Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In law, liable means "responsible or answerable in law; legally obligated". [1] Legal liability concerns both civil law and criminal law and can arise from various areas of law, such as contracts, torts, taxes, or fines given by government agencies. The claimant is the one who seeks to establish, or prove, liability.
Sometimes causation is one part of a multi-stage test for legal liability. For example, for the defendant to be held liable for the tort of negligence, the defendant must have owed the plaintiff a duty of care, breached that duty, by so doing caused damage to the plaintiff, and that damage must not have been too remote. Causation is just one ...
Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter. The defence can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence . Incapability of further defamation: Historically, it was a defence at common law that the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further ...
In strict liability crimes, the actor is responsible no matter what his mental state; if the result occurs, the actor is liable. An example is the felony murder rule: if the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that one commits a qualifying felony (see the article) during which death results, one is held strictly liable for murder and the ...
His statements “repeat the exact same lies for which [he] has already been held liable, and which he agreed to be bound by court order to stop repeating,” attorney Michael Gottlieb wrote in a ...
Its tutorial showed examples of copyrighted music files being shared. [20] Also, the 'Club Aimster' service provided a list of 40 most popular songs made available on the service. [21] It was also held that the encrypted nature of the transmission was not a valid defence as it was merely a means to avoid liability by purposefully remaining ...
The letter gives fresh fuel to Carroll's original defamation lawsuit, which had been delayed by appeals over whether Trump could be held liable for statements he made while president.
The US Supreme Court held in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), that senior government officials could not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. [14] This is an example of the US Supreme Court making an exception to break from the general precedent of respondeat superior.