First, is family, the second one is respect (for parents) and respect for dead family members.
Answer: The intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements
(1) The defendant must act intentionally or recklessly.
(2) The defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous:
(3) The defendants act is the cause of the distress
(4) Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant's conduct.
Explanation:
Intentional or reckless act: It is not necessary that an act be intentionally offensive. A reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing emotional distress is sufficient.
Extreme and outrageous conduct:
The conduct must be horrible and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Whether the conduct is illegal does not determine whether it meets this standard.
Cause of the distress: The actions of the defendant must have actually caused the plaintiff's emotional distress beyond the bounds of decency.
Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant's conduct: This standard is quantified by the intensity, duration, and any physical manifestations of the distress.
Answer:
gatekeeper
Explanation:
The gatekeeper, teacher is learned with the responsibility of always determining who will talk, when and for how long, as well as the basic direction.
They are in-charge of ensuring that there is sanity, order and decorioum in any class setting. They do this by controlling the noise and the level at which discussion takes place.
They determine who talks and when the person should talk, also handles how long anyone should talk.
There role cannot be over-emphasised at all.
Stefan Löfven, now Prime Minister of Sweeden, studied social work at Umeå University, but dropped out after a year and a half.
Then, he started a welding course and after Military service, he began his career as a welder and he started getting into unions and politics.
Answer:
The possible answers are:
A
. Yes, because his actions constituted an unlawful operation of the construction equipment.
B. Yes, because he was intoxicated while attempting to move the construction equipment.
C. No, because at most he could be found guilty of criminal negligence.
D. No, because he must have been aware that his conduct would cause the damage to the trailer in order to be found guilty of reckless damage.
The correct answer is:
B. Yes, because he was intoxicated while attempting to move the construction equipment.
Explanation:
The worker should be found guilty, since he was aware of being intoxicated from the beginning of the action, knowing in advance that when operating the heavy construction equipment there would be a great threat for the people and properties around. Besides, he was also aware about the alarming signs, due to the fact that he could not reach the dum truck normally, he had to jump the fence to reach it, increasing the risk with his actions.
