What if during the fire when they give the order to

This preview shows page 15 - 18 out of 94 pages.

We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Fundamentals of Business Law Today: Summarized Cases
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter 16 / Exercise 01
Fundamentals of Business Law Today: Summarized Cases
Miller
Expert Verified
What if, during the fire, when they give the order to destroy the house, the homeowner tries to prevent the order from being carried out – homeowner remains there & they destroy the house anyways? – Necessity? - is it better to save 30 people at the cost of one life?? Is it for the greater good?? - Law says that NECESSITY NEVER APPLIES WHEN LIFE IS TAKEN!! – even if it means that a whole nation would be saved on behalf of one life, it doesn’t matter – no life can be taken! – it only applies to the taking of the property What if the experts were wrong?? And the house was demolished for no reason? → if it is a reasonable mistake , then defense of necessity can be applied – ask whether the reasonable person would have made the same mistake
We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Fundamentals of Business Law Today: Summarized Cases
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter 16 / Exercise 01
Fundamentals of Business Law Today: Summarized Cases
Miller
Expert Verified
PRIVATE NECESSITY Vincent v. Lake Erie Transport : (D) docks boat at (P)’s dock during a storm – damage to the dock An act to protect one’s own interest from a public disaster Not only did the boat trespass – it also caused damage to the dock Why compensate here and not in the case with the burning house ? the burning house was not for his own benefit – he wasn’t selfish – here, the ship owner saved the ship for himself ∴ he is liable for the damages *look at the harm caused → was it done to benefit the one who caused the harm, or for the greater good of the public? PUBLIC necessity → no compensation PRIVATE necessity → compensation With a private necessity, where you have to compensate, how is this defense useful ? - imagine that there’s a storm and instead of sinking the ship, it’s tied up causing damage to the dock, but after that, the dockowner comes down and says that this boat is trespassing and ∴ unties the boat, drifting it off in the storm – that is when private necessity becomes important to the ship owner o the ship gets destroyed – if there was no defense of private necessity, who would be liable for the damage to the ship?? – the shipowner would – dockowner not liable b/c of the trespass – and here is where this defense comes in – if the shipowner was given legal right to tie up the ship through the defense of PRIVATE necessity, then the dockowner would not have the right to have let it go NEGLIGENCE Duty o the legal duty to act reasonably – to treat each other reasonably o requires people to conform to a standard of care that reflects the use of reasonable care in protecting others against risk reasonable care UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES!! Breach of Duty o you don’t treat someone reasonably o not living up to the reasonable standard of care that the law has set for us negligence occurs when the duty is breached Causation o close causal relationship b/w the conduct and the injury o 2 types: Cause in Fact “but-for” cause Proximate cause Damages
Intent vs. Negligence : Intent → the presence of a bad thought Negligence → the absence of thought BOTH have fault !

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture