Torts

Special negligence refers to a specific duty of care owed by a party to another, typically arising due to a particular relationship or circumstance. Negligent misstatement occurs when false or misleading information is provided by one party to another, leading to financial loss or harm due to negligence in making the statement. Both concepts involve breaches of duty of care that result in harm or loss to another party.

Tort reform refers to proposed changes to civil lawsuits that would limit certain things with the hope of discouraging frivolous or detrimental lawsuits. Recently, tort reform legislation was passed in certain states that include laws which require the loser of a case to pay for the winner's legal fees, keep supposedly frivolous suits out of court, and put limits on certain types of compensation. The law article below discusses forms of tort reform. These are all unprecedented acts and will have a pretty serious effect on the system-some ways positive and some ways bad.
Tort reform is a legislative attempt to make the legal, court system work better for the people it is designed to help.

Yes, a private citizen can sue a public school system. They would need to have legal standing and a valid claim, such as discrimination or violation of rights, in order to file a lawsuit against the school system.

In order to prove negligence you have to show:

* Duty of care: the defendant must have had a reasonable duty to avoid causing injury to another. * Breach of duty: the defendant failed to carry out their duty to avoid injury to the plaintiff. * Cause: there must be proof that the defendant's breach of duty caused the injury.

* Damages: it must be proven that damages occurred as a result of the plaintiff's breach of duty.

Below is an article on proving negligence.

Source: http://www.fljustice.org/docs/SlipandFallOnePager.pdf

The standard of proof for "constructive notice" in a slip and fall case is showing evidence that (a) the person or entity in possession or control of the business premises owed a duty by the claimant (b) the person or entity in possession or control of the business premises acted negligently by failing to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance, inspection, repair, warning, or mode of operation of the business premises and, (c) the failure to exercise reasonable care was the legal cause of the loss, injury, or damge.

Check out the source PDF document for complete explanation of the laws that apply to slip and fall suits.

act of God

defence of property

self defence

non fit injulia

yes you can

west point .

lake Sidney lanier

it depends, I will say a yes

------

BEING sued & LOSING a case are two different things. SO: Were you protecting your home, or did YOU shoot the occupant/homeowner while invading? Your question could be more clearly posited.

its fluid that has toxins in it and posion

Yes, it may be possible- if they are injured. Whether the suit will stand up in court is another matter. (pun not intended)

Slander

Remember what happenned in the 1920s when the USA tried to ban alcohol.

Yes but alcohol dosent kill one in every two of its users!!

FWWPSSHHH

Just need an answer.

I was waiting for the signal open to me to across the street the man signal appeared and I was walking but the red hand count came and I tried to finish the fist line when the driver turn left and hits my hips and I fell on the street that happened skin finger spoliations ,I went to emergency but nothing broke just muscles problem I found a chiropractic and am doing physiotherapy to help my neck , back ,shoulder .I would like you help me to claim .I have the police report claim number. Thanks

If the injury is based on neglegence, no, but if the injury is by some specific intentional act of the homeowner, yes. To sue for injuries based on negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the homeowner had a duty of care to the burglar to provide a safe environment; that the homeowner breached that duty and that the burglar's injury was proximately caused by that breach of duty. Whether a duty of care exists is a matter of fairness and public policy and exists as a matter of law, not of fact. A homeowner does not owe a duty of care to a person illegally entering the house; therefore even if that person is injured by the homeowner's negligence, there is no liability because there was no duty of care. Never the less, a homeowner can be sued for certain intentional as opposed to negligent actions. The famous example is the so-called "spring-gun" situation. There the homeowner set up a rifle pointing right at the front door in such a way that anyone breaking in through the front door would set off the rifle and be shot dead or seriously wounded. The use of deadly force in that situation is excessive and the homeowner would be held liable.

85,000.00

That depends on the state the case is in and the nature of the dispute. As an example, in New Jersey, litigants are responsible for paying their own legal fees whether they win or lose except where a statute or court rule specifically permits an award of counsel fees to the prevailing party or if the court finds that the dismissed action was frivolous or maliciously brought. Unless there is a specific law or rule allowing a prevailing party to recover attorney fees, then the party cannot. Other states can and will have different rules, so one must look to the laws of the state where the litigation took place.

Absolutely, if there are proper grounds.

Yes. Spouses are now allowed to sue one another without regard to their marital status if there is a proper claim. The old theory that a married couple were one and the same entity so suing the other spouse was the same as suing one's self has long since been abolished. Back then, a divorce had to come first, then the lawsuit. Spouses may also sue one another in cases of negligent injuries too, as for example if both are in a car accident with the wife driving and the husband getting hurt. (Of course that is the scenario I would use, not the other way around.)

The vast majority of civil suits of all types are settled out of court.

The estimate is 85% to 95% depending upon the nature of the litigation.

It depends on the age of the injured person (kids heal better) , the sex of the person (on a female it may be worth more, if it's covered by hair on a man it may be worth less...etc). The type of the scar factors in, is it keloid? Is it raised, bumpy, discolored? How noticable is it? What is the age of the scar? Is scar revision an option? These are things an insurance company would look at when considering the value of a scar.

yes but you should of used a condom

Yes it does. It starts from THE day you give your notice. 14 days.