Answer:
I think he can not . I believe that it has nothing to do that if for example Bailey had a car insurance with Progressive, which means it is supposed to provide additional insurance when they are injured by someone who does not have adequate insurance to cover the full damages. Bailey was negligent In the car accident. Bailey had failed to apply his brakes in time to avoid the collision, failed to turn his vehicle to avoid the collision, failed to keep his vehicle under control, and was inattentive to his surroundings.
Explanation:
Answer:
The court should stick to statutory language. These days common law is being turned into statutory law.
Explanation:
The U.S. legal system were set up based on the common law, which adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle is known as stare decisis. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered the question, the same question in other cases must draw out from the same court or lower court the same response in that jurisdiction.
Stare decisis is a doctrine which has always been a major part of the common law, court should follow precedents when they established clearly, expected under compelling reasons. The doctrine of stare decisis will remain valid even more common law is being turned into statutory law. After all, statutes have to be interpreted by the courts.
There is certainly less common law governing like environmental law than there was 100 years ago. The federal and state governments are increasingly regulating the aspects of commercial transaction between merchants and consumers, when disputes arise may be the courts should stick to statutory language.
We need the passage first
Answer:
hola!! no soy de Perú pero te quiero ayudar pero no sé cómo es el gobierno democrático allá así que suerte con esa pregunta
