How do you define the tort of 'trespass to land'?
Trespass to land is a common law tort that is committed when an individual, or the object of an individual, intentionally enters the land of another without a lawful excuse.
For such a tort to hold up in court, generally the plaintiff must prove that the said trespasser damaged property of some kind.
For such a tort to hold up in court, generally the plaintiff must prove that the said trespasser damaged property of some kind.
17 people found this useful
A tort is a civil wrong for which a remedy may be obtained.Basically, a tort is something someone else did wrong that causedyou injury and for which you can sue. In this context, drivingnegligently, hitting someone and causing injury is a tort, and theinjured driver can sue the one who caused the ac…cident. A tort can be intentional -- like an angry punch in the nose -- butis far more likely to result from carelessness (called"negligence"), such as riding your bicycle on the sidewalk andcolliding with a pedestrian. While the injury that forms the basisof a tort is usually physical, this is not a requirement -- libelslander and the "intentional infliction of mental distress" are ona good-sized list of torts not based on a physical injury. The law of torts came from a combination of common-law principlesand legislative enactments. It comes from the Latin term torquere , which means twisted or wrong. ( Full Answer )
Tort...is wrong or injury caused to a person or property remediable by civil action for damages
Assuming that you know what a tort is, a mass tort is simply one with a very large number of victims. For example, an airline fails to maintain its airplane, it crashes, killing or injuring everyone on board. They often necessitate a class action, rather than individual lawsuits.
That is when you intentionally lie to person about the potency of an object that the person depends on, which put the person at a detriment because the depended on the objects performance. If you tell someone that a crane can lift 10000 pounds, and he buys the crane knowing that he has to carry 9000…, but in fact the crane only lifts 1000 pounds, that person can sue you on the basis of the tort of deceit. ( Full Answer )
A toxic tort is a special type of personal injury lawsuit in which the plantiff claims that exposure to a chemical caused the plaintiff's toxic injury or disease.
A type of insurance coverage that provides remedies for persons sued for damages when they injure or kill someone else through their own negligence.
In China, the land is either owned by the state or by the rural collective economic organizations. The land that is owned by the state is also called state-owned land or state land.. Chinese law stipulates that urban land is owned by the state, and rural and suburban land, which is stipulated other…wise by law to be state land, is owned by the state too.. More specifically, state land includes: (1) Land in urban areas; (2) Rural and suburban land that has been confiscated, taken and purchased by the state pursuant to law; (3) Land that has been requisitioned by the state pursuant to law, i.e., land that is converted from collective land to state land; (4) The forest land, grassland, barren land, shoals and other land, which is not collective land pursuant to law; (5) Land that originally belonged to rural collective economic organizations but whose members have all been converted to urban residents; and (6) Land that originally belonged to collective economic organizations but is no longer used by them due to the relocation of their members as requested by state or as a result of natural disasters.. It is of practical meaning to define the state land under Chinese law in that only the state land is permitted to be used for the development of commercial projects such as condominiums, office buildings or industrial complex, etc. ( Full Answer )
A tort is a wrongdoing committed against a person by another. Itmay be direct or indirect, so a direct tort would involve someonecommitting a wrongful act directly against another person orpeople.
An unintentional tort is an accident that is done withoutintention. The accident may lead to financial loss, injury orproperty damage with the person considered being negligent.
Land pollution is the degradation of earth's land surfaces often caused by human activities and its misuse. Haphazard disposal of urban and industrial wastes, exploitation of minerals, and improper use of soil by inadequate agricultural practices are a few of the contributing factors. Also, incre…asing urbanization, industrialization and other demands on the environment and its resources is of great consequence to many countries. ( Full Answer )
trespass to land. private nuisance. public nuisance. the rule in Rylands V fletcher (1865); as per Blackburn J, 1865.
Tort law allows an individual who has been hurt in some way by someone else's negligence, carelessness, or malice. Intentional torts apply to the malice part of that equation. While most tort cases involve negligent act that result in injury, for intentional torts, the punishment can be more severe …and you must prove-in addition to the four main elements of tort law-that the defendant caused the injury or financial harm on purpose. ( Full Answer )
The tort of negligence is applied where there has been a duty of care owed to one party that has been breached by a second party, and that has lead to damage being suffered by the first party.
\nTort law is the name given to a body of law that creates, and provides remedies for, civil wrongs that do not arise out of contractual duties. A person who is legally injured may be able to use tort law to recover damages from someone who is legally responsible, or "liable," for those injuries. Ge…nerally speaking, tort law defines what constitutes a legal injury, and establishes the circumstances under which one person may be held liable for another's injury. Torts cover intentional acts and accidents.\n. \nFor instance, if somebody throws a ball and hits a pedestrian in the eye, the pedestrian may sue the ball thrower for losses occasioned by the accident (for example, costs of medical treatment or lost income during time off work). Whether or not the pedestrian wins will depend on whether he can prove the thrower engaged in tortuous conduct. If the person threw the ball at the pedestrian on purpose, the pedestrian could sue for the intentional tort of battery. If it was an accident, the pedestrian must establish negligence. To do this, the pedestrian must show that his injury was reasonably foreseeable, that the thrower owed him a duty of care, and that the thrower fell below the standard of care required of him. One of the main issues in negligence law is determining the "standard of care" - a legal phrase that means distinguishing between when conduct is or is not negligent. ( Full Answer )
A tort lawyer is one who specializes in bringing personal injury lawsuits like auto accident, trip and fall, medical malpractice and other similar cases. Tort lawyers get adept in those areas and stay away from other types of law like probate, contracts, real estate and other areas. In law, a tort i…s a wrongdoing caused by another party's negligence or wrongdoing. A tort lawyer is someone who represents people who have been affected by a tort. ( Full Answer )
It is Common Law. A civil offence. Trespassers are not prosecuted, they are sued. It applies to all land and rivers over which you do not have right of way and buildings etc thereon. It also applies in certain circumstances to public land. There is no law of trespass in Scotland.. The tort of tresp…assing on private land is committed when land is entered without excuse and without the express or implied consent or invitation of the owner or lawful occupier. It is also committed when a person, who has lawfully entered upon land with the consent of the person in possession and in circumstances that do not confer on him some interest in the land, refuses to leave within a reasonable time of being asked. ( Full Answer )
A tort of negligence is a civil wrong caused by some form of negligence. Personal injury trials involve proving cases through tort law. The main elements of tort law are proving duty of care, breach of that duty, the occurrence of injury, and the breach of duty caused that injury. The attached artic…le goes further into the specifics behind proving the aspects of tort law. ( Full Answer )
A tort is a civil wrong for which the plaintiff seeks to hold thedefendant legally liable. Copyright infringement and defamation areexamples of torts.
Biomes are "the world's major communities, classified according to the predominant vegetation and characterized by adaptations of organisms to that particular environment" (Campbell, N.A. 1996. Biology , 4th Edition. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., Menlo Park, California.). The mai…n biomes are:. Freshwater (lakes, streams, rivers) . Marine (seas and oceans) . Desert: cover 1/5 Earth's surface and ocur where rainfall is less than 50 cm/year. . Forest: communities dominated by trees and other woody vegetation; forests may be tropical, temperate or boreal. . Grassland: dominated by grasses rather than large shrubs or trees; can be tropical (savannahs) or temperate. . Tundra: the coldest of all biomes, with extremely low temperatures, low precipitation, poor nutrient levels and short growing seasons. . For more details see:. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/index.php ( Full Answer )
No rent land is defined as land which cannot be rented to others.This may be part of the original sales agreement or other legallimitations.
Yes, if the act that is committed as a crime also causes harm to an identifiable person (the injured can recover damages). For example, the O.J. Simpson case. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murder of his ex-wife Nicole Smith and her boyfriend Ron Goldman. However, he was found guilty subseq…uently by a civil lawsuit filed by the families of Nicole Smith and Ron Goldman. The jury charged him liable for the wrongful death and he was required to pay nearly $20 million plus interest in damages. Summarized from: Business Law Principles for Today's Commercial Environment ( Full Answer )
The tort of negligence is applied where there has been a duty of care owed to one party that has been breached by a second party, and that has lead to damage being suffered by the first party.
One Answer . Land is a solid, immovable, indestructible portion of the outer layer of the surface of the earth as distinguished from sea and ocean. It's position may be distinguishable by real or imaginary points. The surface may be comprised of varying materials such as water (in the form of pond…s, lakes, streams, rivers), rock and soil.. ( Full Answer )
Yes. Trespassing technically is a type of intentional tort. The law article below lists it as a type of intentional tort.
"Tort" implies a 'civil' offense. It is a suit for violation of "civil" law as opposed to a violation of "criminal" law.
An unintentional tort is what most torts are. The opposite of an intentional tort-something that is done on accident that seriously injures or kills another person but can be linked to negligence.
No, but the person throwing the rock would be liable for damages anyway, as well as being prosecutable for vandalism.
Yes, it is. You can get permission from the owner, but they have the right to ask you to leave.
A tort is an injury or civil wrong doing. In order to prove guilt in tort law, one must prove a series of things. The article below describes the elements of tort law and proving them. Torts are either torts of negligence or torts of intent. Basically the injury or death was intentional or unintenti…onal. ( Full Answer )
If the trespassser refuses to leave (usually in a situtation where they believe that they own the land, but do not), you can sue to have them ejected. . Trespass is one of the few torts which is considered to be "actionable per se", meaning that the law deems you to have suffered an injury the ins…tant the invasion of your property occurs, whether or not the property is actually damaged. This is based on the common-law principle that one's land is absolutely inviolable. Accordingly, if a person enters your property without your permission, and causes absolutely no physical damage, you can still sue them, because you suffered a legal wrong the instant they trespassed. However, you are likely to recover only "nominal" damages, meaning the court will recognize that your legal rights have been violated, but since you suffered no physical or economic harm, order the defendant to pay you a very small sum (awards of $1 are not uncommon in these cases). Of course, if the trespasser actually causes physical damage to your property, you can sue to recover for those damages. ( Full Answer )
Tort law is the segment of law that addresses cases involving civil wrongs. A tort is simply an injury.
maybe...its a court case in volving more than one defendant usually involving a monetary settlement
The extent to which a defendant is liable for the consequences of his wrongful act or omission. In contract, the defendant compensates for damage only if it was within his reasonable contemplation . He is presumed to have contemplated (and is therefore liable for) damage likely to result from the b…reach according to the usual course of events. Unusual damage resulting from special circumstances is regarded as within his contemplation only if a reasonable man, knowing what he knew or ought to have known, would have thought it liable to result. In tort there is no single test to determine whether or not damage is too remote. In actions for negligence and other forms of liability based on fault, the defendant is responsible only for damage of the type he should have foreseen, but if damage of that type is foreseeable, it is no defence that the extent of the resulting damage is greater than could have been expected. In torts of strict liability, the defendant may be liable even for unforeseeable damage. Thus the keeper of an animal belonging to a dangerous species is liable for any damage it causes, whether foreseeable or not. ld: T(ï¿½ieï¿½,HX.a reasonably foreseeable consequence of allowing the plank to fall. However, it was reasonably foreseeable that the falling plank would cause some form of damage to the vessel. Because of this, the court established D's negligence. Whether the particular damage caused by the fire was recoverable depended solely on it being a direct consequence of the negligent act. Although the damage by fire could not have reasonably been foreseen as a consequence of dropping the plank, D was therefore liable for the loss of the ship by fire. The defendants chartered a ship and put in its hold drums of petrol. Re Polemis was not followed by the Privy Council in The Wagon Mound No.1. The Wagon Mound is now preferred. R v Croydon Health Authority (1997) CA [Tort - negligence - foreseeability of damage] D x-rayed C as part of medical for job as nurse. D failed to inform C and her GP of serious heart problem. C had a child and later became depressively ill thinking she had reduced life expectancy. Held: D not responsible for her becoming pregnant, damages reduced. Sayers v Harlow UDC  CA [Tort - foreseeability of damage - contributory negligence] D a local authority provided public toilets. When C tried to leave the cubicle, she found the handle was missing. After trying for fifteen minutes to attract attention, she tried to climb out by standing on the toilet roll holder, but the roll rotated and C slipped and fell, injuring herself. Held: her actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances and the injury was a natural and foreseeable consequence of DD's negligence, and not too remote. However, her damages were reduced by 25% for her negligence in relying on the toilet roll as a secure foothold. Scott v Shepherd  Ct of CP [Tort - negligence - remoteness of damage - intervening events] D (Shepherd) threw a lighted squib into a crowded market house, and it was thrown from one stallholder to another until it put out the claimant's eye. Held: Trespass and assault will lie for originally throwing a squib, which after having been thrown about in self-defence by other persons, at last put out the claimant's eye. De Grey, CJ "I look upon all that was done subsequent to the original throwing as a continuation of the first force and first act, which will continue till the squib was spent by bursting, and I think that any innocent person removing the danger from himself to another is justifiable. . . . I do not consider [them] as free agents in the present case, but acting under a compulsive necessity for their own safety and self-preservation. The defendant there was, I think, guilty of a public nuisance, and the [claimant] could have sued him in case." Blackstone J thought that [negligence], and not trespass, would lie against Shepherd. Simmons v British Steel plc  HL Whole case here ^[Tort - remoteness of damage - primary victim - foreseeable harm includes psychiatric reaction following initial injury] D, the steel company that employed C. C fell and hit his head at work. He suffered depression and a pre-existing skin disease flared up, not because of the original injury "but from his anger at the happening of the accident" (lack of apology or support following the accident, and failing to prevent the accident when warned of the danger). Held: C was entitled to compensation for the consequences of the accident and not just for the physical injuries. C's anger was neither de minims nor an intervening act. C was "a primary victim" according to the classification in Page v Smith  HL. A wrongdoer takes his victim as he finds him Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd  CA. There must now be added these further qualifications: (1) that a defender is liable although the damage may be a good deal greater in extent than was foreseeable, as he can escape liability only if the damage can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable: Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) HL; and (2) where it is established that physical injury to the pursuer was foreseeable, it is unnecessary to ask whether it was foreseeable that he would also suffer psychiatric injury: Page v Smith  HL. The general rule is that it must be shown that the injury would not have occurred but for the act or omission of the defender. But if a number of factors contributed to the injury it is sufficient that the contribution which the factor attributable to the defender's fault made to the injury was material: Wardlaw v Bonnington Castings Ltd  HL. C won Smith v Leech Brain & Co (1962) QBD [Tort - negligence - foreseeability of damage - application of the 'thin skull rule' is an exception] D the employers of a workman who was slightly splashed by molten metal through his employers' negligence and suffered a burn on his face. The burn aggravated a pre-existing cancerous condition and the man died. C his widow sued. Held: "injury to the person" was regarded as a single kind of damage and some minor injury at least was foreseeable. A tortfeasor took his victim as he found him, and the decision in The Wagon Mound did not override this principle; accordingly, since the type of injury which the workman suffered was reasonably foreseeable, defendants were liable for damages claimed, although they could not reasonably have foreseen the ultimate consequences of the initial injury, viz, that the burn would cause cancer from which S would die. C won Spartan Steel v Martin  CA ^[Tort - negligence - damage - public policy] DD While digging a trench negligently cut off the electricity supply to PC's steelworks. Held: the value of the "melt" that was ruined by the power cut, including the profit directly associated with it was allowed. However, C did not succeed for loss of profits on four further melts that could have been completed during the period that the supply was cut off. The reason was probably the fear of opening the floodgates to many similar claims if a contractor severed the power supply to a whole estate or even a small town. There is no principle of parasitic damages in English law to the effect that there were some heads of damage which, if they stood alone, would not be recoverable, but would be if they could be annexed to some other claim for damages, i.e., that the economic loss in respect of the four melts was recoverable as a parasite by being attached to the claim in respect of the first melt. Lord Denning MR: At bottom I think the question of recovering economic loss is one of policy. Whenever the courts draw a line to mark out the bounds of duty, they do it as a matter of policy so as to limit the responsibility of the defendant. Whenever the courts set bounds to the damages recoverable--saying that they are, or are not, too remote--they do it as matter of policy so as to limit the liability of the defendant. Lawton LJ: The differences which undoubtedly exist between what damage can be recovered in one type of case and what in another cannot be reconciled on any logical basis. I agree with Lord Denning MR that such differences have arisen because of the policy of the law. Maybe there should be one policy for all cases; the enunciation of such a policy is not, in my judgement, a task for this court. C won. Stovold v Barlows  CA [Tort - damage causation and remoteness - multiple causes - damages - causation of loss - action taken by third party ] D solicitors negligently failed deal with the sale of C's house, and the sale fell through. D had failed to deliver documents on time. Held: The purchaser might have preferred the house he actually bought even if the documents had been sent promptly and, so, the 'loss of chance' would be assessed at 50 per cent. On the question of causation where the loss depended upon the action of a third party, the correct approach is to evaluate the loss of the chance of the sale going ahead as a result of the defendants' negligence. Thompson v James (1998) CA [Tort - negligence - causation - intervening events] D a doctor advised C, the parents of a child not to have a measles vaccination. Child caught measles and suffered brain damage. Child's history suggested to D that immunisation would be more harmful than to most children. Held: There was no doubt as to the existence of a duty of care, it was not fair, just or reasonable to hold the defendant liable for the general advice he had given to C's parents. The advice given by other doctors to whom C had consulted was an intervening event. It broke the chain of causation because the parents were not acting on D's advice. It was not foreseeable that the defendant's failure to mention the alternative method of immunisation would have had a significant influence on the decision, given that both the parents and the defendant knew other doctors would be involved. C lost. Wagon Mound1 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound)  [Tort - negligence - remoteness of damage - type of damage foreseen] D carelessly discharged oil from their ship, the Wagon Mound, into Sydney Harbour. The wind and tide carried the oil beneath C's wharf where welding operations were being carried on by C's employees. After being advised that they could safely weld, C's employees continued their work. Some 55 to 60 hours after the original discharge, molten metal set some waste floating in the oil on fire. The flames quickly developed into a large fire which severely damaged the wharf. The oil also inhibited the use of C's slipways. Held: Damage to the wharf by the pollution of C's slipways was foreseeable. Damage by fire was not reasonably foreseeable. C was loath to admit the foreseeability of the fire risk because it was their workmen who actually set the oil alight. D not liable for the fire but liable for the fouling Comment: Liability turned on the question of whether the risk of fire was foreseeable, since furnace oil has such a high boiling point it is unlikely to catch fire under normal circumstances. In Wagon Mound 1 and 2, the two sequential claimants argued the risks of fire in opposite ways. Each of these diametrically different presentations of the risk of fire was accepted by the very same court as equally true and valid facts. Wagon Mound 2 The Wagon Mound (No 2), Overseas Tankship (UK), Ltd v The Miller Steamship   PC [Tort - negligence - remoteness of damage - type of damage foreseen] D carelessly discharged oil from their ship, the Wagon Mound, into Sydney Harbour. The wind and tide carried the oil beneath a wharf where welding operations were being carried on. After being advised that they could safely weld, they continued their work. Some 55 to 60 hours after the original discharge, molten metal set some waste floating in the oil on fire. The flames quickly developed into a large fire which severely damaged the ships owned by C. Held: The damage was reasonably foreseeable (though admittedly very small) and therefore not too remote. If some damage, even minor damage, of a particular kind was foreseeable, then D would be liable for all such damage irrespective of the foreseeability of its extent and its immediate cause. The potential consequences of that unlikely occurrence were so serious as to give rise to a duty of care to avoid it. C won Comment: C owner of the burned ship played no part in creating the fire and thus proved that there is a positive, predicable risk that furnace oil might catch fire when spilled in a harbour. C recovered damages based exclusively on the finding that the risk of fire (for the same incident as The Wagon Mound 1) was greater than zero and D should be held responsible for foreseeable risks. Lord Reid: "It follows that in their lordships' view the only question is whether a reasonable man having the knowledge and experience to be expected of the chief engineer of the Wagon Mound would have known that there was a real risk of the oil on the water catching fire in some way: if it did, serious damage to ships or other property was not only foreseeable but very likely." In Wagon Mound 1 both C and D were eager to say that there was no foreseeability of furnace oil catching fire in a harbour. D because he would not be liable if there was no foreseeable risk and C because otherwise their cause of action could be barred for contributory negligence (it was a spark from their welding operations that set the fire going). The court ultimately found that the risk of fire was zero and denied recovery to C for fire damage because it was unfair to hold D responsible for such unforeseeable harm. Lord Reid: "So if the [claimants] in the former case had set out to prove that it was foreseeable by the engineers of the Wagon Mound that this oil could be set alight, they might have had difficulty in parrying the reply that then this must also have been foreseeable by their manager. Then there would have been contributory negligence and at that time contributory negligence was a complete defence in New South Wales." Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority  HL [Tort - negligence - causation - proximate cause - the balance of probabilities] D the hospital where C was born prematurely. D negligently gave C excess oxygen. The catheter was twice inserted into his vein instead of his artery. He developed an incurable eye condition. Held: His blindness could have been caused by any of half a dozen factors found in premature babies, of which the hospital's admitted negligence was just one. The combination of negligence and injury did not in itself create a presumption of causation. It was not for D to show an alternative cause but for C to show (on a balance of probabilities) that the negligence had caused the damage, or had at least materially contributed to it, and this he could not do. C lost, a retrial ordered. Disapproved Fairirchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd; Fox v Spousal (Midlands) Ltd; Matthews v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1978) Ltd  ( Full Answer )
In general, pointing a gun at someone is only justified when SHOOTING that person would be justified. Trespass does not rise to that level. Pointing a gun at someone without SERIOUS reason is proably going to result in jail.
Can you be arrested if you have told a neighbor that has been trespassing and destroying your property for years that if you catch her on your land again you were going to beat her you have several?
Unlikely. Just as long as they were nothing more than verbal - probably not. However it is possible that she may swear out a summons against you in retaliation.
A tort is simply some sort of civil wrongdoing. Most civil trials involve proving the elements of tort law. In order to prove that a tort occurred and compensation is deserved, the following things are presented: the presence of duty, the breach of duty, injury occurrence, the injury occurrence was …a result of the breach of duty of care. The attached article explains the different elements and how they are proven in more detail. ( Full Answer )
If someone does not invite you to, expect you on, or want you on their property, yes.
There are complete defences and partial defences. Complete: consent, legal authority, self-defence, necessity Partial: contributory negligence, provocation
A tort is an injury. Most people know of torts as they apply to civil personal injury law. These are typically torts of negligence but can also be intentional torts. In order to prove a tort lawsuit, there are four main things that need to be proven.
No, there are multiple forms of trespass. For example "Trespass to Chattels" is a form of trespass wherein a party intentionally interferes with another person's lawful possession over a chattel (tangible, move-able property). According to the law book you're reading, the definition could include l…anguage about the intent deny the rightful owner ownership over the chattel. ( Full Answer )
Tortes are similar to sponge cakes but rely on ground nuts or crumbs to replace some or all of their flour
Well, negligence is a type of tort-or civil wrongdoing. It is when a person acts in an irresponsible manner/negligent manner and his or her action results in injury or death to another person. It is a civil offense and tried in a civil court-typically in personal injury law. The attached law article… explains further about negligence and the elements of negligence that must be proven in order to advance a suit. ( Full Answer )
The fact is that medieval kings owned almost all land; taking England as an example, medieval kings owned all except Church lands. They parcelled out sections to their Earls, who in turn gave some to senior barons, who gave some to lower ranking knights, who in turn gave land to freemen and serfs.… All of these were land holders , not land owners; they paid rent and/or gave work or other services to their respective landlords - this is the basis of the feudal system. The king still owned all these parcels of land and he could confiscate any of them back again if he wished. Since all land belonged to the king (or to the Church as an institution), there was no such thing as trespass on king's land. The idea of the king owning practically everything was one of the reasons that William I ordered the Domesday Book to be compiled, so he would know the taxable value of everything in his new kingdom. ( Full Answer )
A tort is a failure to fulfill a private obligation as imposed by law. It is between a person and a person (the state is not involved), and the things that classify as torts are outlined by statutes.
A "tort" is a civil wrong committed by one person against another. The term "little" tort is probably a slang term describing the case as amounting to a minor or small matter.
Negligence Intentional harm to a person Intentional harm to tangible property Strict liability Nuisance Harm to economic interests Harm to intangible property interests .
Whether gossiping results in a tort depends on the nature of the gossip itself. Opinions expressed are protected under the freedom of speech, but facts that are can proved or disproved may result in libel or slander. So gossips about a specific action or deeds that the said person may or may not h…ave done can result in a tort, while opinions about the ethics of such an action may not. ( Full Answer )
Did you know Thanksgiving is actually Thankstaking a day celebrating the taking of Native American land then taking their lives for trespassing on that land you stole and now claim as your own?
It does sadden my heart when I hear of the atrocities against myancestors. But this is unecessary, remember that the NativeAmericans were a forgiving and caring people. They helped thewhites when they got to the land because they almost died off.Thanksigiving is thanksgiving, not thankstaking. And …to be politically correct there was no land to steal, nativeamericans did not believe in the ownership of land, they merelytook care of what their ancestors left for them and for what theywill leave for their children. Please please please! Do not fill with hatred, the Native Americansare not a hatred based people, celebrate and give thanks if not forwhat has happened in the past. ( Full Answer )
A spousal tort is a marital tort that is a civil legal action thatis folded into a divorce petition.
A Sacher torte is a torte made from butter, eggs, sugar, toastedbread crumbs, spices and chocolate, baked in layers, held togetherwith apricot jam, and frosted with chocolate.