#assault and battery tort

[madraslawyers]

குடும்ப வன்முறை வழக்குகள்: சிறந்த வழக்கறிஞர்களைக் கண்டறிக

இந்தியாவில் தமிழ்நாடு, சென்னையில் குடும்ப வன்முறை வழக்குகளுக்கான சிறந்த வழக்கறிஞர்களைக் கண்டறியவும். முக்கியமாக, ராஜேந்திர சட்ட அலுவலகம் சிறந்த குற்றவியல் வழக்கு சேவைகளை வழங்குகிறது. இந்த சட்ட நிறுவனம் சென்னையில் உள்ள கிரிமினல் வக்கீல்களின் குழு. மகளிர் நீதி மன்றம் / மகிளா நீதிமன்றத்தின் வழக்கறிஞர்கள் “குடும்ப வன்முறை வழக்குகள் முதலில் நம் சமூகத்தில் இந்த நாட்களில் நிறைய உள்ளன.மகளிர் நீதி…

[fishklok]

Torts + Army of the Doomstar part 1

I looked for torts in the first half of the movie, but I figured I should get back to actually studying.

Note 1: Just because I raise an issue doesn't mean it would be successful in court. You have to bring up the shitty claims on exams too.

Note 2: A lot of the stuff in this movie/show probably falls more under criminal law. I wouldn't know because I haven't studied criminal law yet. This is torts so we're in civil law bay-bee. There is no such thing as guilt or innocence.

Note 3: AOTD spoilers lol

Intentional Torts

Battery: A volitional act in which one intends to cause a harmful/offensive physical contact (or put someone in apprehension of a harmful/offensive physical contact) and a harmful or offensive physical contact occurs. Depending on the jurisdiction, the intent could either be to cause harm/offense, or the intent could be just to make contact.

Pickles v. Toki (when Toki hit Pickles)

Edgar v. Nathan (when Nathan grabbed Edgar's face)

Nathan v. Charles (when Charles grabbed Nathan's face)

Murderface v. Salacia (all of the possession shit. The idea of him bringing a torts claim about it is just very funny to me.)

Pickles v. Skwisgaar (when they were doing trust exercises and Skwisgaar didn't move to catch Pickles. This could also be raised as a negligence claim if it can be proved that Skwisgaar didn't intend to let Pickles fall)

Assault: a volitional act in which one intends to put someone in apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Skwisgaar v. Toki (when Toki tried to hug Skwisgaar and he moved away)

False Imprisonment: A volitional act in which one confines someone to a bound space and that person is either aware of the confinement or harmed by it.

Crozier v. Orlaag (the interrogation scene. Like Murderface and Salacia, this feels like a funny claim to raise.)

Trespass to Property: A volitional act in which one intentionally trespasses onto someone's real property and that person is the sole causation behind the trespass.

Murderface v. Salacia (More possession shit. Because it's funny to me.)

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): When one intentionally behaves in a way that is extreme or outrageous in a way that causes severe emotional distress. This would have gone on forever if I wrote down every little insult, so I tried to find instances that could satisfy the severe emotional distress element.

Nathan v. that interviewer/host (Nathan had a mental breakdown after some of the questions asked. Although, he was already in a delicate place and I don't think Eggshell Skull Rule applies here. The host would have no reasonable way to know Nathan's condition and likely won't be found liable for the performance.)

Toki v. Pickles (when Pickles yelled at Toki)

Abigail v. Nathan (when Nathan proposed to her. No evidence of severe emotional distress, but it could be raised.)

Nathan v. Abigail (when Abigail rejected his proposal. More evidence of severe emotional distress, but still probably not that strong.)

The fans v. Nathan (when he "broke up with them." I only studied class actions for like 45 minutes in civil procedure, but I don't think this claim would hold up either.)

Dethklok v. Knubbler (when he yelled at them and destroyed their breakfast. This is the part where I should explain that IIED claims are notoriously hard to win.)

Negligence

Negligence is when a party has a duty, they breach that duty, resulting in an accident that they have both actual and proximate causation for and that resulted in damages.

The church v. Nathan (all the stuff he accidentally broke)

Knubbler v. the gong manufacturer (when the gong broke off the rope and send him tumbling down the stairs. Could also raise as a products liability claim)

Temple + Dethklok v. Murderface (when he pissed in their water supply. Could be raised to conversion (another tort I didn't explain lol) if he continued after knowing the river was their water supply.)

Temple + Dethklok v. Knubbler (when Knubbler accidentally knocked over that candle and started a small fire)

The estate of that klokateer v. Knubbler (when Knubbler rang the gong, causing it to break off and knock that guy off the cliff. While the gong manufacturer could be liable too, Knubbler would probably carry a larger proportion of the blame because he already had cause to believe that the gong was defective.)

All those people v. Dethklok (when they performed the wrong song. Since all of the deaths that occur can be linked back to that performance, they still have proximate causation. The Doomstar seems like a textbook example of a superseding cause, but since Dethklok had a duty to stop the Doomstar and the consequences were foreseeable, they're probably still negligent. Other possible tortfeasors in that chain: the airplane pilots, the truck drivers, the estate of that guy jumping off his diving board would be barred from recovery in a contributory negligence jurisdiction, at this point I started losing track of the deaths and just decided to blame Dethklok for all of it.

Strict Liability

Strict liability is when a defendant is automatically liable regardless of reasonable care, lack of negligence, or lack of intent. This includes wild animals and abnormally dangerous activities. As if this point in my notes, I haven't seen much evidence of either.

[ceterisparibus116]

I was wondering, what are the rules about different types of cases lawyers can take, and what types can Matt do? I know he’s a defense attorney officially, but can/does he take on different cases? Could he work as a prosecuting attorney, or in another area (like custody law or criminal prosecution)? What even are the different areas lawyers work in (past just civil/criminal)?

Also, for criminal trials I was wondering if the victim pays anything. Like if a victim is robbed and presses charges, do they have to get a lawyer to prosecute or does the state appoint one? And do they have to pay for this lawyer or does the state pay? (I think for civil everyone pays but criminal is different)

Thank you in advance ☺️

These are great questions!

So lawyers can take on different cases as long as they remain ethical - and as long as they can get hired. ;) The main ethical rules that would apply (as far as I know...my knowledge of the ethical rules is more limited to criminal law nowadays) are the rules that relate to: 1) a conflict of interest; and 2) competence.

The conflict of interest rules mean that a lawyer can't take on a case that is in conflict with a case they already have. So say Matt is functioning as a criminal defense attorney for Client A; he can't simultaneously represent Client A's co-defendant, Client B unless both Client A and Client B waive the conflict of interest because you never know when Client A's defense might clash with Client B's defense.

(A common example is drug possession cases, where A and B are both found in a vehicle with drugs. A might say "The drugs belong to B!" and B might say "The drugs belong to A!" and the same defense attorney can't argue both positions.)

Or say Client A is a criminal defendant charged with battery against Client B, and Client B is suing Client A in civil court over the same incident. Matt could represent Client A in both criminal and civil court, but he couldn't represent Client A in criminal court and then turn around and represent Client B against Client A in civil court.

The other ethical rules at play are those relating to competence. It is unethical for an attorney to take a case that they aren't competent (or couldn't reasonably become competent) to handle. If Matt knew absolutely nothing about, say, wills and trusts, it would be unethical for him to agree to draft someone's will or trust. This also goes to just...time management. If Nelson & Murdock have too many cases, there hits a point where they can't ethically take more cases because they wouldn't have the time to competently handle them.

Not even gonna comment on how this relates to the Frank Castle trial because I'm pretending that trial never happened.

And Matt could never be a prosecutor while working as a criminal defense attorney. He could stop practicing criminal defense and switch over to prosecution, but he can't do both simultaneously. The conflict of interest is just unavoidable, and besides, no prosecutor's office would hire him if he were still doing criminal defense work.

That said, in canon, we see Matt take on many cases, both criminal and civil, simultaneously. Aside from his criminal cases, we also see him handle the following types of civil cases:

Property (as when he represents Elena Cardenas against her landlord);

Employment (and possibly immigration?) (as with Ms. Jacinto in S2E1);

Standard negligence (I think? I think Mr. Marino is being sued for negligently handling his dog by allowing his dog to "defile" the statue in S2E1?); and

Products liability (as with the Aaron James case).

Other areas of law that I imagine he could handle would be family law (divorce, custody, child support, etc.), other negligence claims (like a company that negligently leaves their floors slippery, and someone gets hurt, commonly called a "slip-and-fall" case) (there are literally so many types of negligence claims oh my gosh), and intentional torts (which often have criminal analogs, like assault and battery).

He can do all of these while still handling criminal defense cases, as long as there's no conflict of interest, and as long as he's competent.

As for victims: you're right that it's different between civil and criminal law; in civil law, the (alleged) victim has to pay for their attorney unless the attorney takes the case pro bono.

But in criminal law, it's very important to note that victims don't have attorneys. This is because, although the victim is one victim of the crime (obviously), the other victim of the crime is actually the state.

So for example, if Frank were prosecuted for shooting Grotto...then yeah, Grotto is the victim of Frank's violence, but so is the entire State of New York. That's why criminal cases are labeled "State vs [Defendant]."

Therefore, prosecutors represent the State - they do NOT represent the individual victim. The reason this is so important is because the victim and the State may actually have different interests...or, at least, think they have different interests.

The clearest example of this is domestic violence. Say you have a guy who's been abusing his wife for years, but she, for myriad reasons, doesn't want to leave him. Nor does she want him to be prosecuted. Maybe this is because she loves him, or thinks she loves him. Maybe this is because she's afraid of what will happen to their kids if he's incarcerated. Maybe she relies on him for money, and she needs him to stay out of prison so he can keep providing. There can be so, so many reasons.

However, the State does want this guy prosecuted. The State wants this guy to, at minimum, be put on probation which would require him to get a domestic violence evaluation (which would assess mental health concerns and factors that might exacerbate his behavior) and, based on the evaluation, court-ordered domestic violence counseling. The State may or may not also want a No-Contact order between the guy and his wife, and possibly between the guy and his kids, unless and until he gets better at controlling his violence and/or addressing whatever underlying issues he may have.

A good prosecutor will listen to the victim and hear them out, but the prosecutor does not represent the victim, and the victim does not decide what happens in the criminal case. And so, at the end of the day, the prosecutor is not required to dismiss a case even if that's what the victim wants.

And yes, that is one of the hardest and heartbreaking parts of being a prosecutor.

That said, a victim in a criminal case can also bring a civil case against the defendant. This is important because although a criminal conviction can impose certain penalties (like probation, jail time, and court orders like the aforementioned counseling), criminal convictions can't give the victim any money except for basic restitution.

So for example, if a defendant beats someone up, they'll have to pay for medical bills and things like that. But the defendant won't have to pay for additional damages (like for the pain and suffering experienced by the victim, or for counseling the victim might need to cope with the experience) unless the victim brings a civil case against the defendant. And as I said before, the victim would generally have to pay for that.

Okay I feel like this was kind of a rambly answer...does this make sense?

[secretceremonials]

i analysed the cassandra myth from a modern english and welsh legal perspective because i’m drunk, bored, and procrastinating (maybe this will be a good revision exercise? 

Apollo v Cassandra: Breach of contract

i want to preface this by saying that i don’t fully study contract until next year, so i’m not going into detail here. apollo and cassandra do enter a verbal contract to provide the gift of prophecy for the service of sex (if we go with that version, which is my go to), so cassandra may well be liable for her breach. i would argue that this contract had unfair terms however, making it void to the extent of those terms. again, i don’t know enough about this to say for sure. 

Cassandra v Apollo: maliciously administering poison 

i don’t see any reason why apollo’s saliva that causes casssandra not to be believed can’t be interpreted as poison (we have case law of HIV infected semen being treated in this way). following this logic, his spitting can be viewed as maliciously administering poison, contrary to either section 23 or 24 of the offences against the person act 1861. for a section 23 offence, the defendant must intend to cause grievous bodily harm or endanger life. i’m not really sure that applies here, although cassandra’s mental state is possibly bad enough to constitute grievous bodily harm, it may be difficult to prove that apollo intended to cause this. section 24 would therefore be easier. this section simply requires intention to injure, aggrieve, or annoy. intention to punish would absolutely fall under here, i think. 

failing that, spitting on people without consent is a battery, so we definitely have a civil route if not a criminal one. it is worth noting that it absolutely is possible to pursue an action on the basis of the intentional infliction of emotional distress. injury does not have to be physical.

Cassandra v Ajax: rape or battery, depending on your favoured myth

In some versions of the myth, Ajax rapes Cassandra in the temple of athena as the city falls. in others, he drags her away in a massive breach of sanctuary laws. which version you prefer will alter what wrong has been committed.

If she is raped, it is... rape. crazy, i know. the statutory definition of rape is the penile penetration of another without consent or without a reasonable belief in their consent (sexual offences act 2003, section 1), which is what occurs here. they have sex, cassandra absolutely does not consent. easy.

if she isn’t raped, there is still a wrong, albeit probably a tort rather than a crime. the tort of battery is committed when an individual intentionally (or recklessly) touches another without consent. obviously this happens here. assault is likely as well. this occurs when the defendant does something to make the victim think they are about to directly and involuntary apply force on their body. this probably happens, but we don’t have enough detail to know for sure. we can maybe convict him of a crime instead, but this depends on what injuries cassandra acquires. i think it is likely enough that she would suffer actual bodily harm (a bruise or worse- we know the attack was violent), but grievous bodily harm is unlikely. If she suffers actual bodily harm, this is common assault, contrary to s47 of the offences against the person act 1861. 

Cassandra v Agamemnon: unlawful imprisonment

because slavery is illegal and i am completely ignoring historical context here, agamemnon most likely unlawfully imprisons cassandra. false imprisonment is confining an individual to a restricted area without their consent and without lawful justification. the only issue with proving this would be that i’m not sure if cassandra is really confined to a limited space? but presumably she has to stay around agamemnon? i think it counts.

Cassandra v Agamemnon: rape

it goes without saying that, in modern law, slavery is illegal. so, for the sake of simplicity, i’m going to continue arguing that cassandra’s enslavement is akin to unlawful imprisonment. obviously, keeping someone as a concubine without consent is very illegal, but we’ll ignore that for now. 

bearing that in mind, it is probable (but not certain) that Agamemnon rapes cassandra. As we have already seen, the definition of rape in the sexual offences act 2003 is the penile penetration of another without their consent, or without a reasonable belief in consent. as cassandra does, in some versions, have children, I am going to assume that her and agamemnon have sex. so now the question is consent. 

In section 75 of the sexual offences act, evidential presumptions about non-consent pop up in some cases. the effect of these presumptions is that non-consent is assumed, unless the defendant can provide some evidence that is “More than merely fanciful and speculative” that the alleged victim did in fact consent. one case where this occurs is when the alleged victim was wrongfully imprisoned by the defendant at the time of the incident. this means that agamemnon would have to provide some evidence of cassandra’s consent before a full trial would occur. this isn’t a particularly high bar, but it is something. 

we don’t know enough about cassandra’s state of mind to know whether she consented (she did consent to the marriage in Euripides’ trojan women, and until 1992, marriage was taken as an express form of consent- not super relevant, but interesting anyway), and honestly, given the context, agamemnon may have had a reasonable (in his culture) belief in her consent. obviously now we would not assume that a woman would consent to a man who took her from her home and family, but bear in mind that this is the bronze age. i’m also not sure if we should apply the reasonableness standard of a reasonable man today or a reasonable one then? recklessness is also subjectively measured now anyway, so he may not even have been reckless as to her non-consent.

Cassandra v Clytemnestra: murder

okay, this one is probably the easiest. In (basically) every version of the myth, Clytemnestra kills Cassandra. murder is the killing of another with the intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Clytemnestra intends to kill Cassandra. She does so. It’s murder, she will really struggle to access a defence here. There is no self-defence or necessity present. There may be some grounds for a partial defence of provocation as she is faced with her sexual rival, but I honestly doubt there is enough of this to warrant a manslaughter verdict. 

Conclusion

Cassandra deserves a break. i hope you enjoyed my silly little law exercise :)

[iscoelaw]

Navigating the Legal Landscape: Understanding the Role of Accident and Personal Injury Lawyers

When it comes to navigating the complex and often daunting legal system, individuals who have been involved in accidents or suffered personal injuries need expert guidance. That's where accident lawyer and personal injury lawyers come in. These dedicated professionals specialize in helping victims of accidents and injuries receive fair compensation for their losses, ensuring that they receive the justice they deserve.

Accident lawyers are trained to handle a wide range of cases, from car accidents and workplace injuries to slip and fall incidents and construction site accidents. Their expertise lies in gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and negotiating with insurance companies to secure the best possible settlement for their clients. Whether the accident was caused by negligence, recklessness, or any other factor, accident lawyers work tirelessly to build a strong case and advocate for their clients' rights.

Personal injury lawyers, on the other hand, focus on cases where individuals have suffered harm or injury due to someone else's actions or omissions. This can include cases of medical malpractice, product liability, and even intentional torts like assault and battery. These lawyers are skilled at identifying the root causes of injuries and developing strategies to hold responsible parties accountable for their actions. By working closely with medical professionals, investigators, and other experts, personal injury lawyers build comprehensive cases that maximize their clients' chances of securing fair compensation.

The Importance of Choosing the Right Lawyer

When selecting an accident or personal injury lawyer, it's essential to choose an attorney with experience in handling similar cases. Look for a lawyer with a proven track record of success, as well as a strong understanding of the laws and regulations governing your specific case. Additionally, consider factors like communication style, availability, and fees when making your decision.

In conclusion, accident lawyers and personal injury lawyers play a vital role in ensuring that individuals who have been harmed by someone else's actions or negligence receive the justice they deserve. By understanding the role of these dedicated professionals and selecting the right lawyer for your case, you can take the first step towards reclaiming your life and moving forward from your accident or injury.

[jacobslawteam]

Important Role of Personal Injury Attorney in Injuries

Personal injury is a legal term that covers a wide range of injuries and damages caused to individuals due to the actions or negligence of others. These injuries can have a significant impact on the affected person's life, causing physical pain, emotional distress, and financial burden. Personal injury cases are based on the concept of seeking justice and compensation for those who have suffered injuries that could have been prevented.

A common element in personal injury cases is negligence, where the responsible party fails to exercise reasonable care expected in any given situation. For example, in car accidents, if the driver ignores traffic rules, causing a collision and injuries, he may be considered negligent. Similarly, slip and fall cases often involve property owners who neglect their duty to maintain the premises safe, resulting in accidents and injuries.

On the other hand, intentional tort involves one person intentionally causing harm to another person. This may include cases of assault, battery or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Additionally, strict liability applies in situations where a defendant can be held responsible for injuries even without proof of negligence or intent, such as in cases of defective products.

Personal injury law serves as an important avenue for individuals to seek redress and compensation for their losses. Whether the injury resulted from a car accident, medical malpractice, or a defective product, its purpose is to hold those responsible accountable and provide the injured party with the means to recover and move on with their lives. Legal professionals specializing in personal injury, known as personal injury lawyers, play a vital role in guiding individuals through the complexities of the legal system to ensure that their rights are protected and Justice can be given.

In the blink of an eye, lives change forever. Accidents and injuries can occur when least expected, leaving individuals with physical, emotional and financial challenges. When faced with the consequences of a personal injury, many people become unsure of their rights and the legal recourse available to them. This is where the importance of a personal injury lawyer becomes paramount. We will explore the important role these legal professionals play in helping individuals seek justice and compensation for their injuries, with a special focus on the vital services provided by personal injury lawyers in Denver and Colorado.

Understanding Personal Injury Law

Personal injury law covers a wide range of cases, from slip and fall accidents to car accidents and medical malpractice. This area of law is designed to protect individuals who have suffered harm due to the negligence or intentional actions of others. Personal injury lawyers are experts in sorting out the intricacies of these cases, advocating for their clients and ensuring that they receive fair compensation for their losses.

Importance of a Personal Injury Lawyer

1. Legal Expertise and Experience

Personal injury lawyers have a deep understanding of the legal landscape surrounding personal injury cases. Their expertise enables them to assess the complexities of each case, identify liable parties, and formulate an attractive legal strategy. In Denver and Colorado, where state-specific laws may apply, a local personal injury attorney familiar with jurisdictional nuances can make a significant difference.

2. Investigating the Case and Gathering Evidence

One of the primary responsibilities of a personal injury lawyer is to thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding the injury. This involves collecting evidence such as accident reports, medical records, witness statements and other relevant documents. The ability to carefully collect and analyze evidence is important to building a strong case.

3. Negotiate with Insurance Companies

Insurance companies often play a central role in personal injury cases, and their primary goal is to minimize payouts. Personal injury lawyers act as advocates for their clients during negotiations, ensuring that insurance companies do not take advantage of the injured party. Skillful negotiation can lead to a fair settlement that covers medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages.

4. Legal Representation in Court

While many personal injury cases are resolved through negotiation, some may go to court. In such cases, it is essential to have a personal injury attorney with trial experience. These professionals understand court procedures, rules of evidence, and are adept at presenting a compelling case to the judge and jury.

5. Calculation of Damages and Compensation

Determining the full extent of the damage is a complex task that requires a deep understanding of both the immediate and long-term consequences of the injury. Personal injury lawyers work with medical experts, economists, and other professionals to accurately assess the financial impact of an injury, ensuring that their clients receive fair compensation.

Personal Injury Lawyers in Denver: Local Expertise Matters

1. Navigating Colorado's Legal Landscape

Colorado has unique laws and rules governing personal injury cases. Personal injury lawyers in Denver are well-versed in these intricacies, allowing them to provide tailored legal advice that takes into account the specific laws and precedents related to the field.

2. Local Connections and Resources

It is important to establish a network of local experts in personal injury cases. From medical professionals to accident reconstruction experts, Denver-based personal injury lawyers have access to many resources that can strengthen their clients' cases. This network can be invaluable in gathering evidence and formulating persuasive arguments.

3. Community Understanding and Empathy

Being part of the local community increases feelings of understanding and empathy. Personal injury lawyers in Denver are often familiar with the challenges their clients face, whether it's navigating local health care systems or dealing with specific issues related to Colorado's terrain and weather conditions.

Process of Working with a Personal Injury Lawyer

1. Initial Consultation

The journey begins with an initial consultation, where a personal injury attorney evaluates the merits of the case. This includes a detailed discussion of the incident, resulting injuries, and any available evidence. During this stage, clients also have the opportunity to ask questions and gain a better understanding of the legal process.

2. Case Evaluation and Strategy Development

After the initial consultation, the lawyer conducts a comprehensive assessment of the case. This includes identifying liable parties, assessing the extent of damages, and formulating a legal strategy tailored to the client's specific situation. Clear communication is important at this stage, with the lawyer keeping the client informed about the proposed action.

3. Evidence Collection and Investigation

With a strategy in place, the attorney begins the process of gathering evidence. This may include obtaining medical records, accident reports, surveillance footage, and other relevant documents. The lawyer also interviews witnesses and consults experts to strengthen the case.

4. Negotiation and Compromise

Once the evidence has been gathered, the attorney enters into negotiations with the opposing party or their insurance company. Skillful negotiation is the hallmark of a competent personal injury attorney, and they strive to ensure a fair settlement that adequately compensates the client for their losses.

5. Litigation if Necessary

In cases where a settlement cannot be reached, the lawyer proceeds to litigation. This includes filing lawsuits, participating in the discovery process, presenting arguments in court, and advocating for the client's rights. Throughout this phase, the lawyer keeps the client informed about the progress of the case.

6. Finalization and Compensation

If a favorable outcome is achieved, the lawyer assists the client in finalizing the settlement or compensation awarded by the court. This includes addressing any outstanding legal matters, ensuring that medical liens are satisfied, and facilitating the disbursement of funds to the client.

Conclusion

When life takes unexpected turns and personal injuries occur, the support and guidance of a personal injury attorney can make a huge difference. These legal professionals act as advocates for people who have suffered harm due to the negligence of others, helping them navigate the complexities of the legal system and secure fair compensation for them. In Denver and Colorado, the role of a local personal injury attorney becomes even more important, as their expertise, connections, and understanding of the community contribute to the overall success of their clients' cases. By entrusting their legal journey to a skilled personal injury attorney, individuals can focus on healing and rebuilding their lives while their rights are fully protected in the pursuit of justice.

[jjlawidaho]

Idaho’s best personal injury lawyer in Boise and Nampa

A personal injury lawyer can help you understand common tort laws A personal injury lawyer in Boise and Nampa ID can help you understand the common tort laws and how to navigate personal injury cases. Tort law is an essential aspect of the legal system in every state, including Idaho. These laws are designed to protect individuals and their property from harm caused by the negligence or intentional actions of others. In this article, we will explore some of the common tort laws in Idaho and the principles that underpin them.

What Is a Tort?

A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm to someone's person, property, or reputation. It can lead to a lawsuit where the injured party, known as the plaintiff, seeks compensation or damages from the responsible party, known as the defendant. Tort laws aim to provide a legal remedy for individuals who have suffered harm due to another party's actions or omissions.

Common Types of Torts in Idaho

Idaho recognizes various types of torts, but some are more common than others. Here are a few of the most prevalent types:

Negligence: Negligence is the most common type of tort. It occurs when a person or entity fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another person. In Idaho, to establish a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused harm as a result of the breach.

Intentional Torts: These are actions where the defendant intentionally harms the plaintiff. Examples include assault, battery, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Premises Liability: Property owners in Idaho have a duty to maintain safe conditions on their premises. If someone is injured due to hazardous conditions on another's property, the property owner may be held liable for the injuries.

Product Liability: When a defective product causes harm to a consumer, the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer may be held responsible for the injuries. Product liability cases can be based on defects in design, manufacturing, or inadequate warnings.

Medical Malpractice: Healthcare professionals in Idaho are expected to provide a certain standard of care to patients. When they fail to meet this standard, and it results in harm, it can lead to a medical malpractice lawsuit.

Principles of Tort Law in Idaho

Several important principles and concepts underlie tort law in Idaho:

Comparative Negligence: Idaho follows the principle of comparative negligence. This means that if the plaintiff is found partially at fault for their injuries, their recovery may be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault. However, if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault, they may not recover any damages.

Statute of Limitations: In Idaho, there is a limited period during which a plaintiff can file a lawsuit. The statute of limitations varies depending on the type of tort. For example, personal injury claims generally have a two-year statute of limitations, while product liability claims may have different time limits.

Immunity: Some entities and individuals in Idaho may have immunity from certain tort claims. For example, government entities and their employees may have immunity in some cases, but there are exceptions, particularly for cases involving gross negligence.

Causation: To succeed in a tort case, the plaintiff must establish a causal link between the defendant's actions and the harm suffered. It must be proven that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm.

Damages and Compensation

In tort cases, the injured party seeks compensation for the harm they've suffered. The types of damages available in Idaho include:

Economic Damages: These are quantifiable financial losses, such as medical expenses, property damage, lost wages, and future earnings.

Non-Economic Damages: These are less tangible losses, like pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of consortium. Idaho does not place a cap on non-economic damages in most cases.

Punitive Damages: In cases where the defendant's actions were particularly egregious, the court may award punitive damages as a form of punishment and deterrence. However, there are limitations on punitive damages in Idaho.

Seeking Legal Assistance

Navigating the intricacies of tort law in Idaho can be challenging. Whether you are an injured party seeking compensation or a potential defendant, it's advisable to seek legal assistance. An experienced attorney can help you understand your rights and guide you through the legal process.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

In some cases, parties may opt for alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation or arbitration to resolve their tort disputes without going to court. ADR can be more cost-effective and quicker than a full-blown trial.

Tort law in Idaho plays a crucial role in ensuring that individuals and businesses are held accountable for their actions. It provides a legal framework for those who have suffered harm to seek compensation and justice. Understanding the common types of torts, legal principles, and the damages available is essential when dealing with such cases.

If you find yourself involved in a tort case in Idaho, remember that consulting with a qualified attorney is a wise decision. They can help you navigate the legal system, evaluate the strength of your case, and work towards a fair resolution. Idaho's tort laws are complex and ever-evolving, so legal expertise is invaluable in ensuring your rights are protected.

Hire the best personal injury lawyer in Boise and Nampa ID

Jacobson & Jacobson Law Firm, since 1982, is committed to serving the Boise and Nampa, Idaho areas for your top Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, Business Law, Estate Planning, Family Law, Immigration Law, and Litigation needs. Contact us today to get started. For a free 30-minute consultation, book here: https://calendly.com/jfj-1

[constitutionaladvocate]

American Jurisprudence book 16/ Constitution law sections / hq office dw...

BREECHED CRIMES DURRING COURT/   ANY OF THESE LAWS BREECHED ANY CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS IS A CRIME / 2 Determine whether the crime is a felony. In most states, it's legal to make a citizen's arrest when you see or have reasonable cause to believe that a person committed a felony, even if the felony was not committed in your presence.[3] Citizen's arrests are not usually legal when the crime committed is only a misdemeanor.[4] Since the definition of a felony varies slightly from state to state, it's a good idea to read up on your state's individual laws. The following is a list of crimes that are typically a felony[5] : • Murder, rape, or assault resulting in bodily injury • Theft of more than $500 worth of property • Indecent exposure before a child • Hit and run • Arson • • 3 Find out the law in your location. In some other states, you must always see the offense take place regardless of whether the offense is a felony or misdemeanor breach of the peace. In these states the citizen's arrest statute does not allow a citizen's arrest based upon "probable cause". [6] [7] 4 Decide if the crime was a "breach of peace." In some cases, you may make a citizen's arrest for misdemeanors if the misdemeanor can also be considered a breach of peace.[8] Misdemeanors that are considered breaches of peace in some states include public brawling or public intoxication.[9] • If you arrest someone for committing a crime that falls into this category, you must have seen the crime firsthand. 5 Decide if you can safely make a citizen's arrest. Be sure you can physically restrain the person you want to arrest before you try to. Misunderstanding your physical capabilities may put you or others in harm's way. If you make a citizen's arrest, the situation could easily escalate beyond your control. • Remember to think hard before making a citizen's arrest, especially if the perpetrator is armed. 6 Be prepared to accept the consequences. Be sure you fully understand the circumstances in which you can make a citizen's arrest. You may want to research the rules specific to your state. If so, contact a lawyer through your State Bar Association or local law enforcement office. • If it turns out you didn't have grounds to make the arrest, you could be sued for false imprisonment, assault and battery and other torts.[10] You may also face criminal charges. Don't make a citizen's arrest unless you're willing to face these risks. PART 2 FOR THE DISCOVERY // MAKING AN ARREST/ 1 Tell the person you're making a citizen's arrest. There are no specific words you must say, but you must make it completely clear that you are making a citizen's arrest. The person you're arresting must fully understand what's happening. Explain to the potential criminal why you are making a citizen's arrest. If you cannot provide him or her with this information, then you shouldn't be making the arrest. • In some states you must communicate to the individual the specific criminal offense for which the individual is being arrested for. • Leave it to the police to read the person his or her rights. For now, you only need to say that you're making an arrest. • 2 • Detain the person using reasonable force. You can only use the amount of force required to detain the person until the police arrive. Using a greater amount of force exposes you to legal trouble. Be careful not to harm the perpetrator unless it's absolutely necessary.[11] 3 Call and deliver the suspect to law enforcement. Call law enforcement right after the person is detained. Some statutes in states like California and Minnesota require that a person take the arrested individual before a judge or peace officer “without unnecessary delay.”[12] • But, if you try to transport a suspect on your own and you conducted an improper citizen's arrest, you may be subjected to a lawsuit for false imprisonment. 4 Ask someone to stay with you. If you can't deliver the suspect or your state doesn't need you to, ask a third party to stay with you. Wait for law enforcement to arrive. If possible, avoid watching the person you've arrested alone. Having a third party help you detain the person is best for everyone's safety. • The third party may be helpful in making sure the encounter doesn't get violent and might be able to serve as a witness. 5 Explain in full detail what you saw. When law enforcement arrives, explain what you saw in full detail. Law enforcement will probably ask you to give a statement. Make sure to include everything that you saw. Explain your actions during the criminal act and the citizen's arrest. Be clear about any force you had to use to arrest the suspect. • Depending on your state, transporting an individual away from the scene of the crime may constitute kidnapping or criminal confinement, regardless of whether you have lawful grounds for citizen's arrest. PART 3 DISCOVERY //////////// 1 Don't make an arrest if you didn't see the crime. While you may think you have all the evidence you need to believe someone has committed a crime, your understanding of the events may be wrong. Don't make a citizen's arrest if you overhear someone talking about robbing a bank. If you're wrong, you may be at fault. Call the police instead.[13] Always remember, an improper citizen's arrest can result in prosecution for crimes like kidnapping.[14] • For example, just because you see a crowd of people chasing a suspect or a victim asking for help, doesn't necessarily mean you have grounds to arrest someone. 2 Don't arrest someone you believe is about to commit a crime. The crime must have already happened in order for you to legally make an arrest. Don't arrest someone if the crime hasn't yet been committed. Call the police instead.[15] 3 Don't use excessive force. Even the police are not allowed to use excessive force when taking a suspect into custody, so you, as a private citizen, should be especially careful about this. Otherwise, you may be charged with battery, even if the suspect you apprehend is guilty of a crime. The use of deadly force is usually not allowed unless the perpetrator is attacking you or someone else.[16] • Don't use a weapon against the perpetrator when you can use your own strength.[17] For example, you can tackle someone to the ground rather than hitting him or her. 4 Don't make a citizen's arrest if you could easily call the police instead.[18] As a private citizen, it's not your job to make arrests. If it is at all possible, you should always leave policing to those who have a legal authority to do so--the police. Otherwise, your actions might put you, the alleged perpetrator and the general public, at risk. • Your actions may also be viewed as vigilantism, which is not legally protected action if you step beyond the authority explicitly granted to citizens by the law 5 Keep the detained suspect safe. Once you have detained someone, you are responsible for what happens to the person while he or she is under your control. Make sure they are not in the road, where they could be hit by a car, and make sure they are protected from onlookers who might try to attack them. Facts/ Is it coming to and for all American citizens to start arresting judges lawyers and police officer for high felony treason?  learn what treason by sedition is and what a breech is of the Constitution, it’s what you say if they are violating any of the fundamental principles and amendments and provisions and articles and declarations of rights, by any violations in the compact agreement then it’s a crime, and shall be arrested and given to the checks and balance of a authority operating under the oath and iron clad contract.  Wo says so the Constitutional merits say so and we the people say so one of the people.     How to Make a Citizen's Arrest (with Pictures) - wikiHow

[legalassistant1]

What is a personal injury lawyer, and what types of cases do they handle?

A personal injury lawyer is a legal professional who specializes in representing individuals who have been physically, emotionally, or financially harmed due to the negligence, recklessness, or intentional actions of another person, entity, or organization. These lawyers are well-versed in the area of tort law, which deals with civil wrongs and the remedies available to those who have suffered harm.

Personal injury lawyers handle a wide range of cases, including but not limited to:

Car Accidents: These lawyers help individuals who have been injured in car accidents due to the negligence of other drivers. This includes cases involving drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, and other forms of reckless behavior.

Slip and Fall Accidents: When someone is injured on someone else's property due to hazardous conditions, such as wet floors, uneven surfaces, or inadequate maintenance, a personal injury lawyer can help them pursue compensation.

Medical Malpractice: If a healthcare professional's negligence or misconduct leads to injury, illness, or death of a patient, a personal injury lawyer can assist the victim in seeking damages.

Product Liability: If a defective or dangerous product causes harm to a consumer, a personal injury lawyer can help the injured party seek compensation from the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer responsible.

Workplace Accidents: When a worker is injured on the job due to unsafe working conditions, equipment malfunction, or employer negligence, a personal injury lawyer can help them file for workers' compensation benefits or pursue a lawsuit against a third party responsible for the injury.

Wrongful Death: If a person's death is caused by the negligence or intentional actions of another party, the deceased person's family members can hire a personal injury lawyer to file a wrongful death lawsuit to seek compensation for their loss.

Defamation and Libel: Personal injury lawyers also handle cases involving harm caused by false statements that damage a person's reputation, such as defamation and libel.

Dog Bites: When someone is bitten or injured by another person's dog, a personal injury lawyer can help the victim pursue compensation from the dog owner, especially if they were negligent in controlling their pet.

Assault and Battery: If someone is physically attacked or assaulted, resulting in injuries, a personal injury lawyer can help them pursue legal action against the perpetrator.

Premises Liability: Personal injury lawyers handle cases where injuries occur on someone's property due to unsafe conditions, such as inadequate security leading to assault or injuries.

These are just a few examples of the types of cases that personal injury lawyers handle. Their primary goal is to help their clients receive compensation for their medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages resulting from the incident. Personal injury lawyers often work on a contingency fee basis, meaning they only get paid if they successfully secure compensation for their clients.

[thekimspoblog]

Torts

Intentional Torts

Battery:

(1) Intentional act, absent of mistake, coercion or duress. (2) Intended to cause harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff. (3) Actual contact.

Transferred Intent? Substantial certainty of a battery occurring?

Assault:

(1) Intentional act, absent of mistake, coercion or duress. (2) Intended to cause harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff. (3) Plaintiff was put in apprehension of immediate harmful contact.

False Imprisonment:

(1) Detention of the plaintiff. (2) Without consent. (3) No legal justification.

Was there a reasonable means of escape? Did the plaintiff know about the means to escape?

Trespass to Land:

(1) Intentional or negligent entry (2) onto the property of the plaintiff. (3) No permission. (4) Damages measured by harm to property.

Did the defendant propel a tangible object onto the plaintiff’s property?

Trespass to Chattels:

(1) Use of plaintiff’s property, (2) No permission, (3) Interference with plaintiff’s possessory interest in their property. 

If the item was destroyed, it’s conversion.

Conversion:

(1) An intentional act (2) which seriously interferes with the plaintiff’s possessory interest in their property.

IIED:

(1) Outrageous conduct, (2) intended to harm the plaintiff (3) which shocks the conscience of a reasonable person. (3) Evidence of substantial psychological harm.

Is the plaintiff a traditionally protected class?

Is the defendant a common carrier?

Was the conduct ongoing?

Did the plaintiff witness a battery (of a relative) by the defendant?

Negligence

Duty:

By default, every citizen has a duty to exercise their freedom with reasonable care. The issue of whether the defendant acted with reasonable care will be decided by the jury. In the majority of jurisdictions, this duty is limited to all foreseeable potential plaintiffs

Professional Liability: 

If the defendant holds themselves out as especially knowledgeable in a certain vocation, the defendant has a duty to act the same as a reasonably prudent person (1) of that profession (2) in good standing.

Children:

A child’s duty of care is determined compared to a reasonable person of similar age, unless the child was involved in an adult activity such as driving.

Disability:

What would a reasonably prudent person with the same disability have done under the same circumstances as the defendant?

Landowners:

A landowner may be liable for injury to a plaintiff who (1) entered their property and (2) was injured as the result of an activity or static condition on the property.

Undiscovered Trespassers - A landowner owes no duty to foreseeable trespassers.

Discovered Trespassers - If a landowner had reason to know trespassers were on their property, the landowner is liable for any damage caused by (1) artificial, (2) concealed, (3) highly dangerous conditions.

Attractive Nuisance - A landowner is presumed liable if the hazardous conditions would foreseeable entice children to trespass.

Licensee/Invitee - A property owner has a duty of reasonable care to ensure the safety of all acquaintances or customers invited onto the property.

Breach:

Res Ipsa Loquitur:

A court will presume breach of duty if (1) the damage which occurred would not normally have occurred in the absence of negligence, and (2) the defendant had control over the instrumentality of the breach.

Negligence Per Se:

The plaintiff may establish breach by showing that the defendant violated a statute or regulatory code if (1) they can show that the statute was written to prevent the type of harm caused by the defendant and (2) the plaintiff falls into the class of people meant to be protected by the statute. (3) Complying with the statute cannot have been more dangerous than violating it and (4) the defendant must have had the capacity to comply with the statute.

Actual Cause:

First, the plaintiff must show that “but for” the defendant’s breach of duty, the damage would not have happened. 

Multiple Defendants, Commingled Cause:

Was the defendant’s breach a substantial factor in causing the damage?

Multiple Defendants, Unknown Cause:

The burden of proof is shifted to the defendants.

Proximate Cause:

Cardozo (Majority) Rule: The defendant is liable for any foreseeable risks inherent to the activity.

Andrews (Minority) Rule: The defendant is liable for all foreseeable risks.

Intervening Cause:

Was the intervening event foreseeable? Was the outcome foreseeable? (1) Subsequent medical malpractice, (2) negligent rescue, (3) reaction forces, (4) Subsequent diseases or accidents, never prove a supervening cause. Supervening causes include (1) unforeseeable negligence by a third party, (2) unforeseeable criminality by a third party, (3) unforeseeable acts of nature.

Damages:

Personal Injury: (1) Past and future medical expenses, (2) lost income limited by the plaintiff’s duty to mitigate damages, (3) pain and suffering.

Eggshell Victim Theory: Once the plaintiff has proved the defendant caused the damage, the defendant will be liable for unforeseeable damages as well as foreseeable.

Property Damage

Defenses:

Contributory Negligence: (1) Duty, (2) Breach, (3) Actual Cause, (4) Proximate Cause, (5) Damages of the plaintiff.

Last Clear Chance: A plaintiff can recover damages to spite their own negligence, if the defendant was given the last possible chance to prevent the harm.

Assumption of the risk: Express or Implied. (1) Plaintiff must have been informed of the risk, and (2) the risk was voluntarily encountered. The plaintiff cannot volunteer themselves into an emergency created by the defendant.

Comparative Negligence: Comes in two flavors. In Partial Comparative Negligence jurisdictions, the plaintiff must be less than 50% at fault in order to recover. In Pure Comparative Negligence jurisdictions, the plaintiff will always recover proportionately to the fault of the defendant.

Defamation

(1) The defendant made a statement which harmed the esteem of the plaintiff in the eyes of their peers. (2) The statement made was concerning the plaintiff. (3) The statement was false.

Matter of Public Concern?

If the defamatory comment pertained to a subject open to the public forum for debate, or the plaintiff is a figure in the public eye whose life is naturally of public concern, then the plaintiff must prove actual malice.

Slander or Libel?

Slander is spoken defamation which can be expected to dissipate with time. Libel is published defamation which (by nature of the medium) could damage the plaintiff’s reputation permanently. The difference is that slander requires evidence of monetary damages.

Slander Per Se:

Damages can be presumed where (1) the defendant imputed the plaintiff’s professional competence, (2) the defendant erroneously accused the plaintiff of a crime, (3) the defendant gossiped that the plaintiff had a serious contagious disease, or (4) the defendant erroneously accused the plaintiff of adultery.

Invasion of Privacy

PDPF:

(1) The widespread dissemination of information (2) which the plaintiff could have reasonably expected to remain confidential.

Appropriation of Likeness:

(1) The defendant used the plaintiff’s image or likeness (2) for commercial gain (3) without the plaintiff’s consent.

False Light:

(1) A wide dissemination (2) of false information (3) which would be highly offensive to the reasonable person.

Intrusion:

(1) The defendant interfered with the plaintiff’s privacy (2) in a manner which would be highly offensive to the reasonable person.

Nuisance

A Nuisance is any (1) Intangible force (2) intentionally or recklessly caused by the defendant (3) with interferes with the plaintiff’s right to enjoy their property.

Defenses

Consent:

As long as the plaintiff had the capacity to consent to a tort (old enough, sane enough, sober enough, absent mistake, fraud, or duress), then this is a complete defense to a tort action. Implied consent may be established through evidence of common social customs, or the plaintiff’s own conduct. It is still possible, however, for the defendant to exceed the scope of implied consent.

Self-Defense:

A defendant may use force, to prevent what they believe to be an imminent threat of force.The use of force must be appropriate for the situation, and lethal force cannot be used unless a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have perceived immediate, mortal danger (or in danger of rape).

Duty to Retreat:

In most states, the defendant has no duty to retreat before committing a tort in self-defense. In some states (California), however, defendants have a duty to attempt to retreat from a place before attempting to use lethal force. Defendants never have a duty to retreat from their own homes. This is known as Castle Doctrine.

Defense of Another:

Similar to self-defense doctrine, but with the important distinction of being measured from the defendant’s perspective. A defendant is excused from interfering with a lawful arrest if the officer was not in uniform.

Defense of Property:

A defendant may use reasonable force to defend their own property, but never lethal force.

Necessity:

The defendant is justified in committing a property tort, if the defendant had a reasonable belief that the tort was necessary to prevent a greater harm.

Public Necessity:

If the tort was necessary to protect many people from harm, Necessity will be a complete defense. 

Private Necessity:

If the defendant committed the tort only to protect themselves, they will not be found liable for nominal damages, but must still compensate the plaintiff for any monetary damage to the plaintiff’s property.

Vicarious Liability

Liability may be imposed on a defendant in certain cases where the defendant is responsible for the negligence of the tortfeasor.

Employees:

(1) Negligent person was employed by the defendant. (2) The negligent person committed the tort while acting within the scope of their employment, (3) the employer authorized the employee to act tortiously, or (4) the employer ratified the tortious conduct after-the-fact. Detour or frolic?

Independent Contractors:

Employers are not usually liable for the torts of hired independent contractors UNLESS the employer inappropriately outsourced a basic duty of care to the contractor. If the act of delegating the duty to a third party was in itself negligent, an employer will be held liable

Vehicle Owners:

The owner of a vehicle may be liable for the negligence of the driver if (1) the owner gave express or implied consent for the car to be driven, (2) the owner was a passenger while the driver was negligently operating the car, or (3) the car was a shared family vehicle and the negligent driver was a family member of the owner.

Strict Liability

If the tortious/negligent act of the defendant is covered under Strict Liability, the defendant may be found liable even if there was no breach of duty.

Animals:

Owners are strictly liable for any foreseeable property damage caused by the animals. Physical injury is not considered foreseeable, unless the animal was either wild or had a known dangerous propensity.

SPL:

(1) The defendant is a merchant of the goods in question. (2) The goods were defective somehow.

Manufacturing Defect:

(1) The product was different from the rest of the products in its line and (2) this difference was likely to cause injury. (3) The defect existed at the time it left the control of the manufacturer.

Design Defect:

(1) There was a cost effective (2) alternative design (3) which would not have changed the product’s utility.

Warning Defect:

If a product has a design defect, the product must communicate an (1) obvious (2) legible warning (3) specific about the product’s hazards (4) and how to avoid injury. Adequate warning of a design defect is a defense to SPL.

Defenses to SPL:

(1) Contributory negligence will apply when the plaintiff used the product in a way that was unforeseeable, not merely unintended. (2) In cases where the defendant knowingly used low-quality goods while performing a service, this will be actionable as Professional Liability not strict products liability.

Abnormally Hazardous Activities:

(1) The defendant’s tortious act pertained to (2) an activity which is dangerous even under perfect conditions (3) and promises extreme damage upon failure.

[fishklok]

Happy Friday.

I needed to study for my torts class, and what better motivation is there than spite? Unfortunately, I did block this anon so they will be spared from my lecture lol. This is for me now.

Let's get some disclaimers out of the way.

The point of my post was not "Magnus would be found innocent because Nathan hurt his lil face :(". For one, I am talking about civil law, and innocent/guilty is criminal law terminology (a lot of self defense law is carried over from criminal law, but that's a different matter). The point of my post was whether, Magnus could use his own injuries to argue against Nathan's self defense claims. Magnus would still be liable for battery, but there is a chance he could have Nathan hit for a similar (perhaps lesser) claim. I thought I was clear in my original post, but there's a chance I wasn't and I'm sorry.

I'm just using scenes from the show to exercise my law student brain. It's really just a fun exercise trying to work through events and ask "well, how could this point be argued?" or "what if x happened instead?" I'm not a lawyer and I'm definitely not giving legal advice. There is a chance that I'll learn something next week that will tear apart everything I'm about to write in this post. That's fine - I'm still learning.

You might be thinking that I'm wasting my time dwelling on this. To that I'd say, yeah. I know anon and I have nothing going on this Friday night, so I might as well spend it doing some fun legal research.

Anyway, let's get to these points.

"Nathan would be completely in his right to fill magnus with lead, let alone punch him for magnus' ATTEMPTED MURDER."

Anon is actually right here. Let's assume that when Magnus went to stab Nathan, and Nathan responded by pulling out a gun and shot him, many courts would find this is sufficient to count as self defense. For Nathan to be justified in using deadly force against Magnus, he would have to prove that he had "reasonable apprehension of loss of life or great bodily harm." Scales v. State (1961). Then the court would have to argue over what constitutes as "reasonable apprehension", but it's likely that most courts would find Magnus literally attacking him with a knife to be more than enough.

"At what point does assault with a deadly weapon not justify a person's right to respond in equal if not excessive force to protect their own life?"

This is actually a very interesting question that's at the root of a lot of cases. Here's an example of a disagreement that comes up frequently within the law: what if someone is able to retreat? If someone could have fled the scene, but instead chose to defend themselves with deadly force, can they still claim self defense? The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 65 (1965) says that a victim may use deadly force, only if there's reasonable doubt they could escape safely. However, most courts hold that someone can use deadly force to defend themselves, even if that force results in the death of their attacker. But this is a very complicated issue that you see pop up everywhere from courtrooms to high school debate club topics. But relevant for this spiral of a post, if Nathan killed Magnus to defend himself from being stabbed, it would be sufficient to count as self defense. Also Magnus would have a harder time arguing otherwise.

(Also, just to be even more of an asshole, for the sake of this hypothetical I'm considering Magnus' crime battery, not assault with a deadly weapon. It's still a serious tort, but I don't want to get too mixed up with criminal terms in this civil law example. Also I'm being pedantic.)

"There have been cases of people winning self defense when the attacker died using a less deadly weapon."

I don't doubt that; I've even read some of those cases. However, this is not the issue at hand.

My point was that, if Magnus was brought to court, he could make the argument that Nathan used excessive force against him. Not by punching him after the initial attack, but by repeatedly punching him when he no longer had the means to fight back. If the initial attack is no longer a threat, the privilege of self-defense is terminated. The cases my text book cites to illustrate this point are Germolous v. Sausser (1901), Drabek v. Sabley (1966), Edgar v. Emily (1982). There is a point in the series of events where the self-defense distinction becomes murkier, and Magnus could use that murkiness to his advantage. It could be argued that Magnus stopped committing the battery the moment he no longer had access to his weapon and he was prone on the ground. When it comes to proportionality of force used in self defense, courts often consider the differences in strength and age between the parties. So if Magnus wants to present himself in court as a weak old man getting punched in the face by this beefcake metal vocalist, it might be able to help his case.

So what does this mean for Magnus? Does this mean the court would find him innocent? No, because "innocent" is a criminal law term, and I just spent an eternity talking about torts. But in a civil case, Magnus would have grounds to argue against Nathan's self defense claims. Does this mean he would win? Unlikely. At most, I can see Nathan being considered liable for battery as well, not definitely not as severe as Magnus' claim. Nathan might have to pay him some damages, but it probably wouldn't even be enough to make up for the money Magnus would owe him. And at worst, the court would look at Magnus' argument and say, "yeah....but you did stab the guy, so no." It really depends on the jurisdiction and the nature of the arguments. But it is an argument that Magnus, this fictional cartoon man, could make. There is no guarantee he would win.

"You're going to make a horrible lawyer."

I don't know what kind of lawyer I'm going to be.

Anyway, lol. Lmao, even.

(I was able to seriously bulk up my tort law notes for today because of this, so I don't consider this a waste of time at all. It's a waste of everyone else's time lol).

[techmatemag]

Tort| Meaning| Types and benefits|

Tort Meaning

The word “tort” means “wrong,” It is derived from the Latin word Tortus, which means wrong. Wrongful conduct includes civil wrongs. It is the law that gives one person the ability to sue another for harm caused.

Tort Definition

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a tort as “an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability.” It can also be stated as an “actionable wrong.”

Tort Law

Tort law is a broad area of law that governs the relationship between two parties, providing relief for the injured party and imposing liability on the party responsible for the harm.

It can shift the burden of loss from the injured party to the party who is at fault or better. 

Wrongful conduct is a civil wrong, committed by one individual against another. When someone sues for damages in tort law, the defendant is typically found liable and is required to give monetary compensation to the plaintiff.

Torts can also include intentional torts, such as assault, or negligent torts, such as battery or trespass. In addition to monetary damages, tort law also allows for remedies through injunction and restitution.

The United States' legal system is divided into three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. These three branches are governed by the Constitution, which establishes the legislative branch and the executive branch, and the judicial branch.

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

Prediction for “She-Hulk”: The second episode will make it seem like Titania is going to be this Big Bad who Jennifer needs to face in one last showdown. However, instead of vowing to cause more destruction in order to defeat She-Hulk, Titania says she’s going to sue her for battery.

(Law school student side note: not “assault and battery” like how most lawyer shows describe it as. Assault is a tort centered on the fear of imminent harmful/offensive contact. It’s more about an attempt of said contact, such as a person flinching back because another person made a move that seemed to indicate that they were going for a punch. This is not the case here since Jennifer actually did make contact with Titania) 

[feste-the-jester]

I just need to point out that accusing someone of things like abuse, grooming, behaving inappropriately towards minors etc IS defamation.

Specifically I would like to point the Fool and his followers to the definition of Defamation Per Se:

Traditionally, there have been four general categories of untrue statements presumed to be harmful to one's reputation and therefore actionable as an injury claim. Typically, if the statements don't fall into one of these categories, the plaintiff is required to prove their damages. If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed.

The four general categories are:

Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity

Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious disease

Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct

Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession

For example, in an Alaska Supreme Court case a woman accused a man of assault, battery, and false imprisonment, and he brought a claim against her for defamation. The court explained that because the statements imputed a serious crime, the man was not required to prove the damage to his reputation and emotional distress. As a result, his award was affirmed.

As well as something called the False Light tort.

False light is one of several torts under the category of invasion of privacy where a defendant is accused of spreading falsehoods about a plaintiff that would be considered objectionable by the average person. False light is a privacy tort that is similar to defamation. The tort of false light allows individuals and businesses the right to protect themselves against the public dissemination of information, which puts them in a “false light.”

Publishing claims like the following, which are referring to Simon the Author (and not Simon the character) using anonymous sources without verifying them (or even being able to prove they are more than one person) is defamatory to the character of the author.

Publishing them on a blog that also contains more than 40 separate claims that Kristina Meister is the author of Simon Alkenmayer, is defamatory to Kristina Meister.

Not to mention ethically questionable and dangerous.

[raerana]

goldigging is not bad nor a crime. seethe and cope

I’m soooo glad you mentioned crime, turdbot 💖 (interesting that you don’t deny she’s a gold digger)

Crimes Amber Heard has committed:

1. Perjury- lying under oath (USA, UK, Australia. Currently under investigation in AUS with help from the FBI. Extradition and JAIL TIME possible)

2. Glassing- attacking someone with a glass or bottle (AUS. She avoided arrest by leaving the country after severing JD’s finger)

3. Assault & Battery (“I wasn’t punching you I was hitting you”, “I did start a physical fight”, “I can’t promise you I won’t get physical again”- her own words. See also: glassing incident.)

4. Endangering Biosecurity, I like to call it Bioterrierism in this case- (AUS. Importing dogs illegally. AUS has strict biosecurity laws bc it’s an isolated island with unique wildlife and important agriculture industry. She pled GUILTY and STILL LIED in a court of law there. This led to a perjury investigation in 2021 after the UK trial where it was revealed she threatened employees to lie about the dogs.)

5. Domestic Abuse- (2009 airport ARREST after assaulting ex wife in public. Also requested to “clean up” the charge before dating JD. Not to mention the shit she did to JD)

6. Driving with a suspended license- there’s a teenage mugshot available (suspected DUI and Vehicular Manslaughter to get license suspension in first place but not 100% proven. Her friend was killed by a car. Some underage criminal records hidden)

7. Fabricating Evidence- (Edited photos as proven during trial. Confirmed by JD’s and AH’s experts. Scamber also refused to present her devices to JD’s expert under court order. Something else to hide, Scamber?)

Possible Crimes:

1. Insurance Fraud (suspiciously getting 2 insurance policies to cover defamation lawsuits in 2018, the year the op-ed was published. New York Marine sued Scamber because the US trial determined she defamed JD “willfully” and “maliciously” and they do not cover INTENTIONAL torts.)

2. Animal Abuse (bringing dogs to AUS knowing they were in danger of being put down, winning JD’s dog in the divorce and giving it to her dog fighting father, holding small dog out car window like she accused JD of doing during trial (in her insta video))

AND THERE’S PROBABLY MORE !

Seethe and cope bestie 😘 Hope you recover from your delusion soon 😘

[taniket]

BATTERY

Battery

The wrong of battery consists in intentional application of torts to another

person without any 1awful justification. Its essential requirements are

1. There should be use of force.

The same should be, without any lawful jjustification.

1. Use of Force

Even though the force used is very trivial and does not cause any harm,

the wrong is still constituted. Physical hurt need not be there. Least touching

of another in anger is a battery. The force may be used even without a bodily

contact with the aggressor. Use of a stick, bullet or any other missile or

throwing of water or spitting in a man's face or making a person fall by

pulling his chair are examples of use of force. Infliction of heat, light, electricity

gas, odour, etc. would be a battery if it can result in physical injury or personal

discomfort.

Mere passive obstruction, however, cannot be considered as the use of

force. In Innes v. Wylie a policeman unlawfully prevented the plaintiff from

entering the club premises. It was held that if the policeman was entirely passive like a door or a wall put to prevent from entering the room, there

was no assault.

ii) Without Lawful Justification

It is essential that the use of force should be intentional and without any

lawful justification. It was stated by Holt, C.J.' that if two or more persons

meet in a narrow passage and without any violence or design of harm, the

one touches the other gently, it will be no battery. But if either of them uses

violence against the other, to force his way in a rude or inordinate manner, it

will be a battery. Harm voluntarily suffered is no battery. The use of force may

also be justified in pullin8 a drowning man out of water, forcibly feeding a

hunger-striking prisoner to save his life, or performance of operation of an

unconscious person by a competent surgeon to save the former's life.

Harm which is unintentional or caused by pure accident is also not

actionable. In Stanley v. Powell," Powell, who was the member of a shooting

party, fired at a pheasant but the pellet from his gun glanced off a tree and

accidentally wounded Stanley, another member of the party. It was held that

Powell was not liable. If the act is wilful or negligent, the defendant would be

liable.

In Pratap Daji v. B.B. & C.I. Ry.,' the plaintiff entered a carriage on the

defendant's railway but by oversight failed to purchase a ticket for his travel.

At an intermediate station, he asked for a ticket but the same was refused. At

another place, he was asked to get out of the carriage since he did not have

a ticket. On his refusal to get out, force was used to make him get out of the

carriage. In an action by him for his forcible removal, it was held that the use

of the force was justified as he, being without a ticket, was a trespasser. The

defendants were, therefore, not liable.

Use of force to oust a trespasser from certain premises is perfectly justified.

However, only reasonable force can be used against a trespasser. It should not

be more force than is necessary to repel the invasion. Use of excessive force

than is necessary, will make a person liable. In Cherubin Gregory v. State of

Bihar it was held that fixing naked live electric wire, without due warning,

across the passage of a latrine to keep the trespassers away from the latrine

and thereby causing the death of a trespasser was actionable.

In P. Kader v. K.A. Alagarswami, the Madras High Court held that

putting handcuffs on an undertrial prisoner and then chaining him like

dangerous animal with a neighbouring window in a hospital during his medical

treatment is an unjustifiable use of force and the police officer responsible for

the same is liable for trespass to the person. It was also observed that in such

a case, there is no need to prove any motive or intention on the part ot the

police officer, because if the officer has exceeded and abused his authority, it

nay be out of arrogance or even because of a temperamental detect which

Delights in cruelty, the act would be malicious and mala fide unless it can

Plausibly De contended, that the circumstances justified the use or he power.