does the law justify imposing strict liability for some criminal offences? ‘actus non facit nise men sit rea’ means an act alone cannot constitute guilt without the proof of a guilty mind‚ for most criminal cases. Strict Liability is the legal responsibility for injury or damages even if the person was not at fault or negligent; this contradicts the above Latin maxim as it places sole responsibility upon a defendant without the proof of ‘mens rea.’ Strict liability is a topic that has both its pros
Premium Law Criminal law Negligence
Morning Session F. Tort Liability of Healthcare Institutions and Managed Care -Liability for Employees and Non-Employees -Vicarious Liability (pages 418-431): -Agency Law and the Test of “Control”: A. Defining “Employee” in the Hospital Setting -Hospital vicariously liable for acts of employees such as nurses‚ technicians‚ clerks‚ custodians‚ cooks‚ etc. -However‚ physicians are often independent contractors using hospital facilities via staff privileges. So‚ liability of hospitals for physician
Premium Health care Medicine Medical malpractice
creates harm should make things right by compensating those harmed II. Classification of Torts * In the US‚ torts are classified as intentional‚ negligent‚ or strict liability. * Negligent Torts occur when the defendant acts in a way that subjects other people to an unreasonable risk of harm * Strict-Liability Torts occur when the defendant takes an action that is inherently dangerous and cannot ever be undertaken safely‚ no matter what precautions the defendant takes
Premium Tort Tort law
August 7‚ 2009 Criminal Law- 2 Essay on Strict Liability Crimes Having no element for Mens Rea‚ consequently permits punishment on those that may be blameless to a crime. With that fact‚ there is definitely a wide range of controversial pro’s and con’s. I personally am unbiased either way regarding this topic‚ for any and all concerns I feel are legitimate. What I will set forth here is unbiased opinion and facts to all pro’s
Premium Criminal law Law Common law
July 4‚ 2012 BAM530 Business Ethics Unit 3 Question #3: Evaluate the concept of strict liability. Strict liability is the legal responsibility levied on a person or company for certain damages or injury even if they were not at fault. Strict liability can even apply even if the person or company did not physically commit any act to cause the actual injury. Corporations can be held liable for the defects of their product even if they did not know about the problem or harm
Premium Tort Corporation Tort law
Tort Liability and Contract Liability A tort is a legal term for "a wrong." The "tort law" is composed of state statutes and court decisions that gives one the right to sue someone who causes harm to them‚ whether it’s a drunk driver‚ a corporation that manufactures a defective product‚ a credit card company that overcharges you‚ or a government bureaucrat that breaks the law or a school official such as a teacher or principal. The law of the state in which the school is located determines a school’s
Premium Tort Contract Law
Statutory rape is a strict liability crime. It is defined as “sex between an adult and a minor below the age of consent at the time the offense takes place” (Uslegal.com). This also includes persons who lack the ability of consenting to sex because of physical and mental incapabilities. The Model Penal Code lists Statutory Rape as‚ “male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife‚ or any person who engages in deviate sexual intercourse or causes another to engage in deviate sexual intercourse
Premium Rape Sexual intercourse Human sexual behavior
Explain the arguments for and against strict liability offences A strict liability offence is one where it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove any mens rea. In most cases of strict liability even if one did not have the intent to commit a crime‚ however reasonable‚ in relation to a particular element of the actus reus of an offence‚ they can still be convicted. This can be shown in reference to Prince and Hibbert. Prince (1875) the girl was taken by Prince even though he knew she was
Premium Criminal law
IABILITY 1 A THEORY OF VICARIOU S LIABILITY J.W . N EYERS * This article proposes a theory of vicarious liability which attempts to explain the central features and limitations of the doctrine. The main premise of the article is that the common law should continue to impose vicarious liability because it can co-exist with the current tort law regime that imposes liability for fault. The author lays out the central features of the doctrine of vicarious liability and examines why the leading rationales
Premium Tort Strict liability Tort law
two principles of criminal liability which have to be relied upon in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused person. Therefore the aim of this essay is to discuss the two principles of law for criminal liability with reference to the Penal Code Act‚ Chapter Eighty Seven (87) of the Laws of Zambia and Zambian decided cases. In order to effectively do this‚ the essay will begin by generally talking about the two principles of law for criminal liability which are the “Actus reus”
Premium Criminal law Crime Actus reus