In the text, A Trial by Jury by D. Graham Burnett, the reader learns about the inner-workings of jury trials.  A few conclusions about jury trials in general can be inferred using examples from this book.   Courts trying to keep jurors in the dark and those jurors struggling to deter the true meanings of justice and guilt both lead to the reader’s discovery that the social dynamic amongst jurors in deliberation is one more suitable for psychological experimentation rather than a means to decide a person’s freedom or incarceration.

            To begin, one generalization about jury trials is that the courts, and the justice system as a whole, do everything in their power to keep jurors ignorant in many issues. While the average person may look at the verdict of a case and become instantly confused or outraged based on the defendant’s past, he or she may not know which facts were deemed admissible in that particular case.  “Somehow, in the history of jurisprudence, these issues – who people were, what they had done in the past – had come to be thought of  as different in kind from the “facts” of a case, different from blood on the wall and reams of phone-company records….I was being asked to decide if a crime had occurred – in other words, if someone did something to someone else .  How could the nature of either “someone” stand-off limits” (71)?  

One justification for this issue is that justice is meant to be blind.  Using an example from the book, the jurors came to find out after the case that the victim had a previous complaint against him for posing as a woman and soliciting sex.  Had the jurors known this during deliberations, it is safe to say that they would not have had the same hesitations in acquitting Milcray based on self-defense.  However, it is also quite possible that if they had known this tiny piece of information they would not have reviewed the case so closely, and therefore justice may have been biased by historical data that, while relevant, had no place in the current case.

            Next, another generalization about jury trials that the book brings to light is that there is a difference between justice and injustice, and “guilty” or “not guilty”.  Although the latter is what a vast majority of cases come down to, in reality, behind the closed doors of the jury room, arriving at that answer involves much work.   For example, while the average public may equate the term justice with a “guilty” or “not guilty” sentence, on closer examination one will see that justice is a relative term.  Depending on what political, social, or economic views an individual may have, he or she may view justice completely differently. 

This is exemplified in jury trials because twelve completely different individuals with completely different ideas about justice must come to the same agreement. In Barnett’s book, the jurors were able to come to a conclusion about guilt or innocence only after agreeing to leave justice up to God.  “Justice belongs to God; men only have the law.  Justice is perfect, but the law can only be careful” (138).  This statement was made after four days of disagreements and negotiations amongst the jurors.  While they started their jury duty with the notion that they must give a just verdict, at the end they realized that what they could only do was simply apply the law to the case, and that justice would be determined by some means later.  Clearly, the proceedings of the jurors in the text are not the same in every case, but this provides one example of the myths and powerful connotations surrounding jury trials that the public is aware of, and the realities of what actually goes on behind closed doors.

Finally, the last generalization that can be subtracted from Barnett’s book is that while it may be easy to view jury trials as simple cases easily being discussed and decided on by a group of twelve people, in reality the dynamics that take place behind closed doors more closely represent a social experiment instead of a civilized means of deciding guilt or innocence.   If one thinks about any social situation he or she has been in it is safe to say that there are certain people that could never get along no matter what the situation may be. Mixing twelve strangers in a small room for twelve hours a day and presenting them with a case that will affect a person’s life and freedom only amplifies what would happen in a normal situation.  Additionally, the fact that this situation is coupled with the jurors own deprivation of liberty only makes the situation even tenser.  People take sides, cliques form, and awkwardness follows. 

Therefore, jury trials consist of confusion, arguments, and political games behind closed doors.  During this, the jurors are supposed to be working toward a shared verdict, one in which everyone can agree.  It is easy to see how this may sound easy, but actually be quite difficult.  “But there are some jurors here who are such idiots, so thoroughly oblivious to good judgment, or so thick (regardless of their intentions), that it seems improper to aid them in depriving a man of his liberty” (128).  As the reader is able to see from just one man’s statement in Barnett’s book, jurors just like any other human, form strong opinions about one another.  Once these opinions are formed, they become very hard to change.  Therefore, the generalization that placing together twelve random people and expecting them to all come to an agreement as a means of determining guilt or innocence in jury trials may seem like a good idea, but is all too often a crazy series of events that involves arguing, unfriendliness, and politics. 

In conclusion, while Barnett’s book just looked at one very specific example of a jury trial, many generalizations can be extracted from it.  When it comes to jury trials in general, the courts like the jury to be ignorant, at least when dealing with issues surrounding, but not involving, the case, jurors must sort through the difference between justice and guilt, and the process of deliberations is often very convoluted and ripe with controversy behind closed doors. 

The Casey Anthony case was definately based on circumstantial evidence pretty much the same kind of evidence now used to “prove” that humans are the cause of recent measurement of “global warming”. Some less popular scientists look at the same circumstantial evidence for global warming and say just because there maybe more man made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that there are other factors that may be at work including as of yet unknown cycles of the out put of energy by the sun. More discerning scieintists say that the ice core evidience of higher levels of certain gases traped in arctic and antacrtic ice from warmer atmospheric periods in history might have been caused by those being warmer periods. We know that the dog wags its tail and the tail does not wag the dog but we don’t know whether warming periods on earth produce more carbon emission or if the carbon emissions create a warmer atmosphere. Circumstantial evidence always has an element of fiction woven in to it. In the Casey Anderson trial it seemed that neigter the defence nor the prosecution alone was fabricating evidence in an attempt to with their opposing cases at trial. Some of us watched and could only see a battle of all star liars. We have a sneaking suspicion that the defence attorney probably hosted mock jurry focus groups to come up with the spicey child abuse by Casey’s father and brother. At the end of the trial the defence attorney spill his beans almost saying he would do anything to prevent the “ritual killing” sacrifice of the defendent in a death penalty conviction. His job was never to defend agains the death penalty but to defend a client against false criminal charges?

Strangely the prosecutor seemed to be making the case not for the defendent being guilty but that someone needed to experience the death penalty to pay for the possible murder of a child since murder was not something forensics actually ever proved. The basic lack of evidence of the proseuction created enough of a vacuum to fill up with all the chicanery the proseuction could confuse the jurors with. The sad story of children repeatedly sexually abused by the father/ grandfather and maybe brother in this case became an alibi? There is no evidence of any such child abuse and if there was why would’nt the prosecution have made that a centeral part of their case against the defendent from the beginning? This was ancient Greek theater in the court room with competing arguments for pathos. None of it very believable. Both sides in the court wanted to make the family look like a prototype dysfunctional american family with many secrets to hide but all they did was make the American Justice system look completely dysfunctional. One of the highlights of the trial was some young guy in a suit in the court room audience giving the bird with his middle finger raised toward the proecutor and there after taken into custody for contempt of court and causing a distubance. He maybe one of hundreds of suitors thinking of dating the defendent and as it turned out he was right about how the jury was processing the conflicting information in the court room because they all ulimately gave the middle finger to the prosecution. In that disfunctional court room the dysfunctional proseuction was seen as much more dysfunctional by the jurors than all the fancy whipped cream over the top sex abuse theories of the anti capital punishment defence. In later interviews on television some jurors did not even mention the sex abuse thesis but only said that the prosecution had no evidence that there was even a murder in the case. No evidence was no evidence and those jurors were smart enough to see it. The whole super expensive trial was a spurious and dysfunctional attempt to pretend that the lack of evidence made for a circumstantial case. Fortunately for the defendent her lawyer never had to prove anything. He only had to make suggestions for jurors to find doubt and was successful. Meanwhile everything else is symbolism. The defendent spent much of her time looking persecuted and saying nothing. The father of the persecuted was seen praying with a bible on his lap before the verdict was read in the court room. The proseuction sought to make the defendent to be a very bad person because she when out to party when her child was missing when any psychiatrist would tell you that someone contemplating the unthinkable might most seek any form of escapism as denial. Symbolism was all there was and yes it really was a modern day greek play acted out except for the outbursts by the court room audience like the bird flipper who interrupted all the science ficition. That fipping the bird guy was sort of the child in the story of the emperor’s new clothes. He was just seeing reality and reacting to it while the rest of the people in the court room , the judge and those watching on televivision were all concerned with the ongoing story line in an unfolding fictional staged soap opera. The only thing one can learn from this case and its news media portrayal is that that the US justice system is dysfunctional

In order for any court to have jurisdiction over a case it needs subject matter jurisdiction as well as personal jurisdiction.  Subject matter jurisdiction has to do with the limitations on the types of cases a court can hear. Certain courts are empowered to hear kinds of disputes. Historically, all fifty states have general jurisdiction courts that have the power to hear any kind of dispute. Personal jurisdiction has to do with what courts have authority to hold a case against a defendant. Personal jurisdiction is based upon five principles: domicile, presence, consent, activities, and property. If a state has any one of these principles they have personal jurisdiction over the defendant and the case will be heard.

            Domicile means where the defendant lives or has its personal place of business in. An individual is considered domiciled in the state where they have their residence in. Corporations and business firms are domiciled in their principle place of business.

            A personal can be held under personal jurisdiction on the basis of presence. If a court document is delivered to the defendant in the state that they are present at, they are subject to jurisdiction of that state.

            Consent is when the defendant agrees to be under jurisdiction of the state that is agreed upon by both parties.

            Activities are related to the contacts a defendant has in a state. This is most directly correlated to business activities that are being done in a state from a company. These can be activities such as product production, marketing or selling of products, also money made from businesses with internet websites that do business in different states in the USA will have jurisdiction over the defendant based on activities.

            Personal jurisdiction can be granted on the bases of property. If the suit is directly related to a piece of property jurisdiction can be granted. (This is limited and changes on a case-by-case basis.)

In this case, all three potential courts (Virginia, Delaware, New York) have subject matter jurisdiction because they all have courts that can hear any type of case. This is because every state has courts with general jurisdiction and has the right to litigate any type of case.  The question then transforms into: “Which states have personal Jurisdiction over the defendant, ThinCo?”

The plaintiff Karla has the right to sue in Virginia or Delaware because the corporation is domiciled in these two states. The evidence for this is that ThinCo’s principle place of business is in Virginia, according to the fact pattern and, therefore, Virginia has personal jurisdiction over ThinCo. The company is incorporated in Delaware. This also means that ThinCo is considered domiciled in Delaware because they are incorporated there.

The plaintiff Karla has shown no efforts to sue the defendant by having a subpoena delivered to an executive in Virginia, Delaware, or New York according to the fact pattern. It is more likely the plaintiff will sue on a different personal jurisdiction principle.

ThinCo Corporation can be sued in either Virginia, Delaware or New York based on the consent principle. If the defendant, ThinCo agrees upon a place for the trial to take place, either state can have jurisdiction. The fact pattern does not show any attempts to grant consent on the case therefore it is irrelevant.

New York and Virginia both have personal jurisdiction over ThinCo because of the activities they take part in within these states. According to the fact pattern, ThinCo had a marketing campaign in New York in order to gain clients. The evidence for the marketing campaign is the newspaper advertisements ThinCo paid for. The advertisements enticed the plaintiff Karla to buy ThinCo’s product in a retail store in Binghamton, NY and is sufficient enough for a New York state court to agree that the defendant had minimum contacts in the state of New York. Also, New York has a statute that provides for jurisdiction over any nonresident who transacts any business or causes any injury within the state, which is very relevant according to the facts.

            Virginia has personal jurisdiction on the basis of activities as well because Virginia is ThinCo’s principle place of business and they are responsible for the plaintiff’s injury.

            This jurisdiction case has many potential routes it can go. To take this case, once again the court needs subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the defendant, which can be found in each state. Virginia has the ability to have jurisdiction over ThinCo because they are domiciled in Virginia (its principle place of business is in Virginia) and activities also for this same reason. Delaware has personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the company is considered domiciled in Delaware, as well. The evidence for this is that the corporation chose to incorporate in Delaware. New York has personal jurisdiction over the defendant based on the marketing activities they took part in New York. All three states could have the defendant under personal jurisdiction if they consent to have the trial in one of the states.

            Socrates was a philosopher that seemed to value the pursuit of truth and wisdom more than pursuing wealth and power.  He was taken to court by some men in the city of Athens on charges that were proven not be true in my opinion.  He was brought up on four charges, the first of which of being an evil-doer physicist.  The second charge is that of him being a sophist who tutors young men for money. The third argument calls him guilty of corrupting young people and the final charge of being a believer of other gods not recognized by the state.  With his life on the line Socrates stands tall to defend his innocence, and with defiance and determination, he goes on to show the court, his accusers, and the witnesses that there is not enough evidence to find him guilty of such crimes.

          To the first charge of him being an evil-doer physicist who searches into things under the earth and in heaven and makes the worse appear the better cause, Socrates takes the better and direct route of denial.  He claims his innocence in such matters saying he has nothing to do with those studies, that it is all simply nonsense with no credible witnesses to testify otherwise. Socrates is quick to point out these are rumors that perhaps were started after a comedy writer named Aristophanes created a fictional character bearing Socrates name, one who can walk in the air, but are not to be believed if no one in real life can back those charges.

           He challenges his main accuser Meletus to provide evidence or any witness that can say he is involved in such accusations.  He then asks those present to speak up against him if they find truth in such charge, or to ask around to all their neighbors for anyone who may have seen such thing.  No one came forward, therefore putting that charge to rest.

          The second charge against Socrates claims that he is a paid tutor, one who teaches the youth and therefore gets paid.  He points that he’s heard of such men who go from town to town and persuade young men to pay for lessons, he names a few and he calls them sophists.  To this Socrates says he does not possess knowledge of human and political virtue that would entitle him to get paid for.  If he did he would be very proud and conceited, and to that is he none.  He says there is no foundation of truth behind this allegation and once again no one in the prosecution side has any evidence.

          There are many people out there mad at Socrates.  He claims many of them have had their feelings hurt by him and that resentment has fueled their desire to bring him to court and to see him punished.  He says he will not allow himself to be condemned by accusers acting merely on jealousy and hurt egos, and goes on to explain the origins behind his enemies hate. 

          Socrates says an oracle once professed that he was the wisest man in the world.  He himself did not believe that could be true and went out on a journey to find a wiser man than him.  His campaign led him to the top poets, craftsmen and politicians of his time.  He analyzed them, and through his interviews came to the conclusion that most of them were indeed gifted in their craft and foolish in believing that was enough to make them wise in other areas of life. 

          One by one they were told by Socrates that they were not wise are not, but rather pretenders.  He explains that the poet is often motivated by inspiration but most times he has no idea of what he is saying.  The poet does not often understand the meaning of the poetry he writes, and is therefore not wise.  The same outcome was found with politicians and craftsmen, and as these were told they were not wise they became angry and resentful towards Socrates.

          Many young rich kids began to feel the need to imitate Socrates, and went on their own quest to prove those same people unwise.  They were amused by Socrates and came to the same conclusion, further insulting the craftsmen and pushing the craftsmen to call Socrates a corruptor of young minds.  This pursuit of truth made him many enemies and his preoccupation with the quest had left him in utter poverty as well.  Worse of all, this anger held by his enemies would land him in court fighting for his life against untrue accusations.

          The last charge against Socrates was that of him not believing in the gods of the state.  he brought up his main accuser to the stand, a man called Meletus.  Using his ingenious mind Socrates was able to prove Meletus contradicting himself, calling Socrates an atheist and a follower of different gods at the same time, and that doomed that charge. 

          All of the charges against Socrates were found to be untrue, and none could stick,  in my opinion, he is innocent due to lack of evidence.  Socrates was a very smart man, and this proved to be his biggest weapon against his enemies. 

Mode and manner of making of oath

 By

Shahzadi queen

The making of oath by the plaintiff is equivalent of an offer to and ultimate taking oath by the plaintiff (the matter admitting of such oath) if the defendant, on a request of the plaintiff, having been called upon to deny the plaintiffs claim on oath, principally (though not always) when the plaintiff has no (available or satisfactory) witnesses, failed to repudiate that claim on oath. Alternatively, upon the defendant taking an oath of repudiation, in cases where the plaintiff has no witnesses, the claim must fail, there being no necessity or relevance for the plaintiff to take any oath of his own whatever. The order in which the oaths are envisaged in Article 163, Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984 is immaterial. The Qanun‑e‑Shahadat as its preamble will show, is designed to revise, amend ‑and consolidate the law of evidence so as to bring it in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah and the provisions thereof shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, Article 165. No diametrically different interpretation of the Article would be permissible because in case it is only implemented literally and oath is pitched against oath not only the objective of enforcing the Islamic tenets would be defeated but the Article would itself become nugatory.

The court room fell silent as the judge walked into the room. The judge spoke,

“Good morning all be seated please. These type of civil suits are normally heard in a closed court however due to cut backs and lack of court room space this session will be open to the public. The case No is 244/H. The people directly involved will be known solely as ‘The Accused’ and ‘The Defendant’”

The prosecution rose and began,

“Good morning judge Eve, We are representing ‘James and Broadbent Road Hauliers ltd’ My clients had to terminate the Accused contract of employment due to lurid and indecent behaviour in the workplace. The Accused employment was terminated on April 9th 2011. As the accused is counter suing for deformation of character and loss of future earnings, I would like to call my first witness Mrs Beer”

Mrs Beer takes the stand and the prosecution asks her to relay what she saw,

“I was working late it was a Friday night. I do the books you see its was around 10.30 pm I needed some more paper for the printer and its in the managers office. We work 24/7 at ‘James and Broadbent’ so I wasn’t surprised to see the lights on in the managers office. I climbed the metal stairs and I was about to knock on the door when I heard this groaning noise! It sounded well; as if someone was in pain! So I opened the door slightly and well it wasn’t pain it the was other, you know!”

The prosecution stood up and said,

“Mrs Beer when you say ‘the other’ can you be more specific no matter how embarrassing it is”

Mrs Beer takes a sip of water then continues,

“The manager was leaning back in the swivel chair and the Accused was performing Oral sex! I didn’t know where to look honestly!”

The prosecution speaks out to the judge,

“There you have it Judge Eve lewd behaviour in the extreme! ‘James and Broadbent’ was totally justified in terminating the Accused contract of employment. That’s the particulars of the dismissal”

The judge looks directly at the Accused and says,

“Will the accused please give your side of your this lurid tale?”

The Accused stands up and says,

“Well judge, as soon as I started at ‘James and Broadbent’ the Defendant kept smiling at me and winking. I mean I just thought it was a friendly type company you know? Then one day I found a piece of paper under my windscreen wiper blade I have it with me as evidence it reads,

‘I’ve been watching you and your lovely arse maybe we should hook up? There maybe promotion in for you!’

Then my shift patterns were changed for no apparent reason. I did work in the office taking haulage details but I got moved to the night shift. There wasn’t much to do I’m  sure now that the manager planned it this way! Then things got really bad! One night I was tiding my desk and I got called into the managers office. The Defendant shut the door and walked behind me and fondled my buttocks! I said straight away

‘what the hell do you think you’re doing!’

Then the manger got my file out and began reading my salary grade and previous experience out loud. Then the manager sat in the swivel chair by the desk and stripped naked! and said,

‘Now you come over here gorgeous and drop to your strong knees and lick me inside and out until I come on that handsome face of yours!’

“I told her I was married with a wife and kids! That just made it worse she said,

‘You go down on me and lick me out else your file is deleted as is your job! What will your wife say to that big boy!’

“I felt as if I had no choice so I took off her panties and set to work on her! that’s when Mrs Beer came in the room!”

The End

Lord Banks

They may aswell be accustomed for humans who win lotto jackpots. Instead of accepting action cost in an one-off sum money payment, accomplishment payments can be accustomed to accommodate acquirement appealing often. Lotto jackpot allowances about extend for twenty years.

Creating alimony settlements for action boodle can abate the bulk of taxes owed and accumulation connected banknote breeze for several years to come. Anyone advantageous abundant to win action jackpots should analysis with a structured adjustment advocate to amount out options a lot of adapted for their budgetary wishes.

One or two affidavit abide for affairs alimony payments. The a lot of archetypal cover allowance curve of credit, hospital bills and added absolute debts; home enhancements; academy tuition; or to get money for investment purposes.

Litigation settlements can be awash in absolute or part. Stockholders acquirement pensions at discounted ante and accommodate Annuitants with agglomeration sum cash. As an example, an Annuitant receives $50,000 anniversary year for twenty years, which is paid on a annual basis. He receives $12,500 anniversary a quarter.

The Annuitant needs $100,000 to advance in acreage to be acclimated as rental property. In adjustment to get the $100,000 they traveling to allegation to advertise two or added years of alimony payments. A allotment antecedent ability allegation arctic of 25-percent for accouterment up foreground money.

Upon cloister approval, the Annuitant transfers transaction rights to the investor. Alteration of rights have to be accustomed by the allowance aggregation abetment the allowance payments. Allowance companies are not appropriate to accredit accomplishment sales or accede to transaction rights transfers.

Legal admonition should be acquired above-mentioned to affairs or purchasing structured settlements. Attorneys can admonition if adjustment pensions can be sold, aid in negotiations, and authorize if acquirement offers are reasonable. Structured adjustment counsels should admonition audience of allowances and drawbacks of purchasing or affairs pensions, calm with any tax ramifications.

Annuitants should yield a bit of time to allocution with several of these companies and analysis prices for the best deal. One of the a lot of trusted antecedent for analysis alimony barter is the National Structured Settlements Trade Organization. Financiers who acquirement structured settlements have to attach to acrid accompaniment and Fed rules. The ambition of structured adjustment accomplishment payments is to accommodate Annuitants with abiding assets as advantage for wounds due to carelessness of a aggregation or individual. Structured settlements are generally acclimated to atone victims of car accidents, workers advantage wounds, or medical malpractice.

To acquirement structured settlements, Annuitants have to aboriginal access cloister approval. Almost two-thirds of U.S. States proscribe the auction or alteration of accomplishment payments. Pensions are structured to accommodate balance to afflicted parties to pay for advancing medical costs or alter absent revenue. Therefore, Annuitants have to accommodate acute affidavit to a adjudicator assuming that affairs accessible payments will advance their superior of life.Then do you want to purchase structured settlements ??

“Various types of courts existed in Shakespeare’s England…” (Andrews 82). The word court means that a person could be charged in a court of law if he or she committed a crime that affected the life or possessions of another person, violated the rights of a person.  Edward Code came up with one hundred different types of courts in the Renaissance time period.  Each individual court has its own jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction is the boundary at which a government or a local official can charge someone.  For example, if a person committed a crime in a city and then fled to the next city, the authorities are not allowed to do anything about it.  The authorities from the next city would have to charge that person however they wanted too charge them.  In some situations the criminal may not get charged at all because the crime that they committed may not be a crime or felony in another city or country.  Some court jurisdictions were larger than others.  For example, the high court of Parliament has a larger jurisdiction than say, the Star Chamber.  One type of court deals with higher, governmental affairs and the other type of court deals with more local offenses such as forgery, riots or perjury.  The plaintiff has a choice of which court to choose from but it usually depended on the lawyer’s preferences.  Many lawsuits included many different courts for one lawsuit (Andrews 41).

The Star Chamber is a state court and was considered the most honorable court in England.  It dealt with public disorders, riots, perjury, and forgery.  Ever since 1540 the Star Chamber has been separate from the Privy Council.  Higher Jurisdiction courts such

as Parliament, the Council Table, and the Duchy Chamber dealt with higher offenses such as treason, theft, riots and other, much more serious, offenses (Andrews 42). 

The center for the English judicial system is Westminster Hall.  Many different types of courts were located here.  Such as the Exchequer Chamber, the Court of Common Pleas and the Parliament and Council.  All of the courts located here were the large jurisdiction and high responsibility courts.  All of these courts were located in one place but served a different purpose: to protect the general interest of the citizens of the city or country (Andrews 42).

Some lawsuits used a culmination of different types of courts to persecute a criminal.  One lawsuit may contain the Star Chamber, the high court of Parliament, the Exchequer Chamber and the Court of Common Pleas.  The most active court in the Renaissance time period was the King’s Bench and Common Pleas.  Each year the King’s Bench and Common Pleas had around ten thousand law suits per year.  Not every lawsuit goes to trial though.  So out of tem thousand lawsuits per year only about a handful go to trial.  Smaller courts have a smaller amount of lawsuits and larger courts have a larger number of courts a year.  Different court sessions were held at different times of the year.  For example, the quarter sessions were held four times a year unlike the other sessions, which were held twice a year.  More serious crimes were held on the quarter sessions and the less serious crimes were held on the assizes   (Andrews 42).

One form of government was the Signore in Italian cities. In the court systems of Italian cities, the Signore made all of the decisions.  His or her decisions were final.  The

Signora was the judge, jury and the executioner.  In Florence, the ruling class, which was made up of about eight hundred different families, was made up of many wealthy families.  The ruling families controlled the government, which in turn controlled the courts (Hankins). 

The Renaissance time period had many different types of courts.  All courts in the Renaissance time period had their own jurisdictions.  Some jurisdictions were larger than others and they had more responsibilities than others.  Some lawsuits included many different types of courts.  A typical lawsuit usually included three or four different courts.  The type of court that was used was usually decided by the lawyer’s preferences.  Most lawsuits never went to trial.  Some larger lawsuits went to trial but the smaller lawsuits usually never went to trial.  Each year there are tens of thousands of different court sessions held.  Every court had their own responsibilities and some were larger than others but they all had one main goal.  That goal was to protect the rights of the citizens and to keep the order of the city or country intact.  

Originally negligence did not exist as a standalone tort; instead it was incorporated into other torts as a way of committing them through negligent behaviour. Prior to Lord Atkin’s judgment in Donoghue v Stephenson[1] there was an absence in the law of a method through which a plaintiff could claim in relation to a duty of care outside a contractual relationship. The ruling Donoghue v Stephenson filled this void by establishing a legal duty to “take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”.

This created negligence, a tort primarily concerned with the defendant’s conduct. Central to this is the fault principle; the idea of a defendant being held responsible to the courts for any damage he or she causes as a result of their conduct falling below a certain standard. Negligence has been defined in Winfield and Jolowicz[2] as ‘the breach of a legal duty to take care, resulting in damage undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff’. Upon examination of this definition there are clearly three elements to this tort; a legal duty of care, a breach of duty and a resulting loss suffered by the plaintiff.

The ‘resulting loss’ suffered by the plaintiff can be explained as the existence of damage, and the element of causation.

Causation

Causation is required in negligence to establish a direct link between the breach of the defendant’s duty of care, and the damage suffered by the plaintiff. Factual and legal causation must both be used to ascertain the defendant’s liability.

Factual causation operates using the simple ‘but for’ test. This distinguishes between situations in which the defendant’s conduct was not related to the plaintiff’s loss, and those in which it was a cause of it. The courts simply ask whether the damage would have been caused ‘but for’ the defendant’s breach of duty. If not, there is no negligence. An example of a case that failed the test for factual causation is Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Commission[3]. Here it was decided that ‘but for’ the doctor’s breach of care, the plaintiff’s husband would have died regardless.

There are several other issues which complicate the application of factual causation such as a material increase in risk, successive and indeterminate causes; however these are not related to causation in law and would not be relevant to the question posed.

Causation in Law

Legal causation must also be proven for a successful negligence action. A defendant may avoid liability at this stage, even if the other elements were all present. Failure at this stage is because ‘the damage was too remote’; the breach of duty is irrelevant or unrelated to the damage. Winfield and Jolowicz describe how legal causation requires damage to be “within the range of that for which it is just to make the defendants responsible”. This relates to the idea that application of liability in tort should be ‘fair, just and reasonable’ in holding the right persons to account for damage suffered by the plaintiff.

Before the case of The Wagon Mound No.1[4] the law relating to remoteness of damage was laid out by the Court of Appeal in Re Polemis[5].  Remoteness required some damage to be foreseen, albeit not the full extent of it. The case of The Wagon Mound No.1 replaced Re Polemis, and established the modern reasonable foreseeability test. It remains that the extent of the damage need not be foreseen. This idea is central to the case of Hughes v Lord Advocate[6], in which burns of some kind were foreseeable, albeit not the severe burns suffered by the boy.

Other elements must also be considered in a negligence case. For example the ‘egg-shell skull rule’ that defendants must take the plaintiff as they find them, and the idea of a ‘novus actus interveniens’ breaking the chain of causation and removing the defendant’s liability.

Rigidity of Remoteness

There are several personal injury cases in which it could be argued that the courts have applied the principles of remoteness of damage to rigidly, perhaps resulting in absurd and unfair results.

The aforementioned Wagon Mound No.1 could be interpreted as a rigid application of causation in law.

This is reflected in Tremain v Pike[7], where the damage suffered by the plaintiff[8] was too remote. It was held that the defendant’s negligence could foreseeably cause some damage due to rats, but not the specific type suffered by the plaintiff. This rigidity was also apparent in Crossley v Rawlinson[9]. Here, injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the course of attempting to get to and distinguish the fire were too remote.

The later case of Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd[10] confirms the courts’ strict use of remoteness in The Wagon Mound. In the more recent case the defendants were not liable in negligence as the damage caused was an explosion, and was not foreseeable at the time of the breach of duty. Kidner’s Casebook on Torts[11] described this reasoning as “the risk that materialised was different to any that could be foreseen”. It could be argued that a modern court would decide this case differently due to the lack of scientific knowledge about chemical reactions in 1964. It has been suggested by Lord Nicholls[12] that a wider and more liberal approach to the remoteness would be taken by a court if the case was tried today.

The decision of the courts in Doughty can be compared to that in Hughes. The courts held that severe burns caused by an explosion were not too remote. The requirement was for the foreseeability of burns, regardless of their extent. This case is an example of the flexibility of the law on remoteness of damage, as in the case of Page v Smith[13]. The foreseeability of personal was sufficient to hold the defendant liable for the psychiatric illness suffered by the plaintiff. This is consistent with Jolley v Sutton LBC[14]. Here the courts were of the opinion that since some injury was foreseeable[15], the defendants were liable for the full extent of the plaintiff’s injury (even if the seriousness of the injury was not foreseeable). This is a wider view of causation in law, perhaps due to the courts’ sympathy for the young plaintiff who was seriously injured. Alternately, the unfairness of a situation in which an injured plaintiff might not recover damages for his/her serious injury may have influenced the courts’ less strict application of the remoteness principle.

Two other cases which indicate a more flexible approach taken by the courts in relation to this area of negligence are Vacwell Engineering Co. Ltd v B.D.H. Chemicals Ltd[16] and Robinson v Post Office[17]. In both cases the courts held that the full extent of the plaintiff’s injuries need not be foreseeable. Instead, injury of a lesser extent may be foreseeable, causing the defendants’ liability to extend to the full extent of the injuries caused by their breach of duty. This follows the principle established in Re Polemis.

[1] [1932] A.C. 562

[2] W. H. V Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz Tort (17th ed., Sweet and Maxwell Limited, Suffolk 2006)

[3] [1969] 1 Q.B. 428

[4] Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co. [1961] A.C. 388

[5] Polemis & Furnace Withy & Co. Ltd, Re [1921] 3 K.B. 560

[6] [1963] A.C. 837

[7] [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1556

[8] a rare disease contracted through contact with rat urine

[9] [1982] 1 W.L.R. 369

[10] [1964] 1 Q.B. 518

[11] R. Kidner, Casebook on Torts (9th ed., Oxford University Press, Hampshire 2006)

[12] Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands v Hartwell [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1273

[13] [1996] 1 AC 155

[14] [2000] 3 All ER 409

[15] as a result of children playing with the dilapidated boat

[16] [1971] 1 Q.B. 111

[17] [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1176

Annex: 1
Page: Claims are without cost

The undersigned this:
Name. . . . . Jobs. . . . ., Residing at. . . . . . Sub. . . . . District. . . . ., Hereinafter called the plaintiff to file a lawsuit against this:

Name. . . . . Jobs. . . . . residence. . . . . Sub. . . . . District. . . . . hereinafter called the defendant, on matters as follows:

I. That on the date. . . . . . The plaintiff had sold to the Defendant a gig along with his horse at IDR. 100.000, – (one hundred thousand rupiah);

II. That on the date. . . . . . Carts and horses are by the plaintiff has submitted to the Defendant with a complete and Defendant has paid to the Plaintiffs a portion of the price of the goods, ie as much as Rp. 50.000, – (fifty thousand dollars) with the agreement within one month of the less money will be repaid the amount of Rp. 50.000, – (fifty thousand rupiahs);

III. That the Plaintiff has repeatedly asked the defendant for his money be returned to him, but always refused;

IV. That period of one month has passed without any repayment of money over despite repeated billing done by Pengguat;

V. That the plaintiff is in poor condition and unable to pay the costs of this case, then ask that dierkenankan membeyar litigate without expense (without cost).

So with the above descriptions, Petitioners ask that the District Court at. . . . . decided:
1. Receive and granted the request of the Plaintiff.
2. Allow Plaintiff to file a case without paying a fee.
3. Punishing Defendants pay to the Plaintiff for payment of money shortages and horse carts, price is Rp. 50.000, – plus 10% per year starting date. . . . . until the money is paid.
4. Punish the defendant to pay costs of this case.

Petitioner mentioned above,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note:
Annex certificate Head Village can be, as follows:

CERTIFICATE

Us,. . . . . Head Village Village. . . . ., Assistant District (subdistrict). . . . . . District. . . . . . hereby solemnly explained that the person named. . . . . jobs. . . . . really is a resident of the village. . . . . . and is a poor man, and is unable to pay the legal fees the District Court.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . .
Head Village Village. . . . .

Know
Assistant Area / District Head. . . . . .

(Signature and stamp)