Answer:
Ipapangako ko sa bayan na papagandahin ko ang ating bayan.
Explanation:
Pa like, Pa rate, At pa follow thanks ❤️
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.
The state workers’ compensation laws establishes an administrative process for compensating workers for injuries that arise in the course of employment.
<h3>Who is a worker?</h3>
A worker refers to an individual who is employed by an employer of labor in a business firm on a contract (part-time) or full-time basis, so as to perform specific tasks, duties or functions on a daily basis based on an agreed fee.
Across the world, the purpose of state workers’ compensation laws is to help establish an administrative process and standard policies for compensating workers for any injury that arise while performing their tasks, in the course of employment, regardless of fault.
Read more on workers here: brainly.com/question/26548590
Answer:
Consider, for example, the categorical syllogism: No geese are felines. ... Clearly, “Some birds are not felines” is the conclusion of this syllogism. The major term of the syllogism is “felines” (the predicate term of its conclusion), so “No geese are felines” (the premise in which “felines” appears) is its major premise.
Explanation:
Answer:
do you know how to say that in english
Explanation:
