Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
To commit a criminal offence of ordinary liability (as opposed to strict liability) the prosecution must show both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). A person cannot be guilty of an offence for his actions alone; there must also be the requisite intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence at the relevant time.
ORS 811.140 Reckless driving • penalty (1) A person commits the offense of reckless driving if the person recklessly drives a vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a manner that endangers the safety of persons or property. (2) The use of the term recklessly in this section is as defined in ORS 161.085 ...
Property damage (sometimes called damage to property), is the damage or destruction of real or tangible personal property, caused by negligence, willful destruction, or an act of nature. Destruction of property (sometimes called property destruction , or criminal damage in England and Wales ) is a sub-type of property damage that involves ...
To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence).Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious, and recklessness being of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence.
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 ...
Gross negligence is the "lack of slight diligence or care" or "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party." [1] In some jurisdictions a person injured as a result of gross negligence may be able to recover punitive damages from the person who caused the injury or loss. [2]
Men frenzied with exhaustion and reckless exuberance, eyes and throats burning from dust and smoke, in a battle that erupted after Taliban insurgents castrated a young boy in the village, knowing his family would summon nearby Marines for help and the Marines would come, walking right into a deadly ambush. Here’s Nick, pausing in a lull.
This is a partial privilege. A party who has this privilege is still liable for damage caused. This defense is therefore more important when there is a concomitant issue of whether the opposing party has a valid privilege of defense of property. The following example is derived from an actual Vermont case from 1908 called Ploof v. Putnam. [1]