Answer:
Yes <em>and</em> no.
Patrick <em>would</em> be liable for negligence in <em>allowing</em> the hail damage, as he <em>failed</em> to fulfill his duty of taking reasonable care of the vehicle.
However, he would<em> not</em> be responsible for the hot oil and gravel nicks.
Answer:
Yes.
Explanation:
Yes, drivers who attentively complete driving task can experience no affect of the danger of driving because he drives the vehicle with great care and focus. If a person maintains normal speed and follow all safety rules of driving will not experience any accident or any type of injury. Those persons who drives car with carelessness can risk the life of themselves as well as other people who walks at the side of the road and vehicles on the road.
Answer:
interaction
Explanation:
without interaction there is no
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
Answer:
The Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller was a landmark case that determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. This case is significant in regards to the Second Amendment because it affirms that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and not just a right that pertains to militias.
Explanation:
Hope this helps!
