Answer:
The major premise is lack of House to pay attention towards the road ahead of him and the rule of contributory negligence. By using this jurisdiction, the plaintiff's damages will be reduced.
Explanation:
- The defendant driver, while he may ultimately be liable if all of the witnesses say he ran the stop sign, will raise the comparative fault of House for failing to keep a proper lookout and failing to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
- The defenses are the same as they would be if the collision was with another car instead of a bicycle.
- House had an ordinary duty to pay attention to the road ahead of him and keep himself and others safe.
- By watching his books and not the traffic, he breached that duty.
- I'm not saying that defense will be successful, but that's what would be alleged by the car's driver as a defense.
- In most states, the damages to the plaintiff will be reduced by the percentage of his/her comparative fault (also known in some jurisdictions as contributory negligence).
- In some states, if the plaintiff's comparative fault is shown to be over 50%, there will be no recovery at all.
1. Trial by Jury and Rule of Law
2. Self Government is a natural right and that they shouldn’t have a monarchy, instead a representative government
3. Establish Justice, promote the general welfare, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
4. The First Article is about the Legislative Branch. Congress is a part of the Legislative Branch, and the Senate and House of Representatives make up Congress. Theta have the power to create laws and bills
The Second Article is about the Executive Branch. Members that make up the Executive Branch are the President, Vice President, and the Cabinet. They execute or enforce the laws.
The 3rd Article is about the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch made up by the Courts and Supreme Court. They interpret the law.
I think the answer is A and D
Answer: violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause
Explanation:
Plessy claimed the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause, which requires that a state must not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court disagreed with Plessy's argument and instead upheld the Louisiana law.
Answer
When Barnaby Jack said, “Sometimes you have to demo a threat to spark a solution,” he meant that sometimes, if there isn't a problem, there would be no reason to find a solution. By demoing a threat, then there would show that there is room for a problem, meaning there needs to be a way to fix it.
Explanation
Done
