Cavan Office: (042) 969 1781

Dublin Office: (01) 538 1778

Examples: defaming or attacking someone, entering foreign countries or infringing copyrights, patents or trademarks, non-payment of debts within the statute of limitations, unpromised delivery of goods and failure to provide agreed services are violations of the law. Depending on the situation, a product liability claim in NYS may be based on negligence, wilful tort, strict liability, and even contract law for breach of warranties. This includes deficiencies in inadequate or inadequate condition, manufacture, design, and warnings. The case of Liebeck v. McDonald`s discussed above in the section on punitive damages was a product liability case. One of the allegations of the plaintiff, Ms. Liebeck, was that the product, the coffee, was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it was too hot, which was a direct factor in her significant injuries. The case of Liebeck v. McDonald`s was governed by the laws of the State of New Mexico. A duty of care is based on what a reasonable person would do in the same or similar circumstances. A reasonable person is a legal fiction.

It is an objective test, not of what a person honestly thought was right, but of what he or she should have done based on what a reasonable person would have done in the same or similar circumstances. It should be noted that while the reasonableness standard does not change, the “same or similar situation” usually does. The trier of fact, that is, a jury (or judge in a court case) decides what a reasonable person would have done based on the circumstances presented to them. It is important to know who the members of a jury are. This is the point already discussed in Chapter 5. Voir dire is also part of the selection process of the civil jury. What is considered reasonable for a jury in New York may not be reasonable for a jury in Batavia, New York, and yet both juries may be right. Watch the 2015 Netflix documentary “The Witness,” in which Bill Genovese re-examined what was said, heard and reported about his sister, Kitty Genovese. These oft-cited examples of moral injustice concern the story of thirty-seven neighbors who allegedly did nothing when “Kitty” Genovese was stabbed to death outside their New York home in 1964. There are many discrepancies in this story and what the neighbors did or did not know and what they did or did not do, but the common belief is that they had at least a moral obligation to do something (e.g.

call the police), and by doing nothing, they were committing moral wrong. In the end, none of the neighbors were legally obligated to report the crime or intervene to help Ms. Genovese. As discussed in Chapter 2, there are different standards of evidence for criminal and civil matters. Even in civil cases, there are two different standards of proof. In civil cases, the standard of proof is the predominance of evidence. The predominance of evidence means that the defendant is more likely to be legally liable for the plaintiff`s injuries. If the plaintiff proves his case through more than 50% of the evidence, the jury must render a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. In a criminal jury trial (a trial in which a group of people in the community decides whether the accused is guilty of the crime charged) or a trial (a trial in which the judge decides whether the defendant is guilty or not), the prosecutor has the burden of proof to present evidence that convinces the jury or judge beyond a doubt. that the accused has committed a violation of the law, of society.

To discharge this burden, the prosecutor will call witnesses to testify and may also present physical evidence suggesting that the accused committed the crime. Just as an individual may decide that it is not worth spending time or effort to take legal action, the state may decide not to use its resources to lay criminal charges against an offender. A victim (a named victim) cannot force the state to prosecute the wrongdoing. On the contrary, if there is an appropriate cause of civil action – for example, wrongful murder – the aggrieved party must bring a civil action as plaintiff and claim damages from the defendant. Offences must be distinguished from crimes that constitute injustices against the State or society as a whole. The main purpose of criminal accountability is to ensure respect for public justice. In contrast, tort law deals with private injustice and has the central objective of compensating the victim rather than punishing the offender.2 Certain acts may form a basis for both tort and criminal liability. For example, gross negligence that endangers the lives of others can be both a misdemeanor and a crime.3 There are two types of harm, namely legal injustice and moral injustice. Legal injustice can be divided into criminal injustice and civil injustice. Injustice that goes against the good of the public and the state is called criminal injustice, while injustice that affects the interests of a particular individual is called civil injustice. Criminal injustices include acts such as murder, robbery, assault, theft, etc., while less serious injustices such as trespassing, harassment, pollution, copyright infringement, etc. are recognized as civil injustice.

However, some injustices meet the criterion of civil and criminal injustice. In these situations, the distinction between the two injustices may be slightly blurred. They can be described as civil and criminal injustice. Thus, there can be both a criminal action and a legal action for a single wrong. Some examples include personal injury, defamation, neglect, harassment, reckless driving, etc. She chased McDonald`s and won. She was awarded damages, but the jury also awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The evidence presented to this jury showed that McDonald`s was selling its coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. That coffee at this temperature on a person`s skin could cause third-degree burns in two to seven seconds. The evidence presented also showed that McDonald`s had been aware of this risk for over 10 years, considering that there were over 700 other claims or reports from other customers that had also been burned because McDonald`s coffee was too hot.

At the time, McDonald`s generated about $1.3 million in daily revenue from the sale of coffee. Following the decision, the parties agreed to a final settlement that included a non-disclosure agreement. Therefore, the exact amount of damages paid by McDonald`s to Ms. Liebeck is unknown. After this decision, McDonald`s decided to lower the temperature of its coffee. Criminal injustice is different from civil or moral injustice. Criminal injustice is behaviour that harms society as a whole and not a particular person or entity.

  • Uncategorised