Buy custom Class Problems essay
1. Larceny is a criminal act that involves unlawfully taking the private property of another individual. It is usually a nonviolent method of theft that involves a property being wrongly taken away from another individual. It relates to physical tangible property that can be carried from its position and intangibles like thoughts or services (Cranston, 2009). The state laws largely split larceny into six elements. Each element must be proven to a reasonable extent to acquire a conviction. The elements are:
- the wrongful taking;
- and carrying away;
- of the personal property;
- of another person;
- without his or her consent;
- with the intent to steal it.
Larceny is a crime that is intended by the criminal, meaning that it entails the accused to have the unlawful intention of stealing or depriving the holder of the possessions for a long period. Generally, this intention should be true at the time of the action, i.e., taking, though in certain circumstances, it can arise in the future. The probability of me being arrested in this case is legitimate because of availability of the umbrella in my possession without the owner’s permission or consent. It was also a mistake for me to carry the umbrella away from its original position to another. It shows my contemporary ownership of the umbrella, yet it was not mine. However, these descriptions and captions of larceny will prove me innocent of the crime of larceny. Since the State must prove all the six elements of larceny to be able to convict an accused person, my verdict will be innocent. The reason is the lack of the first and sixth elements (wrongful taking, with the intent of stealing) of committing the felony. This legal state rules will therefore pardon myself from the accusation of larceny and prove my case innocent (Cranston, 2009).
2. Negligence in employment contrasts comes from careless entrustment in two key respects. Negligent employment entails that the harm was caused by the actual employment of the individual. By assessment, an individual can be held responsible for neglectfully entrusting something to any person, whether that somebody is a worker or not. Second, a member of staff can be found accountable for careless hiring, retention, administration or training even without providing any dangerous instruments to the member.
In such a case, the customer ho has decided to file a law suit against me - the owner of the shop, and therefore the entrustor - will base it on negligent entrustment. This is a cause of action in tort law that is brought about when one individual, the entrustor, is being held responsible for negligence because they carelessly provided another party, the entrustee, with a responsibility. As a result, the entrustee due to carelessness caused harm to a third person (Cranston, 2009). Vicarious liability is a discrete theory of burden from careless entrustment. The principle of vicarious liability states that the owner is responsible for the offenses of a worker under a support theory, even if the manager did nothing wrong. Careless designation, however, needs actual proof on part of the owner before the harm occurred, when the entrustee was entrusted with the treacherous instrumentality.
If such a lawsuit is filed, I as the entrustor will have to answer for the actions of the entrustee. Such a lawsuit will eventually find me guilty due to availability of evidence and witness in form of the injured person. In this case the, chances of the customer winning are very high since she is seeking justice.
3. People consider filing lawsuits when serious disputes occur. Before filing a lawsuit, it is important to identify whether your situation is worth filing a suit over, where and how you would file the paper in pursuing the case. Filing a baseless statement in law is known as frivolous litigation. It is the exercise of starting or carrying on lawsuits which, due to their nonexistence of legal merit, have slight or no chance of being won. An individual may refer to the lawsuit as perky if he or she individually discovers that a statement is ridiculous. In legal practice, "frivolous litigation" consists of a claim or defense that is unfilled where the client (or the client's legal counsel) had an objective to know that the claim or defense was distinctly insufficient or wasted. If a claim is lost it does not mean that it was frivolous (Cranston, 2009).
As a lawyer representing Mrs. Paulsen, I would file a law suit under the act of negligence and focus on proximate cause. This will enable to form a basis for my accusation and will also increase my chances of winning the case. In proximate cause there are two circumstances where the “but for” test is complicated. Where two separate parties combine to bring about harm or an injury to a thirrd party, each party that led to the action is liable. This is referred to as concurrent causes. In the given case, the lawsuit will be filed based on direct causation. This is a minor test that addresses the metaphysical concept of what causes the harm. In such a way, Mrs. Paulsen’s situation will be addressed effectively. Direct causation only considers how the negligent party’s action can be tied to the action that actually happened. The main point of direct causation is that there are no actions that intervene between the actual action and the subsequent harm. An intervening cause has to be free of the original act, be an unusual natural event, and should occur or appear in time between the original act and the harm (Cranston, 2009). Therefore, it is important to to deal with is Mrs. Paulsen’s harm and the possibility that the train commuter company is to blame for her injuries.
Buy custom Class Problems essay