Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The harm which occurred must be a reasonable foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct; A sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood exists between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage; It is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
In medical law and medical ethics, the duty to protect is the responsibility of a mental health professional to protect patients and others from foreseeable harm. [1] If a client makes statements that suggest suicidal or homicidal ideation, the clinician has the responsibility to take steps to warn potential victims, and if necessary, initiate involuntary commitment.
The degree of knowledge which the defendant had about the probability and likely magnitude of harm to the plaintiff. [10]: p 230–1 Special rules exist for the establishment of duty of care where the plaintiff suffered mental harm, or where the defendant is a public authority. [12]
Whether the acts of a third party break the chain of causation depends on whether the intervention was foreseeable. [13] The general rule is that the original defendant will be held responsible for harm caused by a third party as a direct result of his or her negligence, provided it was a highly likely consequence.
The Wagon Mound (No 1) test is less generous to claimants than the direct consequence test because it may impose an artificial limit on the extent of damages that can be claimed. To mitigate some of the potential unfairness of the rule, the courts have been inclined to take a relatively liberal view of whether damage is of a foreseeable type.
Honest services fraud is a crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (the federal mail and wire fraud statute), added by the United States Congress in 1988. [1] The idea of this law was to criminalize not only schemes to defraud victims of money and property, but also schemes to defraud victims of intangible rights such as the "honest services" of a public official.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
[15] [page needed] [16] The court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim.