Please give response on the given three responses:
Question 1) (4-5 sentences) Please give examples of Criminal Law concept relating to a current event and gives cross-over issues such as yelling at a golf match or fire in a movie theather. Free speech or criminal conduct?
Question 2) Your opinion (4-5 sentences) tort is defined as a civil wrong arising from a breach of legal duty that causes harm or injury to another individual, whether intentionally or not. The fisherman was negligent when he did not care to help the kid that he saw fall in the water. the parents are also responsible and were negligent becuase it is there duty to watch over their child at all times. the duty of care states that in our society people should be able to exercise a reasonable amount of care in dealings with others, the fisherman did not care enough to help the kid out there for the kid almost or did die. the parents of the child showed no care or responsibility over watching the kid, both people would be found guilty in court becuase as the court considers the case and looks at the nature of the act and the manner the act was performed showed no intention for the kid to jump or in or willingness to do so. if it were a lifegaurd watching the kid, i think he would get in even more trouble becuase not only is he getting paid to watch over and care for the people within hi/her vicinity but as a person to take duty to care over another. is this were a lifegaurd it would be known as malpratice, personally i would say the parents show malpractice in their firld of profession as well as parents.
In the causation in fact, if the fisherman would have helped the kid out maybe less injury would have happened, but if the parents instead of watching the sunset were watching their kid there would be no injury.There are three different defenses that could be used, but one being if the plaintiff voluntarily goes into a risky situation would not work in this case becuase children do not know better. secondly there was no superceding cause to which the kid would have fallen in the water, and thirdly is the contributory negligence which is one should be able to look out for themselves to certain decree; in this case the child is too young to understand how to look out for himself. that is why with children parents and others have to be extra aware and cautious of the child.
Question 3) Your opinion (4-5 sentences) I think Palsgraf is suing the wrong person. Palsgraf should sue the man with the package under causation and negligence. The man knew he had a package of explosives and he ran to catch the moving train instead of waiting for the next one. The railroad guards were not negligent in their actions to Palsgraf. Who would know that the package contained explosives? Only the owner of the package. So Palsgraf should sue the man instead of the railroad company.