Majority rights & minority rights ( sorry if this isnt right )
Answer:
The doctrine of contributory negligence is followed in most states is false.
Explanation:
Contributory negligence is a doctrine of common law that if a person was injured in part due to his/her own negligence, that is his/her negligence contributed to the accident, the injured party would not be entitled to collect any damages (money) from another party who supposedly caused the accident.
And historically, contributory negligence was the rule in all states, leading to harsh results. Many states now developed and adopted comparative negligence laws. Today, the jurisdictions that still use contributory negligence are few.
Answer:
There are enough intent and action to commit a crime. By burglarizing the store and moving some goods to the rear door, Baker and his co-travellers have established specific intent to commit larceny.
Specific intent requires planning before the time and the predisposition to commit the act. They have even establish general intent by actually entering the store and cutting through the metal door with an acetylene torch.
Explanation:
Larceny is robbery. The intent to commit a crime by Baker and his co-travellers is established by their actions at the crime scene. They cannot be exonerated because they have not yet taken the goods away from the store. But, it can be established that the intent exists merely by their presence at the crime scene at such an hour of the morning.
Not in the “environmental “ concept, but they could in a work setting concept.
Example-clean drinking water for employees or air filtration at a plant—- yes
Water issues 70 miles away unrelated to their plant. No
