Answer:
The right to privacy is the act of restraining the threat of others invading personal privacy. This right gives freedom to people from the government interfering with people's personal privacy. This right also protects people's privacy from other people
Hope this helps! (Did not use a website)
It is a false statement that the curfew is an unfair limit on their persoanl rights granted by the amendment in the Bill of Rights.
<h3>What is the Bill of Rights?</h3>
This is an first amendment that establish citizen right & liberties from the government authorities.
The right ranges from right to speech, religion, privacy, press, assembly, petition, trial by jury etc.
However, the curfew imposed on the citizen is not an unfair limit on their personal rights because it is intended to protect them from an unseen danger that can occur at night.
Missing words " Residents say it is an unfair limit on their rights. Discuss your position on the issue and include an explanation of how it relates to an amendment in the Bill of Rights.:
Read more about Bill of Rights
<em>brainly.com/question/493206</em>
#SPJ1
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:
United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrant less search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.
Explanation:
