First of all, I am not a lawyer. The question seems like asking you to argue one way or the other about liability of a injury claim against an estate. There is no specific law; except case laws which vary from state to state. I suggest you pick either yes or no and make your argument to support it.
Torts: prima facie elements of Negligence - (1) duty owed (2) breach of duty (3) actual cause (4) proximate cause (5) damages
General rule- 1. Every person has a duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would under like circumstances.
2. Duty is breached when such reasonable care is not exercised
3. But for the defendant’s action the harm would not have occurred
4. An event that is not reasonably foreseeable cannot be said to have proximately caused the ensuing damage. (NOTE: this is the rule that could free Diego from liability in a claim of negligence. Jack’s estate may not liable because based on the facts that he had no history of heart disease and was legally driving it was not reasonably foreseeable that he would swerve into oncoming traffic and injure Diego)
C. Jurisdiction because they are the ones you keep everything in place while in court, they have and declare the judgment in the end and are to listen and apply the laws so nobody gets declared with a unfair law for which they’re the ones who have this power
<em>A substantially different rate of selection resulting from hiring, promotion, and other employment decisions that work to the disadvantage of members of a particular race, gender, or ethnic group is called adverse impact- (D).</em>
On television, many shows depict characters that do not reflect society in how we live our daily lives and interact with each other in social situations and work situations. Another way that the media does not reflect society is how women are portrayed in fashion magazines and special swimsuit issues. Very few women or men appear this way in our daily lives!
