Albert v Camille & Dan (Represented by Big W)
Was Albert Battered by Camille?
Albert may not be able to successfully sue Camille and Dan for battery. In this case, Camille grabbed Albert’s arm after he had pushed Dan over in order to stop him from running away. In order for a battery to have occurred, there must have been three elements. From the case of Garratt v Dailey (1955) 279 2d 1091 there must have been a 1) direct physical act, 2) which must interfere with the person of the plaintiff, 3) and must have been accompanied by fault or intention. In this case, all of the elements are satisfied, although preceding cases show that additional considerations must be made. In the case of Boughey v Regina (1986) 161 CLR 10 at 24-5, the High Court said in obiter that an intentional but non hostile act if committed inoffensively does not classify as battery. Furthermore, in the case of Brian Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 98, the court had said that it was necessary to consider the context in certain scenario as to whether or not a battery was committed. Considering the context of Albert pushing Dan over and trying to run off, the reasonable person may consider Camille’s actions to be justified and fitting in this situation as she was simply trying to calm him down. Therefore it is unlikely that Albert may sue Camille on the basis that she committed a battery, and therefore he cannot claim damages. Additionally, Dan may consider suing Albert for battery, as Albert’s actions are unjustified in this context.
Was Albert Falsely Imprisoned by Camille & Dan?
Albert can likely sue Camille and Dan for false imprisonment. In this case, Albert was escorted to the security office and made to wait there for 3 hours as he believed ...
... middle of paper ...
...p a baseball bat and started swinging it violently, warning Franca not to approach or he would hit her. As aforementioned, in order for an assault to have occurred there must have been reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff’s mind of a battery (Sappideen et al). In this case, Franca may argue that Liam’s actions constituted as an assault, as in the case of Rozsa v Samuels [1969] SASR 205, where the court said that although the plaintiff’s actions were threatening, the response of the defendant was equally, if not more threatening, and therefore constituted as an assault. Although, Liam may argue that he had a legal right to reasonably (emphasis added) defend himself, as outlined in Fontin v Kadapodis (1962) 108 CLR 177. As Liam’s actions may be regarded as reasonable, the court likely rule that there was no assault, and that Franca is not entitled to any damages.
Two of the most significant inmates rights cases in the past century are Sandin v. Conner and Whitley v. Albers.
The duty of prosecutorial disclosure is one that is safely entrenched in our understanding of the legal system. The prosecution must disclose evidence that relates to the case and is favorable to the defendant. While not explicitly stated in that duty, it also means that the histories of the witnesses are available to the defense. And when police officers are called to testify at cases, their disciplinary histories come into play as a factor in their credibility. Taking all this prior information into account when addressing the dilemma of the police officer with a good record who used the department computers to look at pornography using his login information, and then lied about it only to confess when the internal investigation proved
Hammer v. Dagenhart case argued inaApril 15,16, 1918 and decided in June 3, 1918 by the supreme court. This case discussed child labor laws. during the progressive era America turned against what was perceived as brutal child labor, in the early 1900’s it was common for kids to work long hours in different types of industries, they had to work more than 60 hours a week, day and night, this brought the supreme court’s attention and that’s how this case was admitted to be discussed in the supreme court.
...le grounds that she cannot otherwise protect herself from injury apart from using force. The prerequisite of reasonableness is an imperative characteristic of Canadian self-defence law. Courts have customarily used a criterion of reasonableness replicated on the traditional barroom brawl situation, concerning antagonists of identical dimension, force, and ability. In such a situation, the reasonable man rises and faces his opponent, meeting fists with fists. He is not scared or aggravated to violent behaviour by meagre threats; he does not utilize a weapon except if one is being employed against him; he does not indulge himself in weak conduct for examples surprising an enemy and catching him unprepared.
The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.
A sample of inmates released during this period was drawn from a list obtained from the Florida Department of Correction, for a total sample of roughly 3,793 offenders. Careful attention was given to securing a representative sample from each offense group. The offenders chosen were released from public and private state prisons after expiration of their sentences. The centralized idea of this study was to determine the differentiation between public and private state prisons focusing on recidivism. I have chosen two cases that reflect on the central issue of this topic and how they are treated by the Courts which can hopefully shed some light on the research problem as it exists in present society. These cases are based on California's legislative system which relate to the problem of recidivism in Florida.
The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. The Warren Courts were the catalyst for change in the areas of discrimination based on factors of faith, race or other categorizations was the catalyst for the evolution of reappointment and voting, established Maranda, and laid the ground work for woman to have the right to make decisions concerning own reproduction rights.
Defences of Assault and Battery In most crimes there are always defences to the offence that has been
Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do justice” (Courtroom 302, 59). As a judge, Locallo seems to express three different personalities, which tend to change depending on the current case at hand. His personalities are being compassionate judge, being an understanding judge, or being a hard-nose tough judge. Each of these personalities are not only determined by the case, but also by whether Locallo will profit on the long run; whether or not he will get reelected as a circuit judge at the end of his term.
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
Nicole stepped on Caroline mistakenly, which was an unlawful touching. According to Elliott and Quinn there are three elements to this intentional tort; force, direct application and intent which is so in this case. However, according to Croom-Johnson LJ in the case of Wilson v Pringle “the first distinction between two causes of action where there is personal injury is the element of contact between the claimant and the defendant; that is touching of sort. In the action of negligence, the physical contact (where it takes place at all) is normally through by no means always unintended” . In the action of trespass to constitute battery, it is deliberate. Even so, it is not very intended contact, which is tortious. Apart from in acting in self-defence), there are many examples in everyday life where an i...
Dred Scott, an African American man who was born into slavery, wanted what all slaves would have wanted, their freedom. They were mistreated, neglected, and treated not as humans, but as property. In 1852, Dred Scott sued his current owner, Sanford, about him, no longer being a slave, but a free man (Oyez 1). In Article four of the Constitution, it states that any slave, who set foot in a free land, makes them a free man. This controversy led to the ruling of the state courts and in the end, came to the final word of the Supreme Court. Is he a slave or a free man?
suddenly jumps in front of her and drags her into an alley. The attacker strikes (A) and rips her clothes. Fortunately, (A) hits the attacker with a rock and runs to safety. The man’s actions do not amount to assault, they amount to a battery as he dragged the woman to an alley, stroke her, and ripped her clothes off with the intent of causing her harm. The acts of the woman are a measure of self-defense, and she cannot be held accountable for the infliction she may have induced to the man. If the man just followed her without having any physical contact with her, his actions would have constituted to assault, as he would inflict fear into the
Physical Violence is classified as an act of intentional violence that involves the use of force which could possibly result in physical harm, disability, or even death to the victim. According to Loveisrespect.org, “examples of physical abuse include hitting, scratching, shoving, grabbing, biting, throwing, choking, shaking, kicking, burning, physical restraint, use of a weapon, or otherwise causing intentional physical injury to the victim”