The given statement is False.
People who keep domestic animals are strictly liable for any harm inflicted by the animals.
Explanation:
People keep many type of animals as pets in their homes. Some of the common animals which are being kept as pets are:
So if animals kept by people in their homes harm someone, or something, then the owner of the animal is not liable for it. This is because the animal's behavior is not is control of the people. People can only train them, but to always obey the owner is not in the hands of the owner. The nature of animals may not always remain the same, they can cause harm to things or people, but because they are animals, so the owner is not liable.
For example, a man has a dog as pet and his dog went in the neighbor's garden and dig the soil. In this case the owner is not liable for the damage the dog caused. No doubt the owner could help the neighbor in settling the things together but he is not liable for the damage,
Learn more about animals at:
brainly.com/question/11013494
#LearnWithBrainly
The best answer here is b. estate tax - this is the tax that is applied on a transfer of wealth after the person died.
a. flat and d. recessive tax decribe how and weather the rates of taxation change for people who earn less or more (flat tax: everyone pays the same percentage).
An expansive understanding of powers granted to the federal government best describes if loose constructionism.
Loose Constructionism is the judicial philosophy whereby the constitution is interpreted loosely, typically analyzing between the lines, to extract a that means. When practicing loose constructionism, justices will take an difficulty and look at the context of it, and then on the constitution. Justices that are described as free constructionists tend to favour Federal government power over that of states strength and rights. They tend to be labelled as liberals.The notion that the charter must be interpreted on this way originates from the concept that when writing the constitution, it was left deliberately vague so that it can be interpreted on this manner, to allow it to be flexible. In addition to this is the belief that the Founding Fathers might not have known how the modern world could have looked, so wanted the charter to be interpreted in the present day.
Learn more about Loose Constructionism here:-
brainly.com/question/2511939
#SPJ4
<u>Answer</u>:
A. Concurring opinion
<u>Explanation</u>:
In law, a concurring opinion is in certain legal systems a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different (or additional) reasons as the basis for his or her decision.
Plz rate as Brainliest
