Question 5 of 10
what are two broad categories of tort remedies?
a. damages and writs
b. temporary and permanent injunctions
c. damages and compensation
d. damages and injunctions
Damages and compensation are two broad categories of tort remedies. Damages are granted for bodily harm, whereas compensation is on a higher level. Compensation seeks to put the injured party in the same situation as if the injury had not occurred by providing monetary compensation for the harm done.
While 'damages' categories refers to compensation awarded or sought, 'damage' refers to the hurt or loss for which compensation is claimed or awarded. 'Damage' can relate to monetary or non-monetary compensation , whereas 'damages' refer to monetary recompense. Payment or reward for work or services provided, or for injury incurred, is referred to as compensation.
To learn more about categories, click here.
https://brainly.com/question/8866495
#SPJ4
How much is the fine for violating any of the restrictions of the gdl permit or probationary license?.
analyze the impact of gender based violence on individual or community
Answer:
lower productivity and thus reduced economic output and growth, and increased pressure on social and health services.
Explanation:
A provision of the supreme court ruling on the scott v. Sandford case was later overturned by.
A provision of the supreme court ruling on the Scott v. Sandford case was later overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.
What was important about the Supreme Court's ruling in Scott v Sandford?The ruling of the United States Supreme Court held that all African Americans, whether they were in slavery or not, lacked the ability to file a lawsuit in federal court since they were not citizens of the country. In deciding as it did, the Supreme Court also decided that the federal government could not forbid slavery in the territories.
The 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which outlawed slavery and proclaimed all people born in the United States to be citizens, overturned the Scott v. Sandford ruling, which many legal scholars believe to be the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court.
Learn more about Scott v Sandford here:
https://brainly.com/question/12359809
#SPJ4
A researcher wants to study the effects of a new drug on fetal development. Before testing the drug on pregnant women, the researcher first wants to ensure that it is indeed safe on humans. To do this, the research team recruits inmates at a local prison and offers to compensate each participant with $30.
From the situation that we have here, this cannot be said to be ethical. The justification here is that the people in these areas are humans.
What is the justification to why this is unethical?This is because the use of inmates as the test or the lab rats is unfair. Because they are inmates in the prison does not make them to be more or less human beings. They should still be treated in the right way. The use of human subjects on new drugs is an unethical practice.
The way that the drug should be testedThe first way would have to be through the laboratories. When it is able to pass the tests in the laboratories and considered safe, then it can be tested on animals in order to see if it would have any side effects before it would be tested on humans.
Read more on research here: https://brainly.com/question/25257437
#SPJ1
complete question
You are on the IRB committee and need to determine if the project is ethical or not. Justify your answers below. Then, if you stated the project had an ethical violation, provide a way in which the researcher could modify the study to make it more ethical. Note: do not assume the researcher will complete steps not otherwise indicated.
Which of the following statements about common law are not true? (Select all that apply.)
Common law evolves in part based on decisions in court cases.
Common law means that only written laws can be interpreted by judges.
Common law means that laws can change based on prevailing behaviors and trends.
✅Common law refers to the fact that judges can only look at written law to make a decision.
Common law is the belief that all citizens must follow due process.
one with check mark is right
The following assertions regarding common law are untrue; common law evolves in part as a result of decisions made in court proceedings.
Common law is a corpus of unwritten rules that are founded on judicially established precedents. When there are no written principles of law or applicable statutes, common law is used to guide decision-making in exceptional situations. The British tradition that colonial North America adopted in the 17th and 18th centuries gave rise to the American common-law system. In addition to the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, India, and New Zealand also use common law.
A precedent, also referred to as stare decisis, is a body of prior judicial rulings that serve as the standard of comparison for current cases. There is no formal legal system that can be applied to a case at hand, therefore common law, also known as case law, relies on thorough records of previous instances and statutes.
Learn more about common law here
https://brainly.com/question/13070537
#SPJ9
The first law requiring food labels to contain nutrition information was passed in 2000. True or false?.
Answer:
the answer is false because
Explanation:
it was passed in 1973
Does the constitution require that members of the u. S. House of representatives live in the congressional districts that they represent?.
No, the constitution didn't require that members of U. S. House of representatives live in the congressional districts that they represent.
What is the power of the House of Representatives?The House has a number of exclusive rights, including the ability to introduce revenue legislation, remove federal officials from office, and choose the President in the event of a deadlock in the Electoral College.
A member of the House must be at least 25 years old, a citizen of the United States for at least seven years, and a resident of the state they are elected to represent, according to the Constitution (though not necessarily the same district).
No one may serve as a representative if they have not attained the age of twenty-five, have not been citizens of the United States for seven years, and are not residents of the state in which they are chosen at the time of their election.
Learn more about the House of Representative's power here:
https://brainly.com/question/28257817
#SPJ4
Which party brings a case to court against a person accused of violating criminal law?
Question 3 options:
the state of Georgia
victims or their family members
anyone who was injured
the judge
Answer:
victims or their family members
Explanation:
A private nuisance occurs when a person permanently removes personal property from the owner’s possession and control. True or false?.
It is false, that A private nuisance occurs when a person permanently removes personal property from the owner’s possession and control.
When a person permanently removes personal property from the owner's possession and control that occurs in conversion, the owner recovers the damages of the converted item for the full value, even possession of stolen goods makes it liable. While private nuisance occurs when the enjoyment and plaintiff's use of his or her property is disturbed unreasonably through an activity or thing and public nuisance occurs when the person is been interfered unreasonably with the right that the general public share equally in common.
To know more about private nuisnace and public nuisance refer to the link https://brainly.com/question/17751112?referrer=searchResults.
#SPJ4
What is the term for the type of company that provides coverage for an individual's risks?
In what year was the importation of enslaved persons banned in the united states?.
A goal of the forensic investigator is to secure and document the crime scene while minimizing changes to crime scene evidence. True or false?.
Answer:
True
Explanation: Brainliest
A goal of the forensic investigator is to secure and document the crime scene while minimizing changes to crime scene evidence is a true statement.
What is an investigation?The investigation is the initial data collection that occurs after conducting some research. Scientific research or any other information or data may be involved in the investigation.
To make a point and establish a fact, the data must be carefully examined. The person who does the investigation is called an investigator.
Preserving and recording the murder investigation while minimizing alterations to the crime scene investigation is one of the professional investigator's objectives. In this manner, the crime scene will be protected and there will be no misinterpretation of misleading done.
Learn more about investigation, here:
https://brainly.com/question/28499710
#SPJ2
Since the start of the 1970s, how has the supreme court ruled regarding the commerce clause of the constitution?.
The supreme court decided on the commerce clause of the constitution, limiting Congress' authority to employ the commerce clause to address national concerns.
What is a supreme court?Supreme court, refers to the highest court of justice which ensures people to receive the justice in the eyes of the law. The court act as protector and interpretation of the constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled on the constitution's commerce clause, restricting Congress' ability to use the section to address national problems.
Therefore, it can be concluded that commerce clause to address national concerns.
Learn more about supreme court here:
https://brainly.com/question/1755400
#SPJ4
Bongani is 19 years old and lives with his parents. Without his guardian's consent, he concludes a contract of sale to sell his motorcycle for R2 000 to Mxali who is 25 years old. On enquiry by Mxali, Bongani lies about his age and says that he is 21 years old. Mxali pays the R2 000, but Bongani refuses to deliver the motorcycle to Mxali. Did Bongani breach any contract?
Answer: He did not breach any contract with Mxali
Explanation: Brainliest
Ano ang kahulugan ng talos-tanod
Answer:
Here is the answer..
TALOS-TANOD
Since the start of the 1970s, how has the supreme court ruled regarding the commerce clause of the constitution?.
In 1970 supreme court limit congress' ability to use commerce clause to address national issues
The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause is included in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. Congress has the authority under the Constitution to "control trade with foreign countries, among the various states, and with Indian tribes. The Commerce Clause has been frequently invoked by Congress as justification for exerting legislative control over the actions of states and their residents, sparking intense and ongoing debate about the distribution of power between the states and the federal government. The Commerce Clause has historically been seen as both a gift of power to Congress and a limitation on the power of the States to regulate themselves. The Trade Clause forbids states from enacting laws that discriminate against or unduly impede interstate commerce, and this is known as the "Dormant Commerce Clause."
To know more about Commerce Clause refer to https://brainly.com/question/846709
#SPJ4
What are your thoughts on this interview? Does Richard Clarke have a point when discussing breaking the Department of Homeland Security into multiple departments? If you had to make the decision to split the Department of Homeland Security or keep it the same, which would you choose?
1. Richard Clarke does not have a point when he discussed breaking the Department of Homeland Security into multiple departments because what this achieves is increased departmentalization.
2. I would not split the Department of Homeland Security into multiple departments. Rather, I would split the department into operational units to manage the various threats that the United States faces while keeping the department as one.
What are the goals of the Department of Homeland Security?The Department of Homeland Security, created after the 9/11 attacks, to strengthen the security architecture of the nation at home, has the responsibility to pursue the following security goals:
Prevent terrorismEnhance securitySecure and manage U.S. bordersEnforce and administer U.S. immigration laws.Under these broad goals, the Department of Homeland Security oversees the national security of the United States from numerous threats.
Some of the direct responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security include:
Border securityAviation securityCountering terrorismEmergency responseChemical facility inspectionIT and cybersecurity securityNatural disaster planning and response.Thus, instead of discussing splitting the Department of Homeland Security into multiple departments, Richard Clarke should look at ways to strengthen and empower the department to achieve its goals.
Learn more about the Department of Homeland Security at https://brainly.com/question/19521614
#SPJ1
Jack Jones, a 65-year-old with a heart condition, was driving alone in his Toyota Camry south on College Ave. in Fayetteville on September 15, 2009, his seat belt buckled, the driver-side window open and his left elbow outside it. Suddenly the accelerator jammed and the car leapt forward. Jack stomped the brake pedal but the Camry kept speeding up, running stoplights and skidding wildly on the downhill curves. Finally the car flipped, rolled over twice, and came to rest in the parking lot of Penguin Ed’s. The side airbags had deployed, and Jack’s left elbow formed an odd angle. Jack’s troubles had only begun. After he arrived by ambulance at Washington Regional Hospital, Dr. Davis was setting his broken elbow when Jack went into cardiac arrest. Luckily the medical response time was quick, his condition was stabilized and a Medtronic heart pacemaker was implanted in his chest to avoid future cardiac episodes. Unluckily, a wire component connecting the pacemaker to the heart failed on Nov. 1, 2009. Jack had another heart attack Nov. 2, and he is not likely to live. Jack’s wife Jan read in the newspaper about Toyota’s September 28, 2009 recall of 3.8 million vehicles, including the 2008 Camry, due to reports of driver- side floor mat entrapment of accelerator pedals. She consulted a partner in the Fayetteville law firm at which you are employed. The partner had a paralegal gather a few facts, noted below, and has turned the file over to you for preliminary analysis. The partner has instructed you to write a memo explaining the following: 1. What claims might the Joneses have, against whom, on what basis, and for what injuries? What authorities support each claim? 2. If you think that a particular claim may not succeed, explain why not. 3. If you lack sufficient information to evaluate a claimfully, describe what other information you need, how it would affect your evaluation of that cause of action, and how to obtain it. 4. Bottom line: Should we take this case? Why or why not? Or is it too soon to tell?
Answer:
1 Toyota 2 no 3 cameras 4 yes
Explanation:
