Podcasts about Proximate

This conversation delves into the complexities of causation in criminal law, exploring both factual and proximate causation, the impact of intervening causes, and advanced considerations such as the Model Penal Code. The discussion emphasizes the importance of foreseeability and fairness in assigning legal responsibility, while also providing practical strategies for analyzing causation in exam scenarios.TakeawaysCausation is fundamental to criminal law and essential for legal professionals.Factual causation is established through the 'but for' test, but is not sufficient alone for liability.Proximate causation considers whether the result is fair to impose liability, focusing on foreseeability.Intervening causes can break the chain of causation, especially if they are unforeseeable or independent.The eggshell skull rule holds defendants liable for the full extent of harm caused, even if the victim had pre-existing vulnerabilities.The Model Penal Code provides a structured approach to causation, linking it to the mental state required for crimes.Courts often adapt causation principles based on policy goals and the context of the case.Causation analysis requires a systematic approach, asking critical questions about factual and proximate causes.Understanding the interplay between causation and legal responsibility is key for aspiring legal professionals.Causation is a dynamic area of law that evolves with societal changes and technological advancements.causation, criminal law, factual causation, proximate causation, intervening causes, Model Penal Code, legal responsibility, foreseeability, criminal liability, legal analysis

Ep. 194 (Part 2 of 2) | Frank Ostaseski, Zen hospice pioneer, founder of the Metta Institute, and author of The Five Invitations, speaks with us about the profound wisdom and potential for transformation that is unleashed in the process of dying. “Suppose we imagine death as an unprecedented opportunity for transformation, he says, adding, “so why wait until we are dying?” In attending over a thousand people in hospice, Frank has often seen them experience a real sense of discovery in the dying process; there is a time of acceptance, a time of letting go, and then a deeper state of surrendering to something larger. The walls that prop up the self start tumbling down, Frank explains, and a larger connection emerges that is always there.Frank would like to see the process of dying brought out of the closet—shared about, learned from, and not reduced to a medical event. It's important to meet death with don't-know mind and trust the dying process to teach each of us what we need to know, he explains. And some of what we can do right now to open ourselves to the wisdom of death is pay attention to how we end things, and to how we love. This far reaching discussion delves gently into the divine mystery of death and dying, touching on radical acceptance, transcending self, don't-know mind, everyday compassion and boundless compassion, grief as an expression of love, and creating rituals to mark this passage and all passages. We are left feeling unexpectedly comforted and liberated at the same time. Recorded December 5, 2024.“Grief is a way we continue to love someone… a natural response to the experience of love.”Topics & Time Stamps – Part 2What qualities do people need to be with the dying? (00:27) Boundless compassion needs everyday compassion (02:09)Don't wait to tell people that you love them (03:55)Grief is a way we continue to love someone, a natural response to the experience of love (06:06)There are subtler experiences after surrender: tracking consciousness as the brain stops (06:38)Gratefulness and a deep sense of belonging to something larger (09:52)Cultivating don't know mind; meeting dying with don't know mind (12:47)Terminal lucidity (17:49)Practices we can do now: how do we meet endings? (19:54)Impermanence is not later; it's in this very moment (22:35) Cultural changes Frank would like to see (26:15)Proximate karma (30:00)Better drugs than sedation: psychedelics could help us meet the profundity of the experience (30:37)Bathing the body after death: a wonderful tradition that can fundamentally shift our relation with death (33:45)Resources & References – Part 2Frank Ostaseski's website: https://frankostaseski.com/Frank Ostaseski, The Five Invitations: Discovering What Death Can Teach Us About Living FullyMetta Institute, founded by Frank Ostaseski, to provide innovative programs and trainings that foster mindful & compassionate end-of-life careFrank Ostaseski, founding director of the San Francisco Zen Hospice...

Proximate cause is a fundamental and often complex concept in tort law that determines the extent to which a defendant can be held legally responsible for harm caused. While "cause-in-fact" (or "actual cause") establishes a factual link—"but for" the defendant's action, the injury would not have occurred—proximate cause acts as a legal and policy filter, limiting liability to consequences that are sufficiently related to the defendant's conduct (AllLaw; Reddit; Torts Lecture Twenty-One; Number Analytics). As the Latin proverb states, "Injure non remota causa sed proxima spectatur" – in law, only the immediate (proximate) cause should be considered, not the remote cause (IIPSeries).TakeawaysProximate cause is essential for understanding legal responsibility in torts.The distinction between actual and proximate cause is foundational in tort law.Foreseeability is a key component in determining proximate cause.Intervening causes can complicate liability but do not always absolve the original defendant.Superseding causes break the chain of liability, absolving the original defendant.The eggshell plaintiff rule holds defendants liable for the full extent of injuries, regardless of the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions.Judicial approaches to proximate cause vary, influencing case outcomes.Proximate cause applies across negligence, strict liability, and intentional torts.Policy considerations in proximate cause aim to balance fairness and limit liability.Understanding these principles is crucial for success in tort exams and legal practice.

In this episode, we delve into the intricate world of negligence, a cornerstone of tort law and a frequent topic in exams. Join us as we explore the essential elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. We'll break down complex legal tests, landmark cases like Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., and practical explanations to equip you with the knowledge needed to tackle challenging negligence questions. Whether you're preparing for a law exam or seeking a deeper understanding of tort law, this episode offers a comprehensive guide to mastering negligence. Tune in to gain insights that will help you confidently navigate the complexities of tort law.The core purpose of damages in a personal injury case is to "make the plaintiff whole." This means financial compensation is provided to, as much as possible, put the injured victim back into the position they would have been in if they had not suffered the injury as a result of the defendant's negligence or intentionally bad actions.General damages compensate for abstract, non-financial losses like emotional and physical pain, while special damages repay concrete, financial losses. An example of general damages is pain and suffering, while an example of special damages is past and ongoing medical bills.Punitive damages are awarded to punish defendants for wanton, reckless, or malicious acts, and to discourage similar behavior in the future. They are normally only allowed in negligence cases where the defendant's conduct was more than just ordinary negligence, such as drunk driving.A duty of care is a legal obligation for a defendant to act with a particular standard of conduct to protect others from unreasonable risk of harm. This means all individuals have a general duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to others.The "reasonable person standard" is an objective test that asks how a hypothetical, average person of reasonable caution and competence would have behaved under the same circumstances. Courts use this standard to assess whether the defendant's conduct fell below the expected level of care.Actual cause (or cause-in-fact) uses the "but-for" test to determine if the injury would have occurred without the defendant's actions. Proximate cause (or legal cause) is concerned with foreseeability, limiting liability to harms that were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct.If the Wright Brothers' invention of the airplane is considered an "actual cause" of 9/11 because the event wouldn't have happened "but for" their invention. However, it is not a "proximate cause" because the 9/11 tragedy was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of inventing the airplane nearly a century prior.Res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine that allows a jury to infer negligence without direct evidence. It applies when an injury typically doesn't occur without negligence, the instrumentality causing harm was under the defendant's control, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the harm.Comparative negligence reduces a plaintiff's damage award based on their percentage of fault, allowing for some recovery even if partially at fault. Contributory negligence, in contrast, completely bars the plaintiff from recovering any damages if they are found to be even slightly negligent.Two examples of a breach of duty in medical malpractice include a misdiagnosis of a serious condition, such as failing to diagnose cancer despite apparent symptoms, or a medication error, like prescribing an incorrect medication or dosage.

(08:54) Brought to you by Swimm.io.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Start modernizing your mainframe faster with ⁠⁠⁠Swimm⁠⁠⁠. Understand the what, why, and how of your mainframe code. Use AI to uncover critical code insights for seamless migration, refactoring, or system replacement.Why do so many well-intentioned initiatives fail to move the needle?In this episode, Sriram Narayan, author of ‘Impact Intelligence,' reveals how to ensure your efforts translate into real, measurable business impact. Stop shooting in the dark and start delivering tangible results that matter.Key topics discussed:What “Impact Intelligence” means and why it is crucial for any businessThe common pitfalls: Why many tech and digital initiatives fail to achieve their intended business impactThe common misconceptions about “outcomes” in tech and product teams, and why delivery or adoption metrics are not enoughSurprising insights from the non-profit sector on rigorous impact measurement practicesUnderstanding the difference between immediate (proximate) results and long-term (downstream) impactHow to visualize and map your initiatives to core business goals using an “Impact Network”The critical challenge of “Impact Attribution” – how to know if your project actually moved the needleAddressing “Measurement Debt” — if you can't measure it, should you build it?The iRex framework: A modular approach to building your organization's Impact IntelligenceBalancing speed vs impact: Not just shipping features, but delivering measurable business resultsWhether you're a tech leader, product manager, or executive, this episode will equip you with actionable frameworks and real-world examples to focus on what really matters: delivering measurable, meaningful business impact.Tune in and start building your organization's Impact Intelligence muscle today!  Timestamps:(00:00) Trailer & Intro(02:22) Career Turning Points(10:52) Impact Intelligence(11:40) The Importance of Impact Intelligence(15:09) Understanding Business Impact(19:11) Learning & Adopting from the NGO Space(22:35) Impact Feedback Loops(26:25) Proximate vs Downstream Impact(28:20) Building an Impact Network(36:47) Differences with OKR(38:12) Impact Attribution(44:51) The Importance of Measurement & Measurement Debt(48:31) iRex Framework(54:26) Balancing Between Speed of Delivery and Business Impact(57:32) 1 Tech lead Wisdom_____Sriram Narayan's BioSriram Narayan is an independent consultant in the area of impact intelligence. He also helps clients improve digital, product and tech performance.Pearson published his first book, Agile IT Org Design , in 2015. It won endorsements from the then CIO of The Vanguard Group and the then MD of Consumer Digital at Lloyds Bank.Sriram has served in product, technology, innovation, and transformation leadership roles since 2006. He has also helped some of his clients move to a product operating model. His write-up of the topic in 2018 has since become a de facto industry reference. His other writings and talks are available at agileorgdesign.comFollow Sriram:LinkedIn – linkedin.com/in/mrsriramnarayanBluesky - @srny.bsky.socialTwitter / X – @sriramnarayan

This week Bob and Connor wax idiotic about the Switch 2 Nintendo Direct. They also talk Atomfall, R.A.T.S., Proximate, and more!!!Follow us on Instagram Leave us a voicemail at (804) 286-0626 and consider supporting us through our Patreon Check out the Discord! News Links:Nintendo DirectMiyazaki InterviewMinecraft Movie ControversyBungie Finally Reveals Marathon Gameplay

Por fin concluimos el épico repaso a nuestras cosas favoritas del año pasado: Hablamos de: Videojuegos: Rise of the Golden Idol, Mario & Luigi: Brothership, Alan Wake 2: Night Springs, Alan Wake 2: The Lake House, Crow Country, Silent Hill 2, Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree, Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth, Nine Sols, Indiana Jones & The Great Circle, 1000xResist, Animal Well, Proximate, Harold Halibut, Misericorde 2, Dragon Age: The Veilguard, Sorry We're Closed, Mouthwashing, Senua's Saga: Hellblade 2, Kunitsu Gami: Path of the Goddess, Balatro, Astro Bot, Arctic Eggs y Metaphor: Refantazio. Literatura (1:47:35): Doctor Extraño: Amanecer de Otoño, Nocturnos, Justicia, The Lost Metal, Se Está Muy Sola en el Centro de La Tierra, L'arabe du futur: Moi, Fadi, le frère volé, Sybilla, Ultimate Spider-Man (2024), Anzuelo y Babel. Descubrimientos/pozos (2:18:32): The Holdovers, Leer, Fallout New Vegas, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, Haikyu! y Agustina Bazterrica. Suenan: LCD Soundsystem: 45:33 (Pt. 2) Weed420: el chiste más largo de la historia

Often, it's only through proximity to different lived experiences and that issues become personal enough for us to change our thoughts and behaviors. This week, Ashley reflects on some key moments that opened her awareness to issues she hadn't previously contended with. 

A bank robber in a high speed chase from the police and smashed into a tree on the insured's premises. A large limb fell on power lines, and the insured's home sustained a power surge. The insured claims  electrical damage to his refrigerator, toaster, and TV.   Notable Timestamps [ 00:20 ] - The adjuster sees the insured had a standard ISO HO 00 03 05 11. Is there coverage for these household items under that form? [ 01:35 ] - Trivia time! This 1967 American film starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway follows the exploits of bank robbers in the Depression-Era South. [ 03:00 ] - Coverage A generally applies, in part, to electronics permanently attached to the realty-- if you turned the house upside-down and shook it, what would NOT fall out? [ 04:36 ] - Coverage A or Coverage C factors: 1. actual physical annexation to the property, 2. application or adaptation to the use or purpose to which the realty is devoted, and 3. intention (or lack thereof) to make it a permanent installation. [ 05:11 ] - If the insured was moving to a new home, what would they leave behind? Not the toaster or, with any likelihood, the television. Even wall-mounted televisions are easily removed. [ 07:00 ] - This refrigerator has an ice maker, so it's linked to the plumbing. It's often not taken upon moving. [ 07:35 ] - Coverage B only comes into play if you're storing your lawnmower in a refrigerator. [ 08:36 ] - Sometimes refrigerators are built in to match the surrounding cabinets. [ 09:30 ] - We'll assume these fall under Coverage C, and that the insured isn't living in that backyard fridge to get Coverage D to apply. [ 10:30 ] - Proximate cause analysis would apply to this complex chain of causation, but most adjusters would likely give the insured the benefit of the doubt if any named peril played a meaningful role in bringing about the loss. [ 11:00 ] - Malicious mischief? It's a consideration, but sorry Mike, there are other intervening causes here. [ 12:05 ] - Going through the options, several named perils might apply: Artificially Generated Electrical Current, Falling Objects, or Vehicles. [ 13:00 ] - Sudden and Accidental Damage from Artificially Generated Electrical Current sounds like it should apply, but the text says it does not apply to objects with electronic components. [ 14:18 ] - The Vehicles peril just says "vehicles." [ 15:00 ] - If the insured is driving, you might run into an intentional loss exclusion issue, and innocent co-insured concerns. [ 16:00 ] - The insured can get paid for the tree, even though the list of perils is shorter for that particular coverage, because the loss was caused by a vehicle not owned or operated by a resident. [ 17:35 ] - Tim provides a recap of the scenario and the points above. Your PLRB Resources Power Surge Damages Appliances- PCQ.2006.06.01a - https://www.plrb.org/documents/power-surge-damages-appliances-pcq-2006-06-01a/ Artificially Generated Electrical Current (HO77) - https://www.plrb.org/documents/artificially-generated-electrical-current-ho77/ Does Additional Coverage Apply To Tree Struck By Insured Vehicle After Collision?- PCQ.2012.04.17a - https://www.plrb.org/documents/does-additional-coverage-apply-to-tree-struck-by-insured-vehicle-after-collision-pcq-2012-04-17a/ Employees of member companies also have access to a searchable legal database, hundreds of hours of video trainings, building code materials, weather data, and even the ability to have your coverage questions answered by our team of attorneys (https://www.plrb.org/ask-plrb/) at no additional charge to you or your company. Subscribe to this Podcast Your Podcast App - Please subscribe and rate us on your favorite podcast app YouTube - Please like and subscribe at @plrb LinkedIN - Please follow at “Property and Liability Resource Bureau” Send us your Scenario! Please reach out to us at 630-509-8704 with your scenario! This could be your “adjuster story” sharing a situation from your claims experience, or a burning question you would like the team to answer. In any case, please omit any personal information as we will anonymize your story before we share. Just reach out to scenario@plrb.org.  Legal Information The views and opinions expressed in this resource are those of the individual speaker and not necessarily those of the Property & Liability Resource Bureau (PLRB), its membership, or any organization with which the presenter is employed or affiliated. The information, ideas, and opinions are presented as information only and not as legal advice or offers of representation. Individual policy language and state laws vary, and listeners should rely on guidance from their companies and counsel as appropriate. Music: “Piece of Future” by Keyframe_Audio. Pixabay. Pixabay License. Font: Metropolis by Chris Simpson. SIL OFL 1.1. Icons: FontAwesome (SIL OFL 1.1) and Noun Project (royalty-free licenses purchased via subscription). Sound Effects: Pixabay (Pixabay License) and Freesound.org (CC0).

Follow Dan on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/cotterdan Follow Pat on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/donald-patrick-eckler-610290824/ Predictions Sure To Wrong: Johnson: Affirm Carey: Reverse Little: Affirm Illinois appellate can be found here: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/appellate-court/oral-argument-audio/

Paul, Peter, and Maylee get sticky and show the making of the sausage while introducing the BRAND NEW #GamingNews format and LIVE chat politics, patents, original overwatch, and upcoming games. Paul embraces the chaos and raves about visor and text based PROXIMATE from Cain Maddox. Then Rani returns to review the overwhelming but addictive isometric [...]

This week on ZedGames: Special Guest Tom from Netherworld/ZedGames joins Maylee and Paul as they talk Gaming News, Reviews, Community, and Culture. Maylee injects news into your ear holes and then the team discusses the exciting topics – Nintendo game sales, horror visor game Proximate from Cain Maddox, and SAVE&SOUND. Paul gets guilty in the [...]

Across America, we're still in the middle of a great re-making of the news industry. The decline that began several years ago hasn't abated, but new models of journalism are beginning to take root, many of them organized as nonprofits. Much of that growth is fueled by a new philanthropic collaborative. According to its website, "Press Forward is a national coalition investing more than $500 million to strengthen local newsrooms, close longstanding gaps in journalism coverage, advance public policy that expands access to local news, and to scale the infrastructure the sector needs to thrive."rnrnWhen Dale Anglin took the helm of Press Forward as its inaugural director, she spoke about the importance of proximity. "We know proximity supports trust building," she said. "Local journalism is proximity. It provides knowledge and information that's not only important for quality-of-life decisions but also can serve as a powerful mechanism for motivating people to take action."rnrnAs part of the City Club's 2024 Annual Meeting, and at a moment when voters prepare for one of the most consequential elections in a generation, Anglin joins City Club CEO Dan Moulthrop for a conversation about the state of free speech, the news industry, and access to information across our communities.

Chapter 2: General Principles of Criminal Liability Actus Reus (The Criminal Act) Actus reus, or the "guilty act," is a fundamental component of criminal liability. It refers to the physical act or unlawful omission that constitutes a crime. The actus reus can take various forms, including voluntary bodily movements, omissions to act when there is a legal duty to do so, and possession of illegal substances or items. Voluntary Acts: For an action to be considered actus reus, it must be a voluntary act. This means the act must be a conscious and willful bodily movement. Involuntary actions, such as those occurring during a seizure or under duress, do not typically constitute actus reus. Omissions: In some cases, failing to act can fulfill the actus reus requirement if there is a legal duty to act. Legal duties to act can arise from statutes, contracts, relationships, voluntary assumption of care, or creation of peril. For example, parents have a legal duty to provide care for their children, and failing to do so can result in criminal liability. Possession: Possession of illegal items (such as drugs or unregistered firearms) can constitute actus reus. Possession can be actual (physical control) or constructive (having control or the ability to control an item even if it is not in one's direct physical possession). Mens Rea (The Criminal Intent) Mens rea, or the "guilty mind," refers to the mental state or intent required to commit a crime. Different crimes require different levels of mens rea, ranging from specific intent to strict liability, where no intent is required. Specific Intent: Some crimes require that the defendant have a specific intent or purpose to bring about a particular result. Examples include premeditated murder and burglary. General Intent: General intent crimes require that the defendant intended to perform the act that constitutes the crime, but do not require intent to achieve a specific result. Examples include battery and rape. Recklessness: Recklessness involves consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain result will occur from one's actions. This level of mens rea is often seen in crimes like manslaughter. Negligence: Criminal negligence occurs when a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their conduct will cause a particular result, and this failure constitutes a significant deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe. Strict Liability: Strict liability crimes do not require any mens rea. The mere commission of the act is sufficient for criminal liability. Examples include statutory rape and many regulatory offenses, such as selling alcohol to minors. Concurrence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea For a defendant to be found guilty of a crime, there must be a concurrence between the actus reus and the mens rea. This means that the defendant's criminal intent must coincide with the criminal act. For example, if a person plans to commit theft and then carries out the act, the intent and the action are concurrent. Causation and Harm Causation is a critical element in establishing criminal liability. It links the defendant's actions to the resulting harm. There are two types of causation: factual causation and legal causation. Factual Causation: Also known as "but-for" causation, it means that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's actions. For instance, if a person shoots another, and the victim dies as a result, the shooter is factually responsible for the death. Legal Causation: Also known as proximate causation, it considers whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the defendant's actions and whether it is fair to hold the defendant legally responsible. Proximate causation limits liability to those harms that are a direct and natural result of the defendant's actions. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Check out nikkilerner.com and culturecoachinglab.com  MAY 1st, 12-1:30pm Come hang out with me for a live masterclass - When Silence Is Not An Option.  You can sign up for it here:  https://www.culturecoachinglab.com/pages/practice-sessionsReady to work with me in 2024?  This could be the year that you make major leaps in your multicultural leadership.  There are many ways to work with me.  Drop me an email at nikkilerner.com/contact  

I'm talking today with Professor Michalyn Steele, a member of the faculty at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, about Bryan Stevenson and his best-selling book Just Mercy. Stevenson has spent his career assisting people in some of the worst circumstances I can imagine: those on death row or facing a life sentence. He's also a Christian, and his faith in Jesus and love of the Bible are on full display in his book. Professor Steele helped me see what Stevenson's work with imprisoned people can teach all of us about mercy and justice. This is something she knows firsthand from her own experience ministering to incarcerated women in her community. As she says, “we're in a web of hurt and brokenness, but we're also together in a web of healing and mercy.” Too often, though, we look away from that web and choose not to see our brothers and sisters in their lowest moments. Or we simply don't know how to make the connections we want to make. How to “get proximate”, as Stevenson puts it, is a question we should be asking--and it's the topic of our conversation today. I hope you enjoy it.

Today's sermon is for Advent 3 (B) and is titled Rejoice Always. It was written by the Rev. Israel Alexander Portilla Gómez and read by the Rev. Danae Ashley. Sermons That Work is an offering of the Episcopal Church's Office of Communication. For more free resources, including sermons, Bible studies, bulletin inserts, and more, visit episcopalchurch.org/sermons. We would love it if you'd rate, review, and subscribe to our podcast on your favorite podcasting platform – and while you're at it, share it with a friend!

Understanding Causation. Causation is the linchpin that connects a defendant's actions to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. It seeks to answer the fundamental question: Did the defendant's conduct cause the harm? The exploration of causation involves two key components: cause-in-fact and proximate cause. Cause-in-Fact (Actual Cause). Cause-in-fact, also known as actual cause, examines whether the defendant's actions were the direct cause of the harm. The "but for" test is commonly used to determine cause-in-fact. In other words, would the harm have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions? Example: In a car accident case, if Driver A runs a red light and collides with Driver B's car, the cause-in-fact is established by asking whether the accident would have occurred "but for" Driver A running the red light. Proximate Cause (Legal Cause). Proximate cause focuses on the foreseeability of the harm. It asks whether the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions. Proximate cause sets limits on liability, ensuring that defendants are not held responsible for incredibly remote or unforeseeable consequences of their conduct. Example: If a person throws a ball in a crowded area and it unexpectedly causes someone to trip and fall, the question is whether the tripping and falling were foreseeable consequences of throwing the ball. Challenges in Causation. Causation can present challenges in various scenarios: Concurrent Causes: In cases where multiple factors or parties contribute to the harm, determining which party's actions were the actual cause can be complex. Intervening Causes: Intervening causes are unforeseeable events or actions that occur after the defendant's conduct but before the harm. They can break the chain of causation. Multiple Plaintiffs: In cases involving multiple plaintiffs, it may be challenging to establish causation for each plaintiff, especially if their injuries resulted from different aspects of the defendant's actions. Case Example: Slip and Fall in a Store. Imagine a scenario where a person slips and falls in a store, suffering injuries. The store's negligence is a potential cause of the injuries. However, if it is discovered that the person was also texting on their phone while walking, their distraction may be considered an intervening cause, breaking the chain of causation. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

On Sunday, Elisabeth Hayes will be preaching on the same theme of the Local Missions conference, proximity.

Understanding Causation. Causation is the linchpin of tort law. It establishes the direct link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries. In essence, it answers the question: Did the defendant's conduct cause the harm suffered by the plaintiff? Two Types of Causation. Causation is typically divided into two categories: Cause-in-Fact (Actual Cause): This aspect of causation examines whether the defendant's actions were the actual cause of the harm. In other words, would the harm have occurred if the defendant had not acted in the way they did? If the answer is no, the defendant's conduct is considered the cause-in-fact of the harm. Proximate Cause (Legal Cause): Proximate cause focuses on the foreseeability of the harm. It asks whether the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions. Proximate cause sets limits on liability, ensuring that defendants are not held responsible for incredibly remote or unforeseeable consequences of their conduct. Cause-in-Fact: "But For" Test. The cause-in-fact element is often determined using the "but for" test. This test asks whether the plaintiff's injuries would have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions. In simpler terms, it examines whether the harm would have happened if the defendant had not acted in the way they did. Proximate Cause: Foreseeability. Proximate cause, on the other hand, hinges on foreseeability. It asks whether a reasonable person could foresee that their actions might result in the harm suffered by the plaintiff. If the harm was not foreseeable, it may not be considered a proximate cause. Case Example: Car Accident. Consider a car accident case where Driver A runs a red light, collides with Driver B's car, and injures Driver B. In this scenario: Cause-in-fact: The cause-in-fact element is satisfied by the "but for" test. "But for" Driver A running the red light, the accident and Driver B's injuries would not have occurred. Proximate cause: Proximate cause, in this case, depends on whether a reasonable person could foresee that running a red light might result in a collision and injuries. If the collision and injuries were foreseeable consequences of running a red light, Driver A's actions would likely be considered the proximate cause. Challenges in Causation. Causation can present challenges, particularly in cases where multiple factors contribute to the harm. Some common issues include: Concurrent Causes: In cases where multiple factors or parties contribute to the harm, determining which party's actions were the actual cause can be complex. Intervening Causes: Intervening causes are unforeseeable events or actions that occur after the defendant's conduct but before the harm. They can break the chain of causation. Multiple Plaintiffs: In cases involving multiple plaintiffs, it may be challenging to establish causation for each plaintiff, especially if their injuries resulted from different aspects of the defendant's actions. Case Example: Slip and Fall in a Store. Imagine a scenario where a person slips and falls in a store, suffering injuries. The store's negligence is a potential cause of the injuries. However, if it is discovered that the person was also texting on their phone while walking, their distraction may be considered an intervening cause, breaking the chain of causation. Recent Developments in Causation. The concept of causation is continually evolving, influenced by societal changes, scientific advancements, and legal interpretations. Some recent developments and trends include: Advanced Forensic Science: The use of advanced forensic science has improved the ability to establish causation in cases involving complex injuries or diseases. Environmental Causation: In cases involving environmental harms, such as toxic exposure, courts are increasingly considering scientific evidence to determine causation. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Today's sermon is for Pentecost 22 (A) and is titled Stumped. It was written by the Rev. Kathleen Walker and read by the Rev. Danae Ashley. Sermons That Work is an offering of the Episcopal Church's Office of Communication. For more free resources, including sermons, Bible studies, bulletin inserts, and more, visit episcopalchurch.org/sermons. We would love it if you'd rate, review, and subscribe to our podcast on your favorite podcasting platform – and while you're at it, share it with a friend!

Today's sermon is for Pentecost 21 (A) and is titled Games. It was written by the Rev. Phil Hooper and read by the Rev. Danae Ashley. Sermons That Work is an offering of the Episcopal Church's Office of Communication. For more free resources, including sermons, Bible studies, bulletin inserts, and more, visit episcopalchurch.org/sermons. We would love it if you'd rate, review, and subscribe to our podcast on your favorite podcasting platform – and while you're at it, share it with a friend!

Today's sermon is for Pentecost 20 (A) and is titled Are We Ready to Choose? It was written by the Rev. Kirk Alan Kubicek and read by the Rev. Danae Ashley. Sermons That Work is an offering of the Episcopal Church's Office of Communication. For more free resources, including sermons, Bible studies, bulletin inserts, and more, visit episcopalchurch.org/sermons. We would love it if you'd rate, review, and subscribe to our podcast on your favorite podcasting platform – and while you're at it, share it with a friend!

Today's sermon is for Pentecost 19 (A) and is titled A Different Ending. It was written by the Rev. Amy Richter and read by the Rev. Danae Ashley. Sermons That Work is an offering of the Episcopal Church's Office of Communication. For more free resources, including sermons, Bible studies, bulletin inserts, and more, visit episcopalchurch.org/sermons. We would love it if you'd rate, review, and subscribe to our podcast on your favorite podcasting platform – and while you're at it, share it with a friend!

Today's sermon is for Pentecost 18 (A) and is titled Questions and Answers. It was written by the Rev. Marshall Jolly and read by the Rev. Danae Ashley. Sermons That Work is an offering of the Episcopal Church's Office of Communication. For more free resources, including sermons, Bible studies, bulletin inserts, and more, visit episcopalchurch.org/sermons. We would love it if you'd rate, review, and subscribe to our podcast on your favorite podcasting platform – and while you're at it, share it with a friend!

Remember, you can watch the Superpowers for Good show on e360tv. To watch the episode, download the #e360tv channel app to your streaming device–Roku, AppleTV or AmazonFireTV–or your mobile device. You can even watch it on the web.When you purchase an item after clicking a link here, we may earn a commission. It's an easy way to support our work.Devin: What do you see as your superpower, Kevin?Kevin: I see my superpower as diversity of experience. I was born in a very small and very poor suburb of Detroit called Highland Park, and now I work–outside of Proximate– as an investment analyst for Gutter Capital. So, I have been in situations where I've had $0, and I can speak that language. Now, I'm the middleman for people to get investments of $1 million.Devin: Ben, what is your superpower?Ben: I think it has something to do with helping people tell their stories.My guests today, Ben Wrobel and Kevin McClendon, are co-founders–along with Meg Massey–of the nonprofit media company Proximate.“Proximate is a media platform that amplifies and connects movements for participatory problem-solving,” says Kevin. “We're a home for stories about creative community-driven models that shift power to people with lived experience or those proximate to the problem.”The company grew naturally out of a book that Ben wrote with co-founder Meg called Letting Go. The book built on their experiences. Ben says, “I worked for a participatory investing nonprofit called Village Capital that shifted decision-making power away from investors and towards entrepreneurs closer to the problem.”The team employs a solutions journalism lens, focusing on solutions when discussing societal challenges. Proximate narrows its aperture to primarily consider innovations in participatory philanthropy, investing and budgeting. The goal is to amplify the voices of those closest to and most impacted by problems.I'm excited about their work, in part because it recognizes the fundamental value of the crowd in crowdfunding and the value of investors who deploy relatively small amounts of money but bring perspective from the front lines of problems.Kevin highlights the uniqueness of the Proximate approach to news, “We're the only platform where you can find how a sex worker film festival and a food bank are solving for the same variables.”Ben and Kevin each bring superpowers to the game. Ben leverages an ability to help others tell their stories, and Kevin shares his unique diversity of experience to the work.AI Episode Summary* Kevin McClendon and Ben Wrobel are co-founders of Proximate, a media platform that amplifies and connects movements for participatory problem-solving.* They focus on stories about creative community-driven models that shift power to people with lived experience or those proximate to the problem.* Their work extends beyond capital and includes areas such as climate change, medical care, citizen science, and equity in the creative economy.* Proximate produces journalism and solutions journalism specifically, conveying information in a compelling way.* They hire local journalists to write about solutions in communities, such as locally-led disaster response in Puerto Rico, and cover different sectors like philanthropy, government, and impact investing.* Their goal is to be a clearinghouse for participatory problem-solving stories and create collections of stories for specific topics with the help of partner nonprofits.* Kevin's superpower is diversity of experience, having been in situations of poverty and also working as an investment analyst for Gutter Capital.* Ben's superpower is helping people tell their stories, finding people with big ideas and helping them communicate their work in a universal language.* Kevin suggests breaking silos and identifying similarities as a way to increase diversity of perspective, while Ben recommends speaking out loud and recording to overcome writer's block and improve storytelling.* To learn more about Proximate, visit their website, subscribe to their newsletters, and connect with them on social media. For Kevin, connect on LinkedIn and Instagram, and for Ben, email him or connect on LinkedIn. They are also looking for content, platform, and funding partners for collaboration.How to Develop a Diversity of Experience As a SuperpowerKevin shared an example that illustrates his superpower:So in writing for the participants, The Rise of Participatory ESOs, our most recent project that we've announced, because I've worked with a lot of the different industries that we covered, I had the insider look, so to speak, that I'm not writing as someone who's lived on the outside. I'm writing as someone who has both worked inside of these organizations and as well been a person who has been in a position to receive the results of what these organizations are attempting to accomplish.Kevin also offered some tips for expanding your own perspective. He suggests:* Break the silos and identify the similarities. * Stop creating these false barriers between groups. * Learn from what another person is doing. By following Kevin's example and advice, you can broaden your perspectives. In time, you may be able to make this a superpower that enables you to do more good in the world.How to Develop Storytelling As a SuperpowerBen shared an anecdote to illustrate the power of storytelling:One of the participatory grantmaking funds that we profiled in Letting Go had been doing this work for ten years and just had a website and were well known in their small community but were not on the radar of a lot of other folks in philanthropy or beyond.We wrote a whole chapter about them in the book. Shortly after that, their founder and CEO left. She said, “I feel like my legacy is more secure now. Our story has been told.”I know that since then, they've been able to raise a good amount of money. I don't think that is entirely because of Letting Go.That's what I'm hoping to accomplish with Proximate. Every time we write an article about somebody, we hope that it will be used so that they can share it and talk about themselves and the work they're doing in a way they can be proud of.Ben offers a powerful storytelling tip:What I've often seen when people try to write an op-ed or write an essay, write about their work, they often are intimidated by a blank screen. Say the words out loud. Describe what you're doing to someone in your life and your family, and then take that–there is some great AI recording software out there, like Otter.ai. Turn on Otter and start talking. This is something people used to do way back in the day. Take a recorder; speak into it. That is one of the best ways to write: speak into your computer and then figure out what you just said.By following Ben's example and suggestion, you can improve your storytelling. With practice, you could make it a superpower that enables you to do more good in the world.Guest ProfilesAbout Proximate: Proximate is a media platform that aims to amplify and connect movements for new models of participatory problem-solving. We're a home for stories about creative, community-driven models that shift power to people with lived experience or those proximate to the problem.Website: proximate.press/Linkedin: linkedin.com/company/proximate-pressCompany Facebook Page: facebook.com/profile.php?id=100091509354018Kevin McClendon (he/him):Co-Founder, ProximateBiographical Information: Kevin is a writer and strategic professional in the early-stage investment and philanthropy ecosystems. He is driven to create a more equitable world for his son through avid support of sustainable capitalism.Kevin serves as a Co-Founder of Proximate, helping forward a mission of shifting power to those with lived experience. He is also an investment analyst for Gutter Capital, investing in software companies tackling the world's biggest problems. Kevin began his career in marketing for a diversity of industries, including entertainment, real estate, and health care. Kevin was a member of Transforming Power Fund's 2023 Giving Project cohort.Kevin has a BA from Wayne State University. He lives in Detroit, Michigan.Personal Facebook Profile: facebook.com/kvnmcclendon/Linkedin: linkedin.com/in/kevin-mcclendon/Instagram Handle: @kvnmcclendonBen Wrobel (he/him):Co-Founder, ProximateBiographical Information: Ben Wrobel is a writer and an independent communications consultant. Before co-founding Proximate, he was Director of Communications at Village Capital, a pioneer in participatory investing. He started his career as chief speechwriter for the NAACP and later raised money for voter registration campaigns, including Stacey Abrams' New Georgia Project.In addition to co-authoring Letting Go: How Philanthropists and Impact Investors Can Do More Good By Giving Up Control with fellow Proximate co-founder Meg Massey, Ben has edited two best-selling books: REACH: 40 Black Men on Living, Leading and Succeeding and The Innovation Blind Spot.Ben has a BA from the University of Rochester and an MBA from Georgetown University. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut.Twitter Handle: @benwrobelInstagram Handle: @benwrobel Superpowers for Good is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Superpowers for Good at www.superpowers4good.com/subscribe

Daniel Buitrago, Brandon Fifield & Jack Lau go full rock jock w/rock climber, musical artist & guitar teacher Eric Wickenheiser of the Rock Gym & Turnagain Arts Studio   2023 Kesugi Ridge Hike Re-cap, hiking foot injuries (Hot Spots, blisters and wet feet), packing beer, wine & booze, Eric intro, History and coming to AK, building climbing gyms, intro to Alaska, starting at the Alaska Rock Gym, becoming the manager, Alaskan climbing culture, its popularity and following, no shortage of good climbing, John Lau the climber, free climbing the arm, ultra light packing when rock climbing, managing a climbing gym & building a career path, the engineering and building of the AK rock gym, state of the art structure, changing the routes every 6-weeks, route setting talent, V4 Rating (Climbing Lingo & Bouldering), The Verm Scale, “The V-Scale”, auto belay, the 3-foot drop, the full freeze-up, the rock rip, Proximate development & the rock rip, Sage Brush Dry Bags & Products, @multistripsewing, Eric's Denali experience, volunteering in your national parks “DENALI SYLE”, Denali Rescue Volunteers, clean mountain can, arch deacons tower, un coverable bodies, personal kit, tents & gear, Mountain Hardware T 4's, Hilleberg & Nemo tents, a “regular” process, Athletic Greens, Whisper lite & reactor, fry bake, hauling good food, meat, veggies, bacon & cinnamon rolls, 14-camp, Janai basin, Kahiltna glacier/route, breweries & ciders open until January 1, 2024, hunter & Foraker mountain, short hauling side bubble, doughnuts @ 17k feet, 44 mile long Kahiltna Glacier, Xanadue Wall, starting Denali @ 7800 ft, traveling & climbing, Climbing el-cap in a day, on-site climbing, Sanctity of space,   Follow us on Instagram - www.instagram.com/alaskawildproject Watch On Youtube - www.youtube.com/@alaskawildproject Check out our Website - www.alaskawildproject.com Support on Patreon - www.patreon.com/alaskawildproject  

My friend Mike introduced me to a new term a few weeks ago. It is helping me to plan and react in better ways for my business. I will show you how Effective Proximate Cause thinking can also help you succeed. If you want to prepare to weather this storm and the next for your business, this is the episode to listen to. Effective Proximate Cause will help you build a business that thrives and, most importantly, continues now and in the future.   ➡️

161. Moreh Nevukhim 2:48 - In Prophecy, God is Described Metaphorically as the Proximate Cause with Rabbi Daniel Korobkin at Bayt

Today's sermon is for Pentecost 2 (A) and is titled Proximate. It was written by the Rev. Jazzy Bostock and read by the Rev. Danae Ashley. Sermons That Work is an offering of the Episcopal Church's Office of Communication. For more free resources, including sermons, Bible studies, bulletin inserts, and more, visit episcopalchurch.org/sermons. We would love it if you'd rate, review, and subscribe to our podcast on your favorite podcasting platform – and while you're at it, share it with a friend!

Dr. Lance Eliot explains legal proximate cause and AI. See his website www.ai-law.legal for further information.

This past week, Marcus & Millichap published a new report on BORDER-PROXIMATE INDUSTRIAL  As we talked about a few weeks ago on the podcast, there is growing demand for local manufacturing, or manufacturing located within the continent of the North America. Global tensions with China and Russia have disrupted trade relationships that were once considered stable.  A group of domestic and international companies are planning, or in the process of, nearshoring operations to North America. This reorganization of global supply chains is increasing cross-border trading, a dynamic that will serve as a tailwind for long-term demand for domestic industrial space. Trading with Mexico and Canada was up 12 percent and 9 percent year-over-year, respectively, in January, while trading with China was down 13 percent. ------------ Host: Victor Menasce email: podcast@victorjm.com

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, we're discussing Proximate Cause – a subtopic of Negligence in Tort Law. In this episode we discuss: Reviewing the elements of negligence The two hurdles a plaintiff must overcome when it comes to causation The rule for proximate cause Intervening causes and intervening criminal acts Analyzing two hypos from previous California bar exams Resources:  “Listen and Learn” series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2010 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/July-2010-CBX.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2014 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/gbx/July2014CBX_SelectedAnswersEssays1-6_R.pdf) Podcast Episode 244: Listen and Learn – Negligence Per Se (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-244-listen-and-learn-negligence-per-se/) Podcast Episode 257: Listen and Learn – The “Reasonable Person” Standard (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-257-listen-and-learn-the-reasonable-person-standard/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-382-listen-and-learn-negligence-proximate-cause/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

The UBS 2022 U.S. Philanthropy Forum took place from Monday, October 24 - Tuesday, October 25, 2022 in Austin, Texas. The theme of the event was to "Activate and Elevate Your Philanthropy" and brought together philanthropists from across the U.S. to inspire, empower and educate participants on how philanthropic aspirations can be converted into actions and results. Tune in for this session with Jamie Sears, Head of UBS Community Impact Americas, in conversation with Tulaine Montgomery, Co-CEO of New Profit.

Program Director Adam Borneman speaks with the Rev. Dr. Adam Hilderbrandt (First Methodist, Lawrenceville, GA) about connecting with local schools, focusing on being Jesus in the community, and how First Lawrenceville aspires to put Lawrenceville First.

What does it practically mean to follow the peacemaking path of Jesus? In The Way of Peace, learn about the concept of a rule of life and discover flexible and achievable ways to walk this peacemaking path. __Rule #01 Choose love, forgiveness and inclusion: Daily choose to follow Jesus: walk the narrow path of loving mercy, doing justice, and living sacrificially.Rule #02 Listen to Wisdom: Daily listen to wisdom from Scripture, sacred writings and other sources to understand where peace is broken, and oppression is flourishingRule #03 Practice Mindfulness: Be attentive of the Divine Presence through unceasing prayerRule #04 Gather Together: Weekly join others to learn, celebrate and experience Divine LoveRule #05 Create Hope: Share faith while unselfishly giving and servingRule #06 Intentionally Rest: Receive divine grace and restoration through self-careWhat's the Issue Anyway?To be in someone's struggle is to be PROXIMATE.Proximity requires HUMILITY.Does my PRIVILEGE keep me from being PROXIMATE?      “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar, it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.” –Martin Luther King, Jr.What Wisdom does Jesus offer us about Proximity and Humility?Jesus reiterates that we are to love GOD and love our NEIGHBOR! (John 10:27-28)Peter realized that God saw no BOUNDARIES. (Acts 10:28) We bring to the conversation some MISGUIDED beliefs. (John 10:29)The criteria for OUR LOVE is not race or religion—it is NEED. (John 10:30-35)The Way of Peace Rule #7Humbly Go: CROSS boundaries, LISTEN deeply and LOVE mercyHow can I live this in my everyday, normal life?ACKNOWLEDGE your privilege.Go where you are UNCOMFORTABLE.How does this make me a better person and the world a better place?I can choose to walk HUMBLY and be PROXIMATE.This will help bring PEACE and JUSTICE to the world.What is God inviting you into today?1.      Read the article “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” by Peggy McIntosh.2.     Make an invitation to coffee or a meal.3.     Get involved with Partners in Hope through your time, talent and treasure.Thought provoking questions:1.      Think about your race, gender, ethnicity, religion, primary language, ability, socioeconomic status, education level and sexual orientation. How do these specific aspects of your identity influence how you interact with others?2.     What are the stereotypes you hold of the “other?” Why do you think you have those stereotypes? Is there room for a different narrative and perspective?3.     Can you think of some other stories of Jesus modeling proximity and humility? With whom did he “break bread?”4.    What are examples in which you have experienced people authentically sharing pain with you? What is your natural tendency when someone comes to you in pain? Are you inclined to a) offer solutions; b) say, “God is good, it will be ok;” or c) simply listen and create space for suffering?5.     When you think about living a proximate life (whatever that might look like for you), what are the sacrifices that you would have to make? How do you feel about making those sacrifices?

Meet Tulaine. She's a social entrepreneur, educator and community organizer. She serves as Co-CEO at New Profit, a venture philanthropy org that backs social entrepreneurs who are advancing equity and opportunity. She's sharing how leaning into proximity, though listening and valuing people's lived experience, can lead to true transformation. Don't miss Tulaine's heartwired counsel that had us nodding along the whole conversation. LearnThe power of proximity in the social impact spaceExamples of proximate leadership + insightHow busyness can be a cover for mediocrityToday's GuestTulaine Montgomery, Co-CEO, New ProfitEpisode HighlightsTulaine's story and journey to where she is today (4:00)Proximity as a value (11:45)Listening (15:00)How the social sector can rise up to meet this moment (19:00)Example of proximate insight + leadership: GirlTrek (26:00)A powerful moment of philanthropy in Tulaine's life (41:00)Tulaine's One Good Thing: The Stockdale Paradox - have unshakeable faith and an unblinking eye. (52:00)For more information and episode details visit: weareforgood.com/episode/378.About our Sponsor Neon OneTechnology alone can't solve the challenges nonprofits face. That's why Neon One provides software that empowers you to manage constituents all while giving you the resources and support you need to connect to what matters most - your people and their passions. Learn more about how Neon One is helping nonprofits create stronger connections by visiting neonone.com/weareforgood.About our Sponsor Feathr Feathr is trusted by more than 1,000 nonprofits of all sizes — from the Humane Society and Meals on Wheels to IJM .Don't rely on magic to hit your goals next year. Use Feathr to elevate your digital marketing campaigns and grow impact in 2023.Learn more and get started today at Feathr.co. And, be sure to tell them We Are For Good sent you! Start Learning in We Are For Good PRO Today!Join us inside We Are For Good's professional development experience and community: We Are For Good PRO. We're offering a special discount to our podcast listeners- use code PODCAST at checkout to take 15% OFF your professional development for a year. We can't wait to get you equipped and activated. Visit www.weareforgoodpro.com to start learning today!

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages. Compensatory damages are further categorized into special damages, which are economic losses such as loss of earnings, property damage and medical expenses, and general damages, which are non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress. Rather than being compensatory, at common law damages may instead be nominal, contemptuous or exemplary. History. Among the Saxons, a monetary value called a weregild was assigned to every human being and every piece of property in the Salic Code. If property was stolen or someone was injured or killed, the guilty person had to pay the weregild as restitution to the victim's family or to the owner of the property. Proof of damages. Proximate cause. Recovery of damages by a plaintiff in a lawsuit is subject to the legal principle that damages must be approximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant. This is known as the principle of proximate cause. This principle governs the recovery of all compensatory damages, whether the underlying claim is based on contract, tort, or both. Damages are likely to be limited to those reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. If a defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that someone might be hurt by their actions, there may be no liability. This rule does not usually apply to intentional torts (for example, tort of deceit), and also has stunted applicability to the quantum in negligence where the maxim 'Intended consequences are never too remote' applies: 'never' is inaccurate here but resorts to unforeseeable direct and natural consequences of an act. Expert testimony. It may be useful for the lawyers, the plaintiff and or the defendant to employ forensic accountants or someone trained in the relevant field of economics to give evidence on the value of the loss. In this case, they may be called upon to give opinion evidence as an expert witness. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

If you would like to discuss legal topics in person, join Law Schoolers Pro at https://lawschoolers.com/join/Disclaimers:1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage which means that there will be bumps, dings, and some pops.2. The information contained in these episodes are for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.

If you would like to discuss legal topics in person, join Law Schoolers Pro at https://lawschoolers.com/join/Disclaimers:1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage which means that there will be bumps, dings, and some pops.2. The information contained in these episodes are for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcome...

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, we will be discussing Proximate Cause – a subtopic of Negligence under Tort Law. In this episode, we discuss: Reviewing the elements of negligence The two hurdles a plaintiff must overcome when it comes to causation The rule for proximate cause Intervening causes and intervening criminal acts Analyzing two hypos from previous California bar exams Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) The Brainy Bar Bank: Streamlining Bar Study (https://barexamtoolbox.com/brainy-bar-bank/) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2010 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/July-2010-CBX.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2014 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/gbx/July2014CBX_SelectedAnswersEssays1-6_R.pdf) Podcast Episode 88: Listen and Learn – Negligence Per Se (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-88-listen-and-learn-negligence-per-se/) Podcast Episode 97: Listen and Learn – The Reasonable Person Standard (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-97-listen-and-learn-the-reasonable-person-standard/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-186-listen-and-learn-negligence-proximate-cause/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. (For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred.) The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but for test is ineffective. Since but-for causation is very easy to show (but for stopping to tie your shoe, you would not have missed the train and would not have been mugged), a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of Insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause (see Other factors). For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact. The formal Latin term for "but for" (cause-in-fact) causation, is sine qua non causation. But-for test. A few circumstances exist where the "but for" test is complicated, or the test is ineffective. The primary examples are: Concurrent causes. Where two separate acts of negligence combine to cause an injury to a third party, each actor is liable. For example, a construction worker negligently leaves the cover off a manhole, and a careless driver negligently clips a pedestrian, forcing the pedestrian to fall into the open manhole. Both the construction worker and the careless driver are equally liable for the injury to the pedestrian. This example obeys the ‘but for test'. The injury could have been avoided by the elimination of either act of negligence, thus each is a but for cause of the injury. Sufficient combined causes. Where an injury results from two separate acts of negligence, either of which would have been sufficient to cause the injury, both actors are liable. For example, two campers in different parts of the woods negligently leave their campfires unattended. A forest fire results, but the same amount of property damage would have resulted from either fire. Both campers are equally liable for all damage. A famous case establishing this principle in the United States is Corey v Havener. In the United States, the rule of Summers v Tice holds that where two parties have acted negligently, but only one causes an injury to a third party, the burden shifts to the negligent parties to prove that they were not the cause of the injury. In that case, two hunters negligently fired their shotguns in the direction of their guide, and a pellet lodged in his eye. Because it was impossible to tell which hunter fired the shot that caused the injury, the court held both hunters liable. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Love engages other people, no matter their ideology or worldview.  It means getting proximate and embracing a posture of hospitality that humanizes everyone.  Jesus shows us exactly what this looks like and the societal impact it can have in his relationship with Zacchaeus.  May we go and do likewise!

Eric will be back next week, but until then, Bobbin and Beatrix discuss OPB's recent article on perceptions of crime and the Oregon midterm election, and how perceptions from candidates and Portlanders and data on crime rates do not necessarily match. Beatrix sighs at the over-bloated police budget that Mayor Wheeler and President Biden (who made an appearance in Portland) are signing off on; which leads to Bobbin and Beatrix talking about bad police reforms. We are joined by a special guest, Judge Darleen Ortega who serves in Position 3 of the Oregon Court of Appeals. As the first woman of color and the only Latina to serve as an Appellate Judge, Judge Ortega shares her experience and what it means to serve justice as a judge. Judge Ortega talks about challenges in the system, and how asking good questions grounds her work. Bobbin and Judge Ortega talk about law schools in Oregon (where she teaches at all three schools!). Judge Ortega discusses why it is important to stay proximate to the marginalized to inform her work.Produced by Beatrix Li, Comms. & Policy Associate

Who are you hanging out and eating with? Are they all Jesus-followers? Pastor Rufus challenges us to be more PEDESTRIAN as was Jesus, by being more PROXIMATE to those unchurched or de-churched. — Learn more about Hope, our weekend worship opportunities and how to become better connected to our house online at HopeChurchMemphis.com — Give towards the work God is doing in and through Hope online: HopeChurchMemphis.com/Give. Thank you for your generosity! — You can worship with us online every weekend at 9:30 + 11:30 am CST on Facebook, YouTube and HopeChurchMemphis.com/Live. — Subscribe to our YouTube channel today to watch previous messages and videos: YouTube.com/HopeChurchMemphis. — Follow Hope on Facebook and Instagram (@Hope4Memphis). — For encouraging and engaging content for your kids, visit HopeChurchMemphis.com/Kids. — Hope Church exists to be a place where everyone is welcome & wanted to experience real life with Jesus Christ through worship, community, service and generosity.

The issue of masks and other COVID-19 precaution strategies in schools has become contentious, sparking a firestorm of lawsuits. Special guest Attorney Lisa Linney helps us understand behind-the-scenes strategizing when a parent sues a school district over insufficient virus mitigation protocols. What is the strongest argument for the plaintiff? Beyond the parent and the school district, will other “responsible third parties'' be at fault? What must happen in the hours after a school district has been served a lawsuit? DISCLAIMER. Attorney Lisa Linney will not be giving legal advice during this episode. Please contact your legal counsel for guidance on specific school safety legal matters. ABOUT LISA LINNEY. Lisa Linney is an attorney at Murphy Legal in Texas. Her focus is motion practice and appellate law. Lisa's appellate practice begins before a case even goes to trial. She participates in trial preparation by researching thorny issues and crafting motions in support of her clients' positions and to preserve the trial record for any potential appeal. Lisa also handles appellate work, including briefing and oral argument. She is a graduate of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. WHAT IS DECLARATORY RELIEF? Lisa notes that the lawsuits are between the parent and the school district. Declaratory relief would be , for example, the court interpreting the contract to determine rights of parents and the school without ordering action or awarding damages. In other words, the court has the ability to compel the school to implement a mask mandate or specific pandemic mitigation protocols. However, such a ruling would not extend to other school districts in the state. But, when similar parent-filed lawsuits against multiple districts catch the attention of the media and state legislators, there might be pressure for either the state department of health or state department of instruction to take a firm position, or in the rare chance, issue a decree on the matters. WHAT IS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF? The court may issue a sanction (injunction) regarding a school district's pandemic mitigation practices. For example, if a school had a “masks optional” policy, the court might sanction the school district to remove the “optional” from its protocol. In Wisconsin, parent lawsuits against school districts claiming that "The school board and the superintendent are not providing a safe environment” are seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. In other words, the intent of the lawsuits is to change policy and protocol - most likely to require masks in schools. BURDEN OF PROOF. Lisa notes that the burden of proof in these lawsuits will be with the parent. As the plaintiff gather's evidence (discovery) it's as important to examine how a school district engaged in due diligence and debated pandemic mitigation protocols. The board of education is empowered with the responsibility of creating policies and voting on actions. When looking at the school's decision to mitigate effects of COVID-19 in the school setting, something more could have always been done. The question is, what is reasonable? Anything publicly available from the county health department, local hospitals, CDC, FDA, NIH, WHO should be considered. Demonstrate due diligence in obtaining and weighing information from a variety of reputable sources - and government sources will be perceived as credible. Then boil down to more specific data as to what information applies to children. If the school district engaged in these steps, it's going to be difficult for a parent to prevail in a lawsuit. WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE? Attorney Linney explained the three elements of negligence. (First) Defendant owned a legal duty; (Second) Defendant breached that duty; and (Third) Breach caused the injury. The plaintiff (parent) has to show that the defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff and the defendant breached that duty, and that breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Attorney Linney felt it would be a great technical challenge to prove the student contracted COVID at school and that it was a result of insufficient mitigation efforts by the school. Proximate cause will be the problem in the courts - how do you show the child got COVID. Where else has the child been, and the people that the children live and interact with outside of school? FOLLOW DR. PERRODIN: Twitter @SafetyPhD and subscribe to The Safety Doc YouTube channel & Apple Podcasts. SAFETY DOC WEBSITE & BLOG: www.safetyphd.com. The Safety Doc Podcast is hosted & produced by David Perrodin, PhD. ENDORSEMENTS. Opinions are those of the host & guests. The show seeks to bring forward productive discourse on topics relevant to personal or community safety. This is episode 157 of The Safety Doc Podcast published on 11-2-2021. Purchase Dr. Perrodin's Book: School of Errors – Rethinking School Safety in America. www.schooloferrors.com.

A huge thanks to Seth White for the awesome music! Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTd3KlRte86eG9U40ncZ4XA?view_as=subscriber Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  The Historic Faith Courses: https://thehistoricfaith.com/ ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

In this week's episode, Utah's First Lady Abby Cox is joined by Brian Garrett and Rob Matheny to talk about the moment they knew that they were not like everyone else in Utah, the fear they originally felt for coming, the work that the military is doing to support the LGBTQ+ community. Then we talk about the increased suicide rates within the LGBTQ+ community, all of the various ways that Encircle is helping give support to the community, positive ways that we can all promote allyship, and stereotypes that are very offensive. We're also joined by Tiffeni Wall and her son Brayden, to talk about Brayden's experience coming out to his parents, how proud Tiffeni and her husband were when Brayden shared his decision to come out, and the neverending experience of having to come out every time Brayden meets someone. Lastly, we talk about the importance of educating ourselves and showing our support for those who identify as LGBTQ+. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inspired by visionary Bryan Stevenson who calls us to "get proximate" to better understand different lived experiences, Zina & Jessica share some ways they are learning how to practice curiosity, generous listening, and standing in another's shoes to build more inclusive communities. Zina tells the story of how three magic words—"help me understand"—helped her unpack her own "suitcase of stereotypes" in cross-racial relationships. Jess shares a great list of resources for anyone looking to make curiosity a life practice, including dialogues offered by Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation (TRHT), Interfaith Youth Core, Telos Group, Braver Angels, and Urban Consulate. As Winston Churchill said, “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.” To join Zina & Jessica in their own series of courageous conversations, visit CourageousCommunity.us.