Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Killed: The usual international definition, as adopted by the Vienna Convention in 1968 is 'a human casualty who dies within 30 days after the collision due to injuries received in the crash'. [2] Serious injury: In 2015, the European Union defined a concept of serious injures in order to share the same definition across the whole European ...
Deadly force, also known as lethal force, is the use of force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person. In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort , when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.
As a legal term, injury is a harm done to a person due to acts or omissions of other persons. Harm may be of various kinds: bodily injury , psychological trauma , loss of property or reputation, breach of contract , etc. Injury may give rise to civil tort or criminal prosecution.
Injury is physiological damage to the living tissue of any organism, whether in humans, in other animals, or in plants. Injuries can be caused in many ways, including mechanically with penetration by sharp objects such as teeth or with blunt objects , by heat or cold, or by venoms and biotoxins .
Recklessness is usually described as a "malfeasance" where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a "misfeasance" or "nonfeasance" (see omission ), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) [1] is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. [2]
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992), is a United States Supreme Court decision where the Court on a 7–2 vote held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the inmate does not suffer serious injury.
The Court recognized only the pre-Dillon form of NIED, though, in that the plaintiff had to be within a zone of danger to recover in the absence of physical injury. In 1999, Hawaii took NIED even further by expressly holding that "damages may be based solely upon serious emotional distress, even absent proof of a predicate physical injury." [6]