Introduction Henry has suffered serious injuries as a result of Samuel’s conduct, and he may therefore have an action in battery or false imprisonment against Samuel. The issues will be considered to evaluate Henry’s actions against Samuel, determine any defence Samuel has to Henry’s claims, and to assess the award of any damages. False Imprisonment False imprisonment is the direct, intentional, or negligent confinement of a person within an area (determined by the perpetrator) without lawful excuse or justification. In the case of Henry v Samuel, there are two instances arising from the facts which could constitute the action in false imprisonment. The issue here is whether Henry will have a successful claim against Samuel for false imprisonment. …show more content…
In the first instance, the central issue is whether Samuel intentionally imprisoned Henry in his ute. The characterization of fault is critical, and the facts show that Samuel was unaware of Henry’s presence in his vehicle, and false imprisonment is not constituted “unless the defendant directly and intentionally causes the plaintiff’s bodily restraint”. This is demonstrated in Weaver v Ward, where it is stated that there is “no liability in trespass where the trespassory act was committed without fault by the defendant”. Henry will argue that Samuel should have checked his ute before driving it, suggesting negligence on behalf of Samuel. However, Samuel’s defence might contend that he could not be reasonably expected to inspect his ute before driving it as he had no reason to suspect anyone was there. Therefore the plaintiff’s claims are not justified as Samuel was not “active in promoting and causing [Henry’s] confinement”, since Samuel was unaware of Henry’s presence and did not directly intend to restrain Henry’s liberty in this first instance. Therefore, it is likely Samuel can disprove fault …show more content…
In the first instance, the issue arises as to whether Henry gave implied, voluntary consent to justify the restraint on his liberty. As a defence, this could be effective if Samuel argues that Henry entered his vehicle by his own volition, without duress or coercion. While this is distinguished from Balmain New Ferry Co v Robertson, both see the plaintiff consenting to a restrain on liberty. However, Henry may argue that he was inebriated at the time and therefore could not give proper consent, nor could he fully be aware (and therefore bound) by the terms on which he entered the vehicle. In the second instance, it is evident Henry has not given consent, not does Samuel have any lawful justification for the restraint of Henry. Therefore, despite the defence Samuel may mount, it is likely that there is no legal justification or consent for the total restraint of Henry by
Passage Analysis - Act 5 Scene 1, lines 115-138. Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part I’ centres on a core theme: the conflict between order and disorder. Such conflict is brought to light by the use of many vehicles, including Hal’s inner conflict, the country’s political and social conflict, the conflict between the court world and the tavern world, and the conflicting moral values of characters from each of these worlds. This juxtaposition of certain values exists on many levels, and so is both a strikingly present and an underlying theme throughout the play.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
The “writ of Henry I on local courts” is an administrative command issued around 1108 by Henry I, King of England during the Anglo-Norman period from 1100 till 1135. Henry addresses the writ to two individuals specifically in the country of Worcestershire, Samson and Urse of Abbetot, as well as to the barons of Worcestershire generally. Samson and Urse both held titles of prestige and power in Worcestershire County as the bishop and sheriff respectively at the time. The writ generally concerns the court systems, both royal and local, and more specifically delineates the jurisdictional spheres to be enjoyed by the particular courts concerning land disputes. Technically, the writ alludes to four distinct courts: the King’s Court, the Lord’s Court, and the County (or Shire) Court and the Hundred Court. Moreover, it refers to two types of people within Anglo-Norman society: the barons, or lords, and the vassals, or those who held the lands of, and at the pleasures of, the barons.
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
I side with Loades on this as despite resentment from the nobles, after the Perkin Warbeck imposture there were no more serious uprisings which strongly support the success of Henry’s policies. Whilst most nobles would see his methods as unjust (especially the wide of use bonds and recognisances) Henry succeeded in increasing the crown’s standing at the expense of the nobility, securing his position whilst weakening the nobles. Through most of his policies Henry was successful in limiting the powers of nobility. Henry sought to restrict the noble’s power and yet at the same time needed them to keep order and represent him at local levels, therefore Henry sought not to destroy the nobles but to weaken them enough that they did not pose a threat, he needed a balance of control over the nobles and strong nobility.
Although Henry refused to serve on the Constitutional Convention, Madison needed Henry's persuasive ways. Henry had a way to make people agree with his ideas. Even though Henry didn't serve on the Constitutional Convention, he was still present to put in his word. As soon as the meetings opened, Henry began to argue against the Constitution. This argument went on for three weeks. Henry was aware that the new government had to be strong, but felt that the Constitution made the central government too powerful. He thought that the power should lay in the hands of the states. "What right had they [the group that wrote the Constitution] to say 'We the people,' instead We, the States?" he demanded.
In the play Henry V written by Shakespeare. Henry was presented as the ideal Christian king. His mercy, wisdom, and other characteristics demonstrated the behavior of a Christian king. Yet at the same time he is shown to be man like any other. The way he behaves in his past is just like an ordinary man. But in Henry’s own mind he describes himself as “the mirror of all Christian kings” and also a “true lover of the holly church.
During the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison, Republicans, such as Jefferson were seen as strict constructionists of the Constitution while Federalists, like Madison, were generally looser with their interpretations of the Constitution's literal meaning. While the constructionist ideas were part of what separated the two parties from one another, Jefferson and Madison are both guilty of not adhering to these ideas on many occasions. Jefferson writes in a letter to Gideon Granger expressing his idea that the United States is too large to have only one central government, and the states should receive more power, which goes against the fact that the Constitution was created in order to unite a new country. Also, when passing the Embargo Act, Jefferson demonstrates the federal power over the people, which goes against his Republican belief of allowing the states to have more power. As Madison prepares for his term in office, the citizens of the United States were most likely expecting him to be more open to suggestion in his interpretations of the Constitution. However, during a speech by Daniel Webster, a Federalist speaking on behalf of the entire Federalist Party, and a veto on internal improvements, Madison proves that he truly is not a loose constructionist as his party would have preferred him to be. Both Madison and Jefferson are guilty of frequently going against the general ideas of their parties in order to meet their needs at a certain time.
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
As time progressed Henry also thought of the injustice in working and paying the wages he had earned to a master who had no entitlement to them whatsoever. In slavery he had been unable to question anything of his masters doing. He was unable to have rage, sadness, or even sickness, for he would be b...
Henry V is not a simple one as it has many aspects. By looking into
Henry is trying to tell Bates that the King is not responsible for whatever happens to a soldier at war just because he has sent him, and uses the example above to illustrate this.
Given that it lies within the domain of equity, the case law indicates a great flexibility in its application, both in the substantive requirements of proof demanded by the courts and in the manner in which the courts will satisfy the equity. It is the first of these aspects of the doctrine that I will examine in this essay. I will look at the shift in the evidentiary requirements and what a representation (or an assurance of rights), a reliance (a change of position on the basis of that assurance) and a detriment (or unconscionable disadvantage) - the three pre-requisites for a successful claim - have come to mean with regard to case law and in particular the judgement of Judge Robert Walker in the Court of Appeal in Gillett v. Holt[1], in which the plaintiff had been given repeated assurances over many decades that he would inherit the defendant's estate, and remained in service to him at least p... ... middle of paper ... ... operty, 16th Ed, Butterworths K. Gray & S.F Gray - Land Law, 2nd Ed, Butterworths Professor Cedric D Bell - Land: The Law of Real Property, 3rd Ed, Old
Despite Iqbal’s clarification of the pleading standards, its application to § 1681c(g) claims has been uneven. Two cases that followed Iqbal by a matter of months and denied motions to dismiss failed to even cite Iqbal, much less apply it. At least one case concluded, without any plausibility analysis, that because Safeco did not expressly require willfulness to be pleaded, a conclusory allegation of willfulness was sufficient. Similarly, another case largely avoided the issue by asserting that the question of willfulness is more appropriate for summary judgment. More common, however, are cases that cite Iqbal while depending on pre-Iqbal cases that deny motions to dismiss § 1681c(g) claims—as though pre-Iqbal case law continues to have
This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of assault, battery and false imprisonment. It goes further advising the concerned parties on the right to claim they have in tort law and the development of the law over the years, with the aid of case law, principles and statutes.