects. Casino gambling should be illegal as it increases criminal activity. It also has many financial flaws that can be a big problem for gamblers. Gambling causes many issues with people who dabble in casino gambling. Casinos and gambling brings in various crime cases into communities. Casinos raise crime rate when

VICARIOUS LIABILITY The tort doctrine that imposes responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with whom the person has a special relationship (such as Parent and Child, Employer and Employee. Or Owner of vehicle and Driver), to exercise such care as a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances. Vicarious Liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the

Question 1 Klinger (plaintiff) can sue the hotel (defendant) for tort of negligence. Klinger has the legal right to claim damages. To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant: - had owed a duty of care, - breached the duty of care, and - caused damage due to breach of duty of care. To establish whether there was a duty of care, The Good Neighbour’s Principle can be applied. In which, in this case, foreseeability had to be present for the duty of care to exist. In

If we look at into the various ingenious devices developed by the Courts to contain the mischief of exclusionary clauses usually incorporated in the standard contract is wide. Most importantly Exclusion clauses are the main sources of in standard contract. Exclusion clauses usually written down that say that one party to the contract will not be responsible for certain happenings. For example, if you join a gym, it is common for the contract to say that the gym owner will not be responsible if you

Introduction Reasonableness in law means it is fair in any situation. In the law of negligence, reasonableness is judged by seeing whether a claimant breached his or her duty of care towards a defendant. Breach of duty is also known as failure to take reasonable care. Law is a body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by controlling authority. (The Free Dictionary, 2016) In the United States, punishment for broken the law is criminal punishment or civil

It always consist of harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm and according to Jay M. Feinman of the Rutgers University School of Law, “the core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people.”(Feinman, Jay(2010)). It involves four essential elements: duty of care, breach of duty, causation and remoteness of damages.  Duty of

Question 12. Legal issues that apply to and regulate managed care. The Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor – negligence can be suggested when there are issues where evidence of negligence or wrongdoing is not present (Thorton). This regulates the managed care since such negligence can be present in any healthcare industry and it is of great importance that the staff will have knowledge to this. There are actually three situations wherein healthcare personnel negligence can be proven without specific conduct

The proprietor or individual possessing genuine property can be held subject if visitors are harmed on the property on account of the proprietor 's Negligence. A property proprietor by and large does not have the same obligation to make the premises alright for a trespasser, on the other hand. A trespasser accept the danger of being harmed by an unguarded removal, a wall unintentionally jolted by a falling wire, or a broken stair. The tenant of genuine property has an obligation just to forgo purposefully

This is a statement concerning whether the amount of the security deposit deducted by Mrs. Wendy Luo is justifiable during my stay in the room rented from Mrs. Luo at the address 21726 Noonan Ct, Cupertino, CA from 20th March 2016 to 25th June 2016. The first issue arises from the malfunction of the shower faucet in the toilet. I could not remember if Mrs. Luo had shown me if the shower faucet was working properly, but I remember the shower faucet was not functioning as it should when I first used

the Rutgers University School of Law; The core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeable cause to other people." "Those who go personally or bring property where they know that they or it may come into collision with the persons or property of others have by law a duty cast upon them to use reasonable care and skill to avoid such a collision."

INTRODUCTION TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY The misconduct doctrine that imposes responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with whom the person incorporates a special relationship (such as Parent and child, employer and employee, or owner of vehicle and driver), to exercise such care as a fairly prudent person would use underneath similar circumstances. Vicarious liability could be a legal belief that assigns liability for an injury to someone who failed to cause the injury however who incorporates

This subsequent approach ruled in the minds of following judges. Lord Woolf MR in Pearce , who viewed that “if there is a significant risk which would affect the judgment of a reasonable patient, then in the normal course it is the responsibility of a doctor to inform the patient of that significant risk.” As well as Lord Steyn in Chester , who stated that “in modern law medical paternalism no longer rules and a patient has a prima

Contributory carelessness is careless behavior by the harmed party that is a contributing reason for her wounds, and that falls underneath the legitimate standard for shielding oneself from an outlandish danger of mischief. At basic law, the guard of contributory carelessness was an outright safeguard and served as a complete bar to recuperation. Most wards today have embraced the tenet of relative carelessness, whereby the offended party 's measure grant is decreased by the degree to which offended

Law Office of Enter name here 126 Legal Way Huntsville, AL 35759 RE: Forrester v. Mercury Parcel Service and Richard Hart Dear Enter Name, We have been retained by Ann Forrester and her husband William to represent them regarding the accident that involved, Richard Hart, a delivery driver and employee of Mercury Parcel Service Inc. Injuries and Property Damage Richard Hart was driving a Mercury Parcel delivery van in the course of his duties when he struck Mrs. Forrester as she crossed the

more persons. Secondly, the plaintiff bears the onus to prove that the defendant failed to succumb to the proper standard of care that a reasonable person would have provided in a similar situation. Standard of care is a way of measuring how much care one person owes another. For example, doctors or nurses, have a high standard of care toward others than the reasonable person. Third, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions were the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Determining the cause

causing her nose to bleed. Marlin grabbing the goggles was the action that began the tort. This caused Dory to fear because any reasonable fish involved in a struggle would be fearful of the outcome. The fear of immediate physical harm is seen when the goggles would have been stretched out potentially hitting Dory in the nose. The fear was reasonable, because any reasonable fish knows that it hurts to be hit in the nose. At this point Dory has satisfied the elements for an assault. What happens

Under the tort liability law, also known as "the law of negligence", a person is considered liable for committing a tort, if they have failed to satisfy the standard of care - a standard determined by the behavior of a reasonably prudent individual. The tortfeasor 's actions are measured against the actions of a reasonably prudent person, and they are found to be below-standard, the individual is guilty of negligence. The tort liability law applies mainly to unintentional torts. In the case of intentional

“A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract, or the breach of a trust, or the breach of other merely equitable obligation”- Salmond The words ‘tort’ has originated from the Medieval Latin word ‘tortum’ which literally means injustice. But to be more specific, torts law is a vast branch of law which deals with civil wrongs like negligence (of different sorts), battery, harassment and trespass among others