Posts Tagged ‘Defendant’

Definition And Use Of Tort Law

April 7th, 2010



Simply put torts are civil laws that recognize personal wrongs which answer to a charge of law as grounds for accountability or lawsuit. These are wrongs that have resulted in personal injury or harm and are grounds for seeking a claim of compensation by the injured party. Some torts are civil crimes which are punishable by imprisonment but the main reason of tort law is to provide a way to be compensated or get relief for damages inflected and to discourage any one else from committing the same harmful violations. The person who was injured may sue for an injunction to halt the damaging conduct or for monetary compensation for damages encountered.

There are several types of damages an injured party may make claim and receive compensation from, such as : loss of wage capacity, pain and suffering, undue mental duress, and reasonable medical expenses. Claims can include both present and future expected losses.

Included amongst the most common of torts are: trespass, assault, battery, negligence, product liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (harassment).

Torts also fall into three general categories:

Intentional torts are those wrongs which the defendant had knowledge of, or by reason should have known, would occur through their direct involvement, being a part of or intentional lack of action. Negligent torts are when the defendant’s actions are deemed unreasonably unsafe. Strict liability wrongs don’t depend on how little the defendant’s sense of responsibility was, but is established after the fact, when a particular action causes damage. A person may operate in a unreasonable manner but is not subject to tort until a claim to cease and desist or call for compensation is made.

intentional torts (e.g., intentionally harming a person); negligent torts (causing an accident by failing to obey traffic rules); and strict liability torts(e.g., liability for knowingly making and selling defective products

Tort law is derived through common law Judges and enacted into state law by legislatures which enact statutory law.

General Principle Torts

(1) Any one who invades the privacy rights of another is subject to liability payment for any resulting damage to the interests of the person who was harmed.

Privacy invasion is explained by:

(a) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, or

(b) identity theft, appropriation of the other’s name or likeness, or

(c) Malicious, false or unreasonable publicity given to other person’s private life, or

(d) publicity of an unreasonably nature that places the other person in a false light before the public,

Intrusion upon Seclusion is a person who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another person or his/her private affairs or concerns. The wrong doer is subject to liability to the wronged for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion is seen as highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Appropriation of Name or Likeness (identity theft) is a person who takes the name or likeness of another for his/her own use or benefit The wrong doer is subject to compensate the wronged person for invasion of privacy.

Publicity Given to Private Life, when a person deliberately produces derogatory publicity concerning the private life of another person is subject to liability to the injured person for invasion of his/her privacy, if the publicized material is of a kind that

(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and

(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.

Publicity Placing a Person in a False Light is when one person falsely gives publicity before the public in such a manner as to shed a false light upon the integrity or character of another person. Such a person is subject to pay for injuries received by the injured person for invasion of privacy, if:

(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and

(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.

Common Law Protections of Privacy It was found that infringements on personal actions are not valid while in the workplace Restatement of Torts (2nd)

Related Post:

Ellis v Angwyn

What Constitutes an Unreasonable Search and Seizure?

December 27th, 2009

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is perhaps one of the most frequently litigated constitutional amendments in the courts. In its entirety, the Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The main purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is a right guaranteed to every American citizen. The point of this right is to limit the government from unnecessary intrusions into your rights as a free citizen.

An unreasonable search and seizure issue most often arises when law enforcement searches a car after a traffic stop. The question then becomes whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the car in the first place and/or probable cause to search the vehicle. If the police have seized property obtained through an illegal vehicle search, the seizure of the property is considered unreasonable.

An unreasonable search and seizure can also occur when law enforcement seeks to search a person’s home. In order for a search to be valid, the police must first obtain a warrant, which is supported by probable cause, and describes the place to be searched with particularity. If these requirements are not met, the defendant can petition the court to exclude the evidence at trial. The court will then determine if the police conformed to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment when obtaining the warrant and can order that the evidence not be allowed in trial under the exclusionary rule.

If the police search someone’s property without a warrant, the search is considered unreasonable unless exigent circumstances existed at the time of the search. The burden is then placed on the prosecution to prove that the police believed that there was an imminent danger that required an immediate search. Examples of such danger include, gunshots, a person screaming, or fire emanating from inside a building. Courts have also held that destruction of physical evidence can provide the police justification to search property in order to prevent its destruction. If any of these reasons exist then the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement is not violated.

If you believe that you are the victim of an unconstitutional search then it is imperative you contact an attorney.




By: Neil Lemons

RI Criminal Law:Is a Nolo Contendere Plea an Admission of Guilt? Is it a Conviction?

December 6th, 2009

Nolo contendere means a person is not contesting the charges. When a defendant takes a nolo plea in Rhode island, the defendant is indicting that he does not want to contest the charges but is also essentially admitting to the charges.

What is the difference between a guilty plea and a nolo contendere plea in RI? There is a huge difference! A guilty plea is always a criminal conviction under RI law. A criminal conviction has major negative implications especially when a person applies for employment. A plea of nolo may not constitute a criminal conviction. It is only a conviction in RI if there is a sentence of confinement (such as the ACI or home confinement), a suspended sentence or a fine imposed.

For example, A plea of nolo contendere with a sentence of probation and a contribution to the violent crimes indemnity fund or court costs will not constitute a conviction under Rhode Island law! For example, A plea of nolo contendere with a sentence of a filing and a contribution to the violent crimes indemnity fund (vcif) will not constitute a conviction under Rhode Island law.

However, anything with a fine attached to it will be a conviction under Rhode Island law. Therefore, it is important that the defendant gets either no fine or a contribution to the victims fund or court costs rather then a fine.

All misdemeanor plea agreements in Rhode lsland (RI) should be nolo contendere with court costs or a contribution towards the victims indemnity fund rather then guilty pleas!




By: david slepkow