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.
Answer:
“Rational choice” theory assumes that delinquents are constantly acquiring and analyzing information, with their “rational” analysis leading them to the conclusion that crime is a lucrative enterprise where the benefits outweigh the risks.
Explanation: Rational choice theory can apply to a variety of areas, including economics, psychology and philosophy. This theory states that individuals use their self-interests to make choices that will provide them with the greatest benefit. People weigh their options and make the choice they think will serve them best.
According to the information provided, it can be inferred that Jimmy Carter made sure that the board was composed of officials in a balanced and impartial manner so that the person's election was made in a fair and meritorious manner (option 4).
<h3>What is merit?</h3>
Merit is a term that refers to the attitude, or action that makes a man worthy of reward or punishment. In principle, merit is linked to the result of good deeds that make a man worthy of appreciation. However, it can be viewed in a positive or negative.
<h3>Importance of merit in democracy</h3>
Merit is an important aspect for modern democracies because the public power is in the hands of representatives elected by the citizens. Therefore, it is assumed that the candidates and those elected to occupy public positions are thereby merits and adequate preparation to carry out those positions.
President Carter guaranteed the protection of the employees to organize the Board of Protection of Merits stating that the members of the board of directors may only be removed from their position if they breach their agreements or act in a way that generates legal cause for their termination.
According to the foregoing, it can be interpreted that the members of the board were not going to act in a corrupt manner to prevent them from being expelled from their position, which contributed to the election of personnel according to their merit (option 4).
Learn more about Jimmy Carter in: brainly.com/question/1064969
Rightttt like i’m not spending money on this..
Answer:
Correct answer:
Explanation:
I am kinda sure its True
Hope this helps....
Have a nice day!!!!
Happy Halloween in advance, :D
