Podcasts about strict liability

Strict Liability in Tort Law Source: Excerpts from "Strict Liability in Tort Law: An In-Depth Exploration" Main Themes: Definition and Scope of Strict Liability: Strict liability holds defendants liable for harm caused by certain activities or products, regardless of intent or negligence. It applies to inherently dangerous activities, defective products, and situations impacting public welfare. Historical Origins: The doctrine originated in English common law, notably the Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) case, which established liability for damages caused by hazardous substances escaping one's property. Key Elements: Strict liability requires (1) involvement in inherently dangerous or hazardous activities, (2) causation between the defendant's action and the harm, and (3) foreseeability of the risk. Applications: Strict liability is frequently applied in product liability, abnormally dangerous activities, animal-related injuries, environmental hazards, and vicarious liability. Justifications: The doctrine encourages safer practices, allocates risk to those best able to manage it, simplifies litigation, and protects public welfare. Critiques and Limitations: Critics argue that strict liability can unfairly burden defendants, hinder innovation, disregard fault, and lead to inconsistent application across jurisdictions. Most Important Ideas/Facts: Strict liability focuses on the inherent risk of an activity or product, not the defendant's conduct. "Unlike traditional negligence cases... strict liability focuses on the nature of the activity itself." The doctrine aims to protect the public and encourage extreme caution in high-risk situations. "This approach is designed to protect the public and encourage extra caution in certain high-risk industries and activities." Landmark cases illustrate the evolution and application of strict liability. Rylands v. Fletcher – Established the principle of liability for escapes of dangerous substances. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. – Reinforced strict liability for defective products. Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. – Advocated for placing responsibility on the party best able to prevent harm. Strict liability promotes safety by incentivizing responsible behavior. "By holding parties strictly liable, the law incentivizes businesses and individuals engaged in dangerous activities to adopt higher safety standards." The doctrine faces criticism for potentially being unfair and stifling innovation. "Critics argue that strict liability imposes an unfair burden on defendants who may be held liable even when they exercised due care." Quotes: "Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a defendant liable for certain activities or actions without requiring proof of intent or negligence." "The strict liability principle operates under the notion that those who engage in particularly risky activities or manufacture products that may cause harm should bear the burden of any resulting damages, regardless of their level of care." "Strict liability differs from negligence or intentional torts because it does not require proof of fault, intent, or a breach of duty." Conclusion: Strict liability is a complex legal doctrine that balances the need to protect the public from harm with concerns about fairness and economic consequences. Understanding its history, applications, justifications, and limitations is crucial for analyzing tort cases and understanding the evolving landscape of legal responsibility in high-risk situations. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

It's back-to-school time for the kids and for paramedics and EMTs, too!  Nick is planning to renew his certification.  But we know there will be a set of medical-legal questions on the National Registry exam, and he will be sure he's prepared.  In this series, Nick and Samantha dive deeper into the medical-legal concepts commonly tested on the National Registry and help our listeners prepare to take on these questions.  Please like and subscribe! You can get this and other podcasts anywhere you get your podcasts or from the FlightBridgeED website at https://flightbridgeed.com/standard-of-care/Key Takeaways• Understand the Difference: Criminal actions are prosecuted by the state and aim to punish and deter, while torts are civil cases seeking compensation for wrongs.• Evidentiary Standards Matter: The burden of proof is much higher in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt) compared to civil cases (preponderance of the evidence).• Negligence Requires Four Elements: To prove negligence, you must demonstrate duty, breach, causation, and damages. All four must be present for a successful claim.• Know Your Legal Responsibilities: As an EMS provider, it's crucial to act with due regard for public safety, especially in high-stakes situations like driving with lights and sirens.• Be Prepared for Legal Complexity: Cases can involve both criminal and civil aspects, and understanding how these interact is vital for protecting yourself and your practice.

In this episode of Lawyer Talk, we dive into the complex world of strict liability with Capital Law student Troy Henriksen. Join us as we explore a real-life case involving a mentally handicapped man accused of statutory rape, and break down the legal principles behind strict liability. "Strict liability means it doesn't matter that you knew, it doesn't matter that you didn't know. It just matters that you did the act. The act itself is the crime."Learn about the different levels of intent in criminal law and how strict liability can lead to convictions even without intent. Memorable Moments(00:00) Lawyer talk off the record on the air in 2024(00:15) Troy Henriksen is a law student at Capitol University(01:46) But what is strict liability(07:05) How do you define knowingly? Well, it's less than purposely(12:03) If you have questions, submit them here on LawyerTalkpodcast.comSponsors:https://palmerlegaldefense.comGot a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2024 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Summary of Chapter 4: Strict Liability. Chapter 4 covers the doctrine of strict liability, which holds individuals or entities liable for certain harmful activities regardless of fault or intent. This chapter focuses on three key areas where strict liability is commonly applied: Abnormally Dangerous Activities: Definition: Activities that pose inherent high risks and cannot be mitigated through reasonable care. Examples: Blasting with explosives, transporting hazardous materials. Criteria: High risk of harm, inability to eliminate risk, uncommon usage, inappropriateness of location, and community value. Outcome: Entities engaging in such activities are held strictly liable for any resulting harm. Product Liability: Definition: Legal responsibility of manufacturers, distributors, and sellers for injuries caused by defective products. Types of Defects: Manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn (marketing defects). Requirements: Defendant's role in the distribution chain, presence of a defect, causation linking the defect to the injury, and injury occurring during foreseeable use. Outcome: Those involved in the production and sale of defective products are held strictly liable for injuries caused. Animals: Definition: Liability for harm caused by animals, varying based on whether the animal is wild or domestic. Wild Animals: Owners are strictly liable for any harm caused, as these animals are inherently dangerous. Domestic Animals: Owners are liable if they knew or should have known of the animal's dangerous tendencies. Factors Considered: Species classification, owner's knowledge of dangerous propensities, and the environment and control measures. Outcome: Owners of wild animals and domestic animals with known dangerous tendencies are held strictly liable for harm caused by their animals. Understanding strict liability ensures that individuals and entities engaged in inherently dangerous activities, producing defective products, or keeping potentially dangerous animals are held accountable for any resulting harm. This doctrine promotes public safety, responsible behavior, and compensates victims without the need to prove negligence. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 4: Strict Liability. Chapter 4 covers the doctrine of strict liability, which holds individuals or entities liable for certain harmful activities regardless of fault or intent. This chapter focuses on three key areas where strict liability is commonly applied: Abnormally Dangerous Activities: Definition: Activities that pose inherent high risks and cannot be mitigated through reasonable care. Examples: Blasting with explosives, transporting hazardous materials. Criteria: High risk of harm, inability to eliminate risk, uncommon usage, inappropriateness of location, and community value. Outcome: Entities engaging in such activities are held strictly liable for any resulting harm. Product Liability: Definition: Legal responsibility of manufacturers, distributors, and sellers for injuries caused by defective products. Types of Defects: Manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn (marketing defects). Requirements: Defendant's role in the distribution chain, presence of a defect, causation linking the defect to the injury, and injury occurring during foreseeable use. Outcome: Those involved in the production and sale of defective products are held strictly liable for injuries caused. Animals: Definition: Liability for harm caused by animals, varying based on whether the animal is wild or domestic. Wild Animals: Owners are strictly liable for any harm caused, as these animals are inherently dangerous. Domestic Animals: Owners are liable if they knew or should have known of the animal's dangerous tendencies. Factors Considered: Species classification, owner's knowledge of dangerous propensities, and the environment and control measures. Outcome: Owners of wild animals and domestic animals with known dangerous tendencies are held strictly liable for harm caused by their animals. Understanding strict liability ensures that individuals and entities engaged in inherently dangerous activities, producing defective products, or keeping potentially dangerous animals are held accountable for any resulting harm. This doctrine promotes public safety, responsible behavior, and compensates victims without the need to prove negligence. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Some underrated reasons why the AI safety community should reconsider its embrace of strict liability, published by Cecil Abungu on April 9, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Introduction It is by now a well-known fact that existing AI systems are already causing harms like discrimination, and it's also widely expected that the advanced AI systems which the likes of Meta and OpenAI are building could also cause significant harms in the future. Knowingly or unknowingly, innocent people have to live with the dire impacts of these systems. Today that might be a lack of equal access to certain opportunities or the distortion of democracy but in future it might escalate to more concerning security threats. In light of this, it should be uncontroversial for anyone to insist that we need to establish fair and practically sensible ways of figuring out who should be held liable for AI harms. The good news is that a number of AI safety experts have been making suggestions. The not-so-good news is that the idea of strict liability for highly capable advanced AI systems still has many devotees. The most common anti-strict liability argument out there is that it discourages innovation. In this piece, we won't discuss that position much because it's already received outsize attention. Instead, we argue that the pro-strict liability argument should be reconsidered for the following trifecta of reasons: (i) In the context of highly capable advanced AI, both strict criminal liability and strict civil liability have fatal gaps, (ii) The argument for strict liability often rests on faulty analogies and (iii) Given the interests at play, strict liability will struggle to gain traction. Finally, we propose that AI safety-oriented researchers working on liability should instead focus on the most inescapably important task-figuring out how to transform good safety ideas into real legal duties. AI safety researchers have been pushing for strict liability for certain AI harms The few AI safety researchers who've tackled the question of liability in-depth seem to have taken a pro-strict liability for certain AI harms, especially harms that are a result of highly capable advanced AI. Let's consider some examples. In a statement to the US Senate, the Legal Priorities Project recommended that AI developers and deployers be held strictly liable if their technology is used in attacks on critical infrastructure or a range of high-risk weapons that result in harm. LPP also recommended strict liability for malicious use of exfiltrated systems and open-sourced weights. Consider as well the Future of Life Institute's feedback to the European Commission, where it calls for a strict liability regime for harms that result from high-risk and general purpose AI systems. Finally, consider Gabriel Weil's research on the promise that tort law has for regulating highly capable advanced AI (also summarized in his recent EA Forum piece) where he notes the difficulty of proving negligence in AI harm scenarios and then argues that strict liability can be a sufficient corrective for especially dangerous AI. The pro-strict liability argument In the realm of AI safety, arguments for strict liability generally rest on two broad lines of reasoning. The first is that historically, strict liability has been applied for other phenomena that are somewhat similar to highly capable advanced AI, which means that it would be appropriate to apply the same regime to highly capable advanced AI. Some common examples of these phenomena include new technologies like trains and motor vehicles, activities which may cause significant harm such as the use of nuclear power and the release of hazardous chemicals into the environment and the so-called 'abnormally dangerous activities' such as blasting with dynamite. The second line of r...

Understanding Strict Liability. Strict liability is a legal concept that holds a party responsible for certain actions or injuries, regardless of their intent or level of care. Unlike negligence or intentional torts, strict liability focuses on the inherent risk associated with certain activities or products. Cases Where Strict Liability Applies. Strict liability is often applied in the following scenarios: Ultra-Hazardous Activities: Activities that are inherently dangerous and pose a high risk of harm may give rise to strict liability. These activities are considered so risky that those who engage in them are held strictly liable for resulting harms. Example: Blasting operations in densely populated areas are considered ultra-hazardous activities. Product Liability: Strict liability is frequently applied in cases involving defective products. If a product is found to be defective and causes harm, the manufacturer or seller may be held strictly liable for the injuries. Example: If a consumer is injured due to a manufacturing defect in a household appliance, strict liability may apply to the manufacturer. Elements of Strict Liability. To establish strict liability, certain elements must be present: Engaging in an Ultra-Hazardous Activity or Product Defect: The defendant must either engage in an ultra-hazardous activity or be involved in the production or distribution of a defective product. Causation: The plaintiff must establish that the harm suffered was a result of the ultra-hazardous activity or the defect in the product. Harm: As with other tort claims, the plaintiff must have suffered harm or damages as a result of the defendant's actions. Ultra-Hazardous Activities. Ultra-hazardous activities are those that involve a high degree of risk of harm, even when conducted with utmost care. Some factors that may determine whether an activity is ultra-hazardous include: High Risk of Harm: The activity must pose a high risk of harm, even when conducted with reasonable care. Inability to Eliminate Risk: The risk associated with the activity must be such that it cannot be completely eliminated, regardless of the precautions taken. Not a Common Activity: The activity should not be a common one in the community. Product Liability and Defective Products. In the realm of product liability, strict liability can be imposed for injuries caused by defective products. There are three main types of product defects that may lead to strict liability: Design Defects: These occur when the design of the product is inherently dangerous, making it defective even before it is manufactured. Manufacturing Defects: These defects arise during the manufacturing process, causing certain units of a product to be different from the intended design. Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn): A product may be defective if it lacks proper warnings or instructions regarding its use, resulting in harm to the consumer. Defenses to Strict Liability. While strict liability imposes liability without proving fault, there are some defenses available to defendants: Assumption of Risk: If the plaintiff voluntarily assumes the risk associated with the ultra-hazardous activity or the use of the product, it can serve as a defense. Example: If a person knowingly participates in a hazardous recreational activity, they might be considered to have assumed the risks associated with it. Contributory or Comparative Negligence: In some jurisdictions, the plaintiff's own negligence in causing the harm may reduce or eliminate the defendant's liability. Example: If a person's negligence contributes to their injury while engaged in a risky activity, the defense of contributory or comparative negligence may be raised. Product Misuse: If the plaintiff's misuse of the product is a substantial factor in causing the harm, it may be a defense. Example: If a consumer uses a product in a way that is not intended or recommended and gets injured, the defense of product misuse may apply. --- 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

Express Warranties. Introduction to Express Warranties. Express warranties are explicit promises or representations made by a seller regarding the quality, characteristics, or performance of a product. Law students should comprehend the essentials of express warranties: Nature of Statements: Express warranties can be made through statements, affirmations, or descriptions of fact about the goods. Basis of the Bargain: The representation must become part of the basis of the bargain, meaning the buyer relies on it when making the purchase. Implied Warranties. Implied warranties are inherent in every sale of goods, regardless of whether they are explicitly stated. Law students should understand the two primary types of implied warranties: Implied Warranty of Merchantability: This warranty assures that the product is fit for its ordinary purpose and meets industry standards. Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose: This warranty applies when the seller knows the buyer's specific purpose for the goods and recommends a product to meet that purpose. Disclaiming and Limiting Warranties. Sellers have the ability to disclaim or limit warranties, but certain rules apply: Clear Language: Disclaimers must be clear and conspicuous, and limitations must be reasonable. Implied Warranties: Disclaimers for implied warranties, especially the implied warranty of merchantability, are subject to strict scrutiny. Product Liability. Introduction to Product Liability. Product liability law holds manufacturers and sellers responsible for defects in their products that cause harm. Key points include: Three Main Theories: Product liability cases typically revolve around strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Consumer Protection: Product liability law serves as a crucial element in consumer protection, ensuring accountability for the safety of products. Strict Liability in Product Liability. The Concept of Strict Liability. Strict liability holds manufacturers and sellers responsible for injuries caused by defective products, irrespective of negligence. Law students should grasp the elements of strict liability: Defective Product: The product must be defective, either due to its design, manufacturing, or inadequate warnings. Causation: The defect must have caused the injury. Types of Product Defects. Understanding the types of defects is essential: Design Defects: Inherent flaws in a product's design that make it unsafe. Manufacturing Defects: Defects that occur during the production process, making individual products dangerous. Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn): Inadequate warnings or instructions related to product use. Negligence in Product Liability. The Role of Negligence. Negligence is another theory in product liability cases, involving failure to exercise reasonable care in the design, production, or marketing of a product: Duty of Care: The manufacturer or seller owes a duty of care to consumers. Breach of Duty: The breach involves actions or omissions that fall below the standard of care. Causation: The breach must be the direct cause of the consumer's injury. Defenses to Negligence Claims. Defendants may assert various defenses: Assumption of Risk: The consumer was aware of and accepted the risks. Comparative Negligence: The consumer's negligence contributed to the injury. --- 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

Defining Strict Liability. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a party liable for certain actions or injuries regardless of their intent or level of care. Unlike negligence or intentional torts, strict liability focuses on the inherent risk associated with certain activities or products. Cases Where Strict Liability Applies. Strict liability commonly applies in the following situations: Ultra-Hazardous Activities: Activities that are inherently dangerous and pose a high risk of harm may give rise to strict liability. Examples include blasting, transporting hazardous materials, and keeping wild animals. Product Liability: Strict liability is often applied in cases involving defective products. If a product is defective and causes harm, the manufacturer or seller may be held strictly liable for the injuries. Elements of Strict Liability. To establish strict liability, certain elements must be present: Engaging in an Ultra-Hazardous Activity or Product Defect: The defendant must either engage in an ultra-hazardous activity or be involved in the production or distribution of a defective product. Causation: The plaintiff must establish that the harm suffered was a result of the ultra-hazardous activity or the defect in the product. Harm: Like other tort claims, the plaintiff must have suffered harm or damages as a result of the defendant's actions. Ultra-Hazardous Activities. Ultra-hazardous activities are those that involve a high degree of risk of harm, even when conducted with utmost care. Some factors that may determine whether an activity is ultra-hazardous include: High Risk of Harm: The activity must pose a high risk of harm, even when conducted with reasonable care. Inability to Eliminate Risk: The risk associated with the activity must be such that it cannot be completely eliminated, regardless of the precautions taken. Not a Common Activity: The activity should not be a common one in the community. Product Liability and Defective Products. In the realm of product liability, strict liability can be imposed for injuries caused by defective products. There are three main types of product defects that may lead to strict liability: Design Defects: These occur when the design of the product is inherently dangerous, making it defective even before it is manufactured. Manufacturing Defects: These defects arise during the manufacturing process, causing certain units of a product to be different from the intended design. Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn): A product may be defective if it lacks proper warnings or instructions regarding its use, resulting in harm to the consumer. Defenses to Strict Liability. While strict liability imposes liability without proving fault, there are some defenses available to defendants: Assumption of Risk: If the plaintiff voluntarily assumes the risk associated with the ultra-hazardous activity or the use of the product, it can serve as a defense. Contributory or Comparative Negligence: In some jurisdictions, the plaintiff's own negligence in causing the harm may reduce or eliminate the defendant's liability. Product Misuse: If the plaintiff's misuse of the product is a substantial factor in causing the harm, it may be a defense. Case Example: Ultrahazardous Activity - Blasting Operation Imagine a scenario where a company engages in a blasting operation to clear a construction site. Despite taking all reasonable precautions, the blasting operation causes vibrations that result in damage to neighboring properties. In this case: Ultra-Hazardous Activity: Blasting is considered an ultra-hazardous activity due to its high risk of harm, even with reasonable care. Causation: The harm suffered by the neighboring properties is a direct result of the blasting operation. Case Example: Product Liability - Defective Automobile Airbags. --- 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

Introduction to Express Warranties. Express warranties are promises, affirmations, or descriptions of fact made by the seller to the buyer as part of the basis of the bargain. These warranties can be explicit statements about the product's quality, performance, or characteristics. It's essential for law students to understand the key elements of express warranties: Statements and Promises: Express warranties can be created through statements, affirmations, or promises made by the seller. Basis of the Bargain: The representation must be part of the basis of the bargain. In other words, the buyer must rely on the statement when making the purchase. Implied Warranties. Implied warranties are inherent in every sale of goods, whether or not they are expressly stated. They are not explicitly promised by the seller but are implied by law. Law students should grasp the two primary forms of implied warranties: Implied Warranty of Merchantability: This warranty guarantees that the product is fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is used. In essence, it must meet the standards for what is considered acceptable in the trade. Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose: This warranty applies when the buyer relies on the seller's expertise to select a product suitable for a specific use. If the seller knows the buyer's purpose and recommends a product, it implicitly warrants the product's fitness for that purpose. Disclaiming and Limiting Warranties. Warranties, both express and implied, can be disclaimed or limited. It is vital to understand the legal mechanisms for doing so: Disclaimers: A seller may disclaim warranties in clear and unambiguous language. However, there are legal limits on disclaimers for implied warranties, especially the implied warranty of merchantability. Limitations: Sellers can also limit their liability for breach of warranty in certain cases, such as limiting the buyer's remedies. These limitations must be fair and reasonable. Product Liability. Introduction to Product Liability. Product liability is a field of law that deals with the responsibility of manufacturers and sellers for injuries caused by their products. It encompasses issues related to product defects, warnings, and the safety of products. Key points include: Three Main Theories: Product liability cases generally revolve around three main theories: strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Consumer Protection: Product liability law serves as a critical aspect of consumer protection. It holds manufacturers and sellers accountable for producing and distributing safe products. Strict Liability in Product Liability. The Concept of Strict Liability. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds manufacturers and sellers responsible for injuries caused by defective products, regardless of whether they were negligent. This doctrine significantly affects product liability cases: Elements of Strict Liability: To establish strict liability, the plaintiff must typically demonstrate that the product was unreasonably dangerous and that the defect caused their injury. No Need to Prove Negligence: Unlike negligence claims, plaintiffs pursuing a strict liability claim do not need to prove that the manufacturer or seller was negligent. Types of Product Defects. There are three primary types of product defects under the theory of strict liability, and students should have a comprehensive understanding of each: Design Defects: These are inherent flaws in a product's design that render it unsafe for its intended use. Manufacturing Defects: Manufacturing defects occur during the production process and make individual products dangerous. Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn): These defects pertain to inadequate warnings or instructions related to product use. Negligence in Product Liability. --- 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

Understanding Strict Liability. To kick things off, let's break down the concept of strict liability in Tort Law. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds individuals or entities responsible for the harm they cause, regardless of their intent or level of care. Unlike negligence, where fault or wrongdoing must be proven, strict liability focuses solely on the act itself and its consequences. Key Elements of Strict Liability. Strict liability cases typically involve the following key elements: 1. Inherently Dangerous Activities or Products: Strict liability often applies to activities or products that are inherently dangerous, meaning they carry a high risk of harm even when all precautions are taken. 2. Causation: The plaintiff must establish a direct link between the defendant's activity or product and the harm suffered. 3. Damages: To succeed in a strict liability claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they suffered actual harm or losses as a result of the defendant's actions or product. Examples of Strict Liability. Let's explore some real-world examples to illustrate the concept of strict liability: 1. Product Liability: One of the most common applications of strict liability is in product liability cases. If a defective product, such as a malfunctioning car airbag, causes harm to a consumer, the manufacturer may be held strictly liable for the injuries, regardless of whether they were negligent in the manufacturing process. 2. Ultrahazardous Activities: Activities deemed ultrahazardous, such as storing and transporting explosives or hazardous chemicals, often attract strict liability. If an explosion or chemical spill occurs, resulting in harm to others, those responsible may be held strictly liable for the damages. 3. Wild Animal Ownership: Owning wild animals as pets is considered an inherently dangerous activity. If a person's pet tiger escapes and injures someone, the owner can be held strictly liable for the injuries, even if they took precautions to prevent the escape. Analyzing Strict Liability Cases. Now, let's dig deeper into strict liability cases. These cases can be complex, and the outcomes can vary based on jurisdiction and specific circumstances. Let's consider a few illustrative examples: Example 1: Product Liability - Defective Toy. Imagine a scenario where a toy manufacturer produces a children's toy with small parts that pose a choking hazard. A child chokes on one of these small parts and suffers serious harm. In this case: - The toy manufacturer may be held strictly liable for the child's injuries because the product is defective and inherently dangerous to children. - The plaintiff does not need to prove that the manufacturer was negligent in producing the toy; the focus is on the dangerous nature of the product and the harm it caused. Example 2: Ultrahazardous Activity - Chemical Spill. Consider a situation where a chemical company is transporting hazardous chemicals, and due to an accident, a chemical spill occurs, contaminating a nearby river and causing harm to the environment and neighboring communities. In this case: - The chemical company may be held strictly liable for the environmental and personal injuries caused by the spill. - The inherently dangerous nature of transporting hazardous chemicals triggers strict liability. - The company may still be held liable even if it took reasonable precautions to prevent the spill, as strict liability focuses on the dangerousness of the activity itself. Example 3: Wild Animal Ownership - Escape of Exotic Pet. Imagine a person owns a pet lion, and despite secure enclosures, the lion escapes and injures a passerby. In this case: - The owner may be held strictly liable for the injuries caused by the escaped lion. - Owning a wild animal is considered an inherently dangerous activity, and the escape of such an animal can lead to strict liability. --- 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

In this episode, we'll turn our attention to defenses in Tort Law, examining the strategies and arguments that can be used to counter tort claims. Picture a scenario where a property or homeowner owner is being sued for negligence after a guest tripped on a slightly uneven floorboard. The property owner might employ a defense to counter the claim, arguing that they took reasonable care to maintain the property. An illustrative case that exemplifies the use of defenses in Tort Law is "Assumption of Risk." In this case, a participant in an extreme sports event signed a waiver acknowledging the risks involved. The court had to determine if the participant assumed the risks associated with the activity, which could serve as a defense against a potential negligence claim. One notable case that highlights the importance of defenses in Tort Law is "Brown v. Smith." In this case, a defendant argued that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed significantly to the accident, presenting a comparative negligence defense. Let's engage in an interactive exercise to further understand these defenses. Consider a scenario where a doctor is being sued for medical malpractice after a surgery didn't go as planned. What defense might the doctor use, and how would it apply? Now let's look at the model answer. The doctor may use the defense of "Standard of Care." They would argue that they followed the established medical standards and procedures during the surgery, and the unfortunate outcome was a known risk associated with the procedure. To further enhance your understanding, let's engage in an interactive exercise. Consider a situation where a manufacturer is sued for a defective product, but they argue that the plaintiff misused the product, leading to the injury. Discuss the defense strategy and its elements. Now let's look at the model answer. The defense strategy involved in this scenario is "Product Misuse." The elements typically include demonstrating that the plaintiff used the product in a way that it was not intended or reasonably foreseeable, and this misuse was a substantial factor in causing the injury. Defenses in Tort Law play a crucial role in safeguarding individuals and entities from undue liability. Imagine a scenario where a homeowner is being sued for a slip and fall accident that occurred during a party they were hosting. The homeowner might invoke the defense of "Open and Obvious Danger," asserting that the hazard that caused the accident was clear and apparent, and the guest should have taken precautions. Let's imagine a situation where a property owner is sued for premises liability, but they claim that the injured party was trespassing at the time of the accident. Discuss the defense strategy and its elements. Now let's look at the model answer. The defense strategy in this scenario is "Trespasser Liability." The elements often include establishing that the injured party was indeed trespassing on the property, and the property owner did not owe the same duty of care as they would to a lawful visitor. Another noteworthy case involving the defense of "Good Samaritan Law" centers around a person who attempted to provide medical assistance at an accident scene. The court had to determine if the person was protected from liability under the law for their efforts to help. Now, for your final exercise in this episode, let's consider a scenario where a manufacturer is being sued for a product defect that led to injuries. What defense might the manufacturer use, and how would it apply? Now let's look at the model answer. The manufacturer may use the defense of "Product Misuse." They would argue that the product was used in a way that was not intended or recommended, which led to the injuries. This misuse could absolve the manufacturer of liability. --- 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

Welcome back to Mastering the Bar Exam: Torts. In this episode, we'll continue our journey through Tort Law by exploring strict liability—an area that emphasizes accountability regardless of fault. Imagine a scenario where a manufacturing company releases a product that, despite all precautions, ends up causing harm to consumers. Strict liability becomes relevant when certain activities or products are inherently dangerous, and the responsible party is held liable for any resulting harm, regardless of fault. One of the landmark cases that shaped the concept of strict liability is "Rylands v. Fletcher." In this case, a defendant's reservoir burst, flooding a neighboring property. The court established the principle of strict liability for activities that involve the non-natural use of land and can cause harm. To reinforce your understanding, let's engage in an interactive exercise. Imagine a scenario where a fireworks manufacturer experiences an accidental explosion, causing extensive damage to nearby homes. Identify the legal concept involved and discuss its elements. Now the answer: The legal concept involved in this scenario is "Strict Liability." Strict liability applies when a defendant is held responsible for harm caused by their activities or products, regardless of fault. The elements usually include the inherently dangerous activity or product, causation, and damages. Strict liability underscores the idea that certain activities or products are so inherently risky that those who engage in them must bear the responsibility for any harm they cause. Consider a situation where a person owns a wild animal as a pet, and it escapes, causing injuries to others. Strict liability principles can be applied when individuals engage in activities that are inherently dangerous, such as keeping wild animals as pets. The case of "Ultrahazardous Activity" involving a company that used explosives in a residential area without taking adequate precautions is a classic example of strict liability. The court held the company strictly liable for the harm caused by their inherently hazardous activity. Now, for your final exercise in this episode, let's imagine a scenario where a construction company uses dynamite near a residential neighborhood, resulting in damage to nearby homes. Discuss the applicability of strict liability and its elements. Now the answer: Strict liability is applicable in this scenario due to the inherently dangerous activity involving explosives near a residential area. The elements typically encompass the inherently dangerous activity, causation, and damages. You've made great progress in your exploration of Tort Law by delving into strict liability, an area that emphasizes accountability for inherently dangerous activities and products. In our next episode, we'll turn our attention to defenses in Tort Law, examining the strategies and arguments that can be used to counter tort claims. Keep up the excellent work, and remember, you're on the path to mastering the Bar Exam! --- 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

Seth Hertlein, VP Global Head of Policy at Ledger, and Michael Mosier, Co-Fouder of legal boutique Arktourous, Build Exante - FinCEN, Treasury, and Chief Technical Counsel at Chainalysis join us on today's show to explain the modern financial surveillance apparatus. FATF, FinCEN, AML/KYC, OFAC...the blacklists, the greylists. How does it all work? Who makes the rules? ------

Are you familiar with the factors involved in an injury case? Liability and damages play a crucial role. But have you ever wondered how the courts handle these cases? Join host Kris Flammang and guest Mitchell Panter as they discuss the ins and outs of injury cases on the latest episode of The Confident Retirement podcast. Discover the importance of liability and fault, the role of insurance coverage, and the challenges of navigating the judicial system. Whether you've been involved in an accident or simply want to learn more about the legal process, this episode is a must-listen. Tune in now and gain valuable insights from these legal experts!   Mitchell J. Panter is the Managing Partner of Panter, Panter & Sampedro, a personal injury law firm in Miami consisting of 5 attorneys and 11 full time staff members. The firm not only advocates for injured individuals but also for keeping the community at large safer through law changes and holding negligent parties accountable for correcting hazards. In addition, both Mitchell and the firm have been a pilar in the community for more than 30 years. As past president of several legal and community organizations, Mitchell continues to actively participate in various causes throughout South Florida. He has lectured and taught for associations including Bar Associations, high schools and business groups.    Mitchell primarily practices in the areas of Personal Injury, Wrongful Death, Product Liability, Medical Malpractice and Premises Liability cases. Early in his career, he argued the case of American Aerial Lift v. Jose Perez in the Florida Supreme Court addressing the issue of Strict Liability and Product Liability. This precedent setting case involved the award of a $1.7 million dollar verdict obtained by the firm in the trial court for Mr. Perez as a result of injuries he sustained due to a defective scissor lift. Mitchell has secured several million-dollar settlements and verdicts for his clients and continues to represent individuals injured due to the negligence of others.   Together, Kris and Mitchell discuss discuss the misconceptions about personal injury law, emphasize the role of communication between lawyers and clients, and explain the steps involved in an injury case. Panter emphasizes the need for effective communication, managing client expectations, and providing realistic outcomes and compensation amounts. They also discuss challenges in personal injury law, such as educating clients on structured settlements and navigating changes in the political and regulatory landscape. Ultimately, the podcast highlights the importance of finding passion in your career, specializing in areas you enjoy, and advocating for clients in the legal field.   Here is what to expect on this week's show: Mitchell's legal career Specializing in personal injury law The importance of liability and fault Managing client expectations Community advocacy Navigating the judicial system The role of insurance coverage   Connect with Mitchell: https://panterlaw.com/staff-member/mitchell-j-panter/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Val and Faith are joined in the studio by Thijs van der Heiden of Sparque. We share our bike moments and take a look at some local news including last Friday's Critical Mass ride, Mark Cavendish's last Giro d'Italia and the Walmer Street bridge build. Thijs gives us an update on Sparque, an electric bike business that makes e-bikes accessible with salary packaging, lease or buy arrangements, and it's development since we last spoke to him a few years ago.Discussion then turns to 'strict liability', an issue often raised by pedestrian and cycling advocates in Australia but which is also often misunderstood. We discuss the insurance arrangement, how it doesn't apply to traffic or criminal matters, what it has achieved in countries adopting it, and just as imoportant, what it hasn't. For further reading, particulalry about the Dutch experience check out Bicycle Dutch,and for a broader perspective this Report on Strict Liability. 

WINNER OF THE 2022 CANADA PRIZE — INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF COMPARATIVE LAW Dr Marco Cappelletti is a Junior Research Fellow at St John's College, Oxford. Dr Cappelletti is the author of the monograph entitled Justifying Strict Liability: A Comparative Analysis in Legal Reasoning, published by Oxford University Press in June 2022. The monograph explores in a comparative perspective the most significant justifications that are put forward to justify strict liability in tort law in four legal systems, two common law (England and the United States), and two civil law (France and Italy).

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.

Tort law. In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred, and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It has the beneficial effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases, although the application of strict liability may seem unfair or harsh, as in Re Polemis. Under the English law of negligence and nuisance, even where tortious liability is strict, the defendant may sometimes be liable only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his act or omission. An early example of strict liability is the rule Rylands v Fletcher, where it was held that "any person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape". If the owner of a zoo keeps lions and tigers, he is liable if the big cats escape and cause damage or injury. In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs. If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions. The doctrine's most famous advocates were Learned Hand, Benjamin Cardozo, and Roger J Traynor. Strict liability is sometimes distinguished from absolute liability. In this context, an actus reus may be excused from strict liability if due diligence is proved. Absolute liability, however, requires only an actus reus. Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions. To be convicted of an ordinary crime, in certain jurisdictions, a person must not only have committed a criminal action but also have had a deliberate intention or guilty mind (mens rea). In a crime of strict or absolute liability, a person could be guilty even if there was no intention to commit a crime. The difference between strict and absolute liability is whether the defense of a “mistake of fact” is available: in a crime of absolute liability, a mistake of fact is not a defense. Strict or absolute liability can also arise from inherently dangerous activities or defective products that are likely to result in a harm to another, regardless of protection taken, such as owning a pet rattlesnake; negligence is not required to be proven. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

This episode of CCC with Jordan Johnson, Eric Rubenstein and Sean Weiss was tremendous as they tackled a whole lot of raging issues in healthcare:1. Extension of the PHE for another 90 days and what this means to the healthcare industry... 2. Medical Necessity and The Treating Physician Rule, Strict Liability vs Medical Necessity Issues... 3. Face Mask Mandate Extension until May 3rd... 4. OIG Work Plan Additions: Medicaid fraud control unit data mining, Audit of the Dept HHS Compliance toward Geospatial data act of 2018 and hospital compliance with the provider relief fund balance billing requirement for out-of -network patients... 5. DOJ $13+ million settlement agreement with Cardinal Health... 6. HHS Medical Debt Review Plan... 7. Biomarkers and Genetic Testing...

Tune in to another brief review segment focused on strict liability crimes. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In Episode 60 of Business Law 101, I explain the role of strict liability in negligence cases, including both its history and recent trends in court findings. I am an attorney and speaker as well as the founder and CEO of Claremont Management Group, a consulting firm in Houston, Texas. I'm also a tenured professor, the Cameron Endowed Chair of Management and Marketing, and the Director of Graduate Programs at the University of St. Thomas. I have written and published The Decline of America: 100 Years of Leadership Failures, a thought-provoking, non-partisan book that reviews the last100 years of American Presidents (from Wilson through Obama), offering not just criticism, but common-sense solutions to help fix America before it's too late. I also host the podcast Saving America, where I explore the intersection between business and politics. Remember to subscribe to and rate Saving America and Business Law 101 in your favorite podcast app! Remember to subscribe to and rate Saving America and Business Law 101 in your favorite podcast app!

Protecting the Injured Mitch Panter, Panter, Panter & Sampedro   – The Sharkpreneur podcast with Seth Greene Episode 665 Mitch Panter Mitch Panter is Board Certified as a Civil Trial Lawyer by the Florida Bar and National Board of Trial Advocacy, primarily practicing in the areas of Personal Injury, Wrongful Death, Product Liability, Sexual Assault, Food Contamination and Premises Liability Cases. Mitchell Panter is also Board Certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy in Civil Trial Advocacy since 1996. At the age of 31, Mitchell Panter argued the case of American Aerial Lift v. Jose Perez in the Florida Supreme Court addressing the issue of Strict Liability and Product Liability. This precedent setting case involved the award of a $1.7 million-dollar verdict obtained by the Firm in the Trial Court for Mr. Perez as a result of injuries he sustained due to a defective scissor lift.   Listen to this illuminating Sharkpreneur episode with Mitch Panter about protecting the injured. Here are some of the beneficial topics covered on this week's show: ●    Why and when people should hire a personal injury lawyer to represent them. ●    How to know which personal injury lawyer is right for you. ●    Why bigger law firms aren't necessarily better for personal injury suits. ●    How the best advertising comes from having good customer service. ●    Why it's beneficial to your business to be active in your community.   Connect with Mitch: Guest Contact Info Twitter @panterlaw Instagram @panterlaw Facebook facebook.com/MiamiPersonalInjuryLawyer LinkedIn linkedin.com/in/company/panter-panter-&-sampedro-p-a Links Mentioned: panterlaw.com   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hezek Shmiyah, Privacy, and Strict Liability

It's time for titanic legal analysis of Godzilla vs Kong. Can are the possible causes of action in a class action lawsuit against Apex? Was it even remotely legal for Apex to build MechaGodzilla? Join Nari Ely and Josh Gilliland for their analysis on these issues and more. Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thelegalgeeks)

Liabilty is a word used frequently in day to day life, but what it actually mean in Law. How the concept was evolved. What is No Fault and Fault Liability. The case of Ryland vs Fletcher throws a light upon the concept of liabilty. It differentiate between Fault and No Fault Liabilty and evolves a new principle based on No Fault Liability known as Strict liability.

The Boozy Barrister/Boozy Badger is joined by Scuff, a Kansas prosecutor, for a talk about the basics of The Guilty Mind and criminal culpability in this episode of Boozy's Legal Funhouse.  On deck is a description of it means to have the requisite mental state for committing crimes, the unfairness of strict liability felonies, the introduction of Dipshit the Unicorn, and more. Also, Scuff surprises Boozy by being a prosecutor with a sense of actual justice.Also discussed is defrauding the elderly of Coca Cola stock, expanding the federal judiciary, and pun filled Twitter love letters to Joe Biden.Recorded 3/1/2021Boozy's Legal Funhouse is recorded live every Monday at 7 PM Eastern at Twitch.tv/boozybadger.  If you'd like to support Boozy's Legal Funhouse, you can do so at the Patreon site for Lawyers & Liquor.comSupport the show (http://www.patreon.com/lawyersandliquor)

Important Torts that are Neither Negligent nor Intentional https://zalma.com/blog Strict product liability is “a manufacturer's or seller's tort liability for any damages or injuries suffered by a buyer, user, or bystander as a result of a defective product. Products liability can be based on a theory of negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty.” This rule applies even if the seller exercises all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product, and the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. Absolute Liability—Liability for Dangerous Animals A person who possesses or harbors a dangerous animal, whether wild or domestic, is absolutely liable for injuries inflicted by it, where he knows or should know of its dangerous propensities. In the case of wild animals, scienter (evil intent) is presumed. In the case of domestic animals—the type an adjuster will normally see—it is necessary to establish scienter. Knowledge of the dangerous propensities must be proved by the plaintiff to establish liability. Ultrahazardous Activity: Liability Without Fault Certain activities create such a serious risk of danger that it is justifiable to place liability for the loss on the person engaging in the activity. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

We love Star Trek Lower Decks. Join Josh Gilliland, Steve Chu, and Nari Ely for in-depth analysis of the first two episodes of Lower Decks, "Second Contact" and "Envoys." This episode covers Recklessness with a Bat'leth, legality of personal vs for profit use of holodecks, liability for domestic animals, bribery, drunk flying, and diplomatic incidents.      Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thelegalgeeks)

Bloodsport is the story of the systematic doping of the 2012 and 2014 Olympics by the Russian state. It is the single most important sports story of our time and it reads like a Cold War thriller. The Evening Standard's sports correspondent Matt Majendie tells the whole story from 2012 till now. Episode 9 takes us inside the world of doping and looks at the human damage it inflicts. Not just on those cheated but also on the cheats themselves. Coercion, health effects, abuse. It’s not obvious where moral responsibility lies. For the first time, you’ll hear the whole story from 2012 to 2020 told by the people who were there. You’ll hear from Paula Radcliffe and Sebastian Coe on London 2012, you’ll meet the expert German investigator who cracked the case wide open and from athletes who doped. We’ve got access to the elite Swiss lab racing to finish testing London 2012 samples and we’ve spoken to the guy who masterminded doping control at the London games. You’ll also hear first-hand testimony from people who blew the whistle inside Russia (at the risk of their own lives) and from seasoned journalists who watched open-mouthed as the whole thing unfolded. And we’ll take you into the ongoing arms race between doper and tester, to see how the science of testing plays out in the analysis of blood and urine samples. Despite it being eight years ago, the story isn’t over. There are unfinished corruption trials in French Courts and ongoing allegations of flagrant Russian cheating (even as the Russian government denies all the evidence). Against all this is the soon-to-be pressing question of whether Russia will participate in the now postponed Tokyo Olympics. The credibility of the Olympic movement might hang on the decision. The clock is ticking.

In this podcast, we read you 10 key questions & answers that give you important background knowledge of Torts: Strict Liability, which is critical to the more detailed questions that might arise on the Bar Exam.For example:0:20 -- Strict liability is only imposed in which 3 scenarios?0:40 -- What type of duty does D have in strict liability situations?1:33 -- When is D strictly liable for injuries resulting from a wild animal?3:27 -- Is D strictly liable for injuries caused by domesticated pets?These podcasts are perfect for "passive studying" while you're exercising, cooking, cleaning, commuting, or otherwise unable to focus on the Brainscape app itself.Of course, the most effective way to study is to use Brainscape's adaptive web & mobile flashcards app, which covers comprehensive background knowledge pulled from all the top bar exam prep courses. Remember that you can learn more about it at http://bit.ly/brainscapeMBE . Best of luck on your studies!

Was Ahsoka denied post-Jedi benefits after her trial? Did she engage in reckless driving of her speeders or was her near accident caused by a defective product? And just what is the duty to warn about demolition droids? Join attorneys Joshua Gilliland, Thomas Harper, and Stephen Tollafield as they geek out over The Clone Wars. Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thelegalgeeks)

Jonny McFarlane and Gaby McKay join Jules Boyle to discuss all the latest news in the mad, wonderful world of Scottish football. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jules Boyle is joined by Christopher Doyle in the latest Football Scotland Daily podcast See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jules Boyle is joined by Christopher Doyle in the latest Football Scotland Daily podcast See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, Dean Michelle Simon interviews me, Leslie Garfield Tenzer, on Products LiabilitySome key takeaways are:1.Plaintiff can bring three different causes of action claims for when a product harms a consumer or user 1. Negligence 2. Strict Liability (402a) 3. Breach of Warranty a. Design Defect b. Manufacturing Defect c. Failure to Warn

Scott McDermott and Jonny McFarlane discuss all the latest news at Rangers. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy

Attorneys Joshua Gilliland and Steve Chu discuss Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse. Our intrepid lawyers team-up to share their views on how Peter Parker of Earth-1610 could have monetized being Spider-Man to fund his vigilante life, additional crimes of the Kingpin, and why Spider-Man is an enduring character.     Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thelegalgeeks)

Joshua Gilliland, Esq., is off for a solo adventure to discuss Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse. What legal remedies are available for people who suffered property damage from the Kingpin's particle collider? Join Josh for this issue and his thoughts on why Spider-Man is such an enduring character. Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thelegalgeeks)

Barrister Chris talks about Strict Liability and how it even applied to a 15 year old defendant in R v G (2005). We also touch upon the offence of selling alcohol to minors. Further on R v G [2008] UKHL 37 Further reading on Strict Liability could include; Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) 13 QBD 207, Alphacell v Woodward [1972] AC 824, Warner v MPC [1969] 2AC 256 Alongside the detailed case studies, in these shorter “Brief Notes” episodes, Chris will tell us what being a barrister is really like, as well as explaining the court system, legal tactics and even answering any questions listeners may have.  Mondeo Law is written and produced by Alex Boardman and Chris Kehoe, and was developed with Ant McGinley (@antmanlovesyou) Brief notes theme music is Funk Down by MK2, and appears under creative commons 3.0 license, Follow us on social media @mondeolaw on Twitter and Instagram.

Justice.   In this episode of Meta Treks, hosts Zachary Fruhling and Mike Morrison discuss the Next Generation episode "Justice." This first-season TNG episode deals with a range of issues in philosophy of law and punishment, such as the concept of strict liability, intrinsically wrong crimes versus statutory crimes, ignorance of the law as a defense, the death penalty as a deterrent, and the role of intentionality in determining culpability.   Chapters  Welcome to Episode 41 (00:01:07)  Initial Thoughts on "Justice" (00:01:48)  Strict Liability (00:05:35)  Proportional Punishment (00:10:17)  Intrinsic Wrongs [malum in se] vs. Statutory Crimes [malum prohibitum] (00:13:18)  Eden and Original Sin - Balancing Tranquility and Justice (00:17:36)  Ignorance of the Law as a Defense (00:25:33)  Punishment Zones and Speeding Tickets (00:28:31)  The Death Penalty as a Deterrent (00:33:18)  Intentionality and Culpability (00:43:27)  Consequentialism - One Life versus a Thousand Lives (00:50:52)  The Prime Directive and Laws on an Alien World (01:00:48)  Final Thoughts (01:06:48)   Hosts Zachary Fruhling and Mike Morrison   Production Mike Morrison (Editor and Producer) Ken Tripp (Executive Producer) C Bryan Jones (Executive Producer) Matthew Rushing (Executive Producer) Charlynn Schmiedt (Executive Producer) Patrick Devlin (Associate Producer) Kay Elizabeth Janeway (Associate Producer) Richard Marquez (Production Manager)   Send us your feedback! Twitter: @trekfm  Facebook: http://facebook.com/trekfm  Voicemail: http://www.speakpipe.com/trekfm  Contact Form: http://www.trek.fm/contact  Visit the Trek.fm website at http://www.trek.fm/  Subscribe in iTunes: http://itunes.com/trekfm   Support the Network! Become a Trek.fm Patron on Patreon and help us keep Star Trek talk coming every week. We have great perks for you at http://patreon.com/trekfm

On Thursday 12 November 2015, Cambridge University Law Society (CULS) hosted a debate on the proposition: 'This House Believes Strict Liability Has No Place in Criminal Law'. Proposition: Professor Andrew Ashworth (Oxford) & Dr John Stanton-Ife (KCL) Opposition: Professor Andrew Simester (Cambridge) & Dr Findlay Stark (Cambridge) Chair: James Riseley This event was kindly sponsored by Clifford Chance. For more information see the CULS website at: https://culs.org.uk

On Thursday 12 November 2015, Cambridge University Law Society (CULS) hosted a debate on the proposition: 'This House Believes Strict Liability Has No Place in Criminal Law'. Proposition: Professor Andrew Ashworth (Oxford) & Dr John Stanton-Ife (KCL) Opposition: Professor Andrew Simester (Cambridge) & Dr Findlay Stark (Cambridge) Chair: James Riseley This event was kindly sponsored by Clifford Chance. For more information see the CULS website at: https://culs.org.uk

On Thursday 12 November 2015, Cambridge University Law Society (CULS) hosted a debate on the proposition: 'This House Believes Strict Liability Has No Place in Criminal Law'. Proposition: Professor Andrew Ashworth (Oxford) & Dr John Stanton-Ife (KCL) Opposition: Professor Andrew Simester (Cambridge) & Dr Findlay Stark (Cambridge) Chair: James Riseley This event was kindly sponsored by Clifford Chance. For more information see the CULS website at: https://culs.org.uk

Josh discusses the legal requirements for strict products liability for Nigel Vaughn on Almost Human for the XRN's 3-day rampage. Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thelegalgeeks)

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. In September, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law Omri Ben-Shahar and Fischel-Neil Visiting Professor of Law Ariel Porat organized a conference intended to reevaluate the role of fault in contract law. Speakers included Chicago faculty Saul Levmore, Eric Posner, Richard Epstein and Judge Richard Posner, along with experts in contract law from around the world.While only 10 of the video files can be downloaded here, audio and video of the entire conference is now available on the conference website

Patents II