Answer:
The correct answer is C: Intentional, negligent, and strict liability.
Explanation:
A tort is a private abuse that hurts a person or his/her belongings. The wounded person may prosecute the tortfeasor to be remunerated for the destruction caused (monetary damages). Some torts need intent and therefore there is accountability for the activity included. An deliberate tort happens when the lawbreaker causes intentional destruction to another individual. For example, when one character beats another character in a contest. The tortfeasor has the passion to injure or damage the other character, as a consequence, there is intention. Negligence occurs when the tortfeasor hurts another character but his/her behavior is the outcome of irresponsible conduct or performance. There is no purpose to destroy or cause such destruction.
I know one which the Phoenician's passed on their culture.
Here are the answers to the given questions above. Fresco artists convey PERSPECTIVE OF 3D that medieval painters could not. This accomplishment embodies characteristics of humanism when t<span>hey began to paint the human body for what they thought was beauty, not realism. Hope this answer helps.</span>
Answer:
Letter D. Distrustful
Explanation:
From the second half of the 18th century onwards, after the English victory in the Seven Years' War, the English economy was extremely shaken by the expenses with the war. With that, the eyes of the English Crown turned to its 13 colonies in America. The English Crown aimed at the urgent application of mercantilist legislation in the English colonies.
In addition, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, England needed markets, but because of the relative colonial autonomy (healthy neglect) they always had, the colonies were never consumers of metropolitan production.
Thus, the Crown issued numerous decrees, considerably restricting the relative autonomy of both the northern and southern colonies. It was essential for England to transform its colonies into consumer markets for English production. This situation led the metropolis to close the siege by inspecting the colonies, instituting a series of taxes. How: The Sugar Law, the Stamp Law, the Tea Law, and the Intolerable Laws.
Revolted, the colonists did not accept the impositions adopted by the English Crown. In this climate of dissatisfaction and revolt among the colonists, libertarian ideals influenced by Enlightenment thinkers emerged. Aware of their strength, they refused to pay the fees and turned a blind eye to the taxed products. England was not prepared to negotiate and the clash between the colonists and the metropolis was inevitable. These factors triggered the war of independence for the 13 English colonies.
Verwoerd was an authoritarian, socially conservative leader and an Afrikaner nationalist. He was a member of the Afrikaner Broederbond, an exclusively white and Christian Calvinist secret organization dedicated to advancing the Afrikaner "volk" interests, and like many members of the organization had verbally supported Germany during World War II. Broederbond members like Verwoerd would assume high positions in government upon the Nationalist electoral victory in 1948 and come to wield a profound influence on public and civil society throughout the apartheid era in South Africa.
Verwoerd's desire to ensure white, and especially Afrikaner dominance in South Africa, to the exclusion of the country's nonwhite majority, was a major aspect of his support for a republic (though removing the British monarchy was long a nationalist aspiration anyway). To that same end, Verwoerd greatly expanded apartheid.[citation needed] He branded the system as a policy of "good-neighborliness", stating that different races and cultures could only reach their full potential if they lived and developed apart from each other, avoiding potential cultural clashes,[neutrality is disputed] and that the white minority had to be protected from the majority non-white in South Africa by pursuing a "policy of separate development" namely apartheid and keeping power firmly in the hands of whites.[citation needed] Given Verwoerd's background as a social science academic, he attempted to justify apartheid on ethical and philosophical grounds. This system however saw the complete disfranchisement of the nonwhite population.[2]
Verwoerd heavily repressed opposition to apartheid during his premiership. He ordered the detention and imprisonment of tens of thousands of people and the exile of further thousands, while at the same time greatly empowering, modernizing, and enlarging the white apartheid state's security forces (police and military). He banned black organizations such as the African National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress, and it was under him that future president Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for life for sabotage.[3][4] Verwoerd's South Africa had one of the highest prison populations in the world and saw a large number of executions and floggings. By the mid-1960s Verwoerd's government to a large degree had put down internal civil resistance to apartheid by employing extraordinary legislative power, draconian laws, psychological intimidation, and the relentless efforts of the white state's security forces.
Apartheid as a program began in 1948 with D. F. Malan's premiership, but it was Verwoerd's large role in its formulation and his efforts to place it on a firmer legal and theoretical footing, including his opposition to even the limited form of integration known as baasskap, that have led him to be dubbed the "Architect of Apartheid". His actions prompted the passing of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1761, condemning apartheid, and ultimately leading to South Africa's international isolation and economic sanctions. On 6 September 1966, Verwoerd was stabbed several times by parliamentary aide Dimitri Tsafendas. He died shortly after, and Tsafendas was jailed until his death in 1999.
