U.S History Is A Bitter Sweet Tale Of Many Triumphs And

U.S history is a bitter sweet tale of many triumphs and failures. A country built on the promise of an individual s alienable rights, but practiced taking away those rights from most of its people . Slavery, though in the past it will never be forgotten, was one of the darkest times in U.S history and still is a reminder of what humans can do to each other. After decades of abuse of the African Americans people the passing of the Emancipation Proclamation made slavery illegal and set those imprisoned free. Many had to fight hard to achieve freedom and today we celebrate their accomplishments. In the book Harriet Tubman: The Road to Freedom, author Catherine Clinton provides a detailed look into the life of Harriet Tubman. Tubman life†¦show more content†¦Not only does Clinton us Tubman s suffering of physical abuse during her time in slavery , but also describes Tubman s mental abuse as support for her fight against slavery. One of the hardships slaves face is how easy it wa s for a family to get separated. This was do to the buying and selling of slaves that could separate mothers and fathers from their children. Unfortunately, Harriet Tubman lost three of two of her sister when they were sold by the slave owners. Clinton states Slave parents lived in abject terror of separation from their children. This fear, perhaps more than any other aspect of the institution, revealed the deeply dehumanizing horror of slavery. (Clinton 10). One can not imagine the paranoia and pain of the buying and selling of human lives especially when it comes to those that you love most. The horror of having your children taken away from you came a reality for Tubman s mother and left a scare on Tubman for the rest of her life. She would later use her abuse to make her stronger as a person able to fight slavery and ensure this would go on no longer. In the book Harriet Tubman: The Road to Freedom Tubman s abuse is used as support by Clinton of why she would risk her own life to help other. It was 1839 Harriet Tubman finally escaped from the plantation and was free from its cruelties. Her husband at the time criticized her decision and did not join her in escaping. This may have been justified for the backlash for running away wasShow MoreRelatedPeculiarities of Euphemisms in English and Difficulties in Their Translation19488 Words   |  78 Pagesfrequent of all reasons. Death above all, but also madness (or idiocy), disease, ruin. To pass away, be no more, leave this world, go to a better world, go west, pass over, expire, breathe ones last, fall asleep in the Lord, join the great majority, and many other phrases, instead of the simple and infinitely dignified to die; and this tendency has spread to undertakers and their functions: mortician, funeral director, obsequies, and other atrocities (Zegarac V.,2000,p.201). The need to diminish,Read MoreHuman Resources Management150900 Words   |  604 Pages(HR) management The design of formal systems in an organization to ensure the effective and efficient use of human talent to accomplish the organizational goals. As human resources have become viewed as more critical to organizational success, many organizations have realized that it is the people in an organization that can provide a competitive advantage.2 Throughout the book it will be emphasized that the people as human resources contribute to and affect the competitive success of the organizationRead MoreStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 Pageslikewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, or you may fax your request to 201-236-3290. Many of the designations by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trademark claim, the designations have been printed in initial

Congress Is The Most Powerful Group Of Politicians Within...

The United States congress is the most powerful group of politicians within the Governmental system under the United States Constitution. Congress is the glue that holds the United States together upholding its roles and responsibilities detailed in the Constitution on a daily basis. Which so much power Congress members are held in high regard for what they do, Congress’ main responsibly stems from making laws to declaring war. With all this power and responsibility you would assume that there would be no room for congress to make mistakes or even be dysfunctional. Due to high egos and self-centered politicians, congress has become very dysfunctional,and heavy-handed over the years. As well as the shortcuts Congress members have maneuvered†¦show more content†¦Another major issues is party dominance in each house and its relation to the President. Congress members are elected individually and not by party. For example, If many Democratic’s win seats in the Sena te, then the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and Vice Versa for the Republicans. However, the issue is deeper than just one House being controlled by one specific party. Imagine a Democratic Controlled Senate and a Republican controlled House of Representatives all under a Democratic President. This is precisely the issue that President Barack Obama has been faced with over the past 8 years, but he had to deal with both chambers being Republican Controlled. This made his job a whole lot harder, he was constantly faced with having to fight Congress to pass bills and laws under which he oversaw legislature. To this day Congress continues to beat him down and is determined have him as merely a statistic by not passing his ObamaCare Act. Congress can also be seen as dysfunctional due to the constitution. When the constitution was drafted it was to govern the country for that period of time, to this day some of the same rules of the constitution are being enforced many consists of the procedures in which congress functions. These procedures sometimes make it difficult to pass laws through the House and Senate as they cause a blockage in a modern system. But in order to modify it, majority of the members have to be in agreement of the amendment. Many

Principles Of Commercial Law Keith and Ruth †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Principles Of Commercial Law Keith and Ruth. Answer: Introduction Whenever there is an accident or injury, many people often associate it with negligence. It is true that Negligence from an individual or company can result in harm to an individual and the individual can hold the person or company legally responsible for the injuries. In a general tone, when a person acts carelessly and his or her actions bring about injuries to another person then the careless individual will be held legally liable for any of the resulting harm under the negligence legal principle (Hedley, 2016). The negligence legal principle is used in most disputes that involve an injury or accident, in informal settlement talks, and also in the personal injury lawsuits. But to win the negligence case, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant acted negligently in that he or she owed the plaintiff a legal duty under the circumstances. Also, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that the respondent breached the legal duty by acting carelessly and that the actions or inaction cause d the injury. Additionally, he or she has to prove that the injury was a result of the decisions of the defendant. Moreover, because accidents do happen and they take place every day resulting in injuries and damage to properties, one might wonder whose fault it was that led to the crash. The concept of contributory negligence addresses this issue and helps to allocate blame to the concerned party since a party may add to an act of negligence contributing to personal injuries. Contributory negligence is a term used to characterize behavior that may create an unreasonable risk to individual self. The general notion is that a person should act and behave as a reasonable and responsible person failure to which in the case of injury occurs, then the person is partially or entirely responsible for any resulting harm. Hence contributory negligence is more of a partial defence where both parties can apportion the loss. Therefore, this paper aims at examining negligence, personal liability, and contributory negligence as they apply to the case of Keith and Ruth. Negligence and Personal Liability of Keith The negligence law gives out the risk of personal liability for damages by holding individuals responsible for negligently causing harms. But first, before claiming the damages, it is vital for the plaintiff, in this case, Ruth to establish liability and prove Keiths Negligence. According to Raz (2010), liability brought about by harmful negligence is based on the defendants responsibility for the violation of a particular duty. It can be a duty not to cause harm and hence can be excused if they acted with due care. It can be a duty of care where one is liable to the damages when the violation caused harm. And lastly, it can be both a duty not to bring harm through negligence and a duty of care. In this case, Keith had a duty of care to act as expected of his work and replace the rotting timber tread with hardwood but he instead uses a piece of left over untreated chipboard which eventually swelled and collapsed. It is evident that he owed Ruth a duty of care but failed to fulfil it hence the harm sustained by Ruth are as a result of Keith not taking action that he would have otherwise made. In the common law, to establish liability, a plaintiff has to prove that the defendant owed him or her a duty of care. In The Tort Law, an individual who breaches the duty of care through recklessness and negligence is personally liable for the harm the other person suffers as a result of the failure to be reasonably careful (Misenti, 2016). Furthermore, it is the responsibility of a person doing business to be reasonably careful when dealing with others. Besides, in most tort situations, an individual is expected to act as any reasonable person would act. But in real life, there is nothing like a reasonable person, but merely the tortlaw creation used to measure a real persons actions to those of a reasonable persons. According to the tort law, the imaginary rational individual is always attentive and acts diligently while considering that a particular action will bring harm to a person and instead chooses a safer course of action. However, sometimes there may be no better course of action than the one applied. When the standards of a reasonable person are used, the actions of the defendant are compared to what would have been the actions of a rational person in the same situation. Hence the defendant may be found personally liable if his or her actions do not live up to those of the hypothetical reasonable person. Keith should also have acted as a reasonable person by being always attentive and working diligently. When comparing his actions with those of a reasonable person, Keith failed to uphold the duty of care expected of him. He neglected to follow the reasonable standards that apply when giving services to another and thus also failed to live up to the actions of a reasonable person. Hence, the courts may find Keith negligent and liable for the injuries caused by his negligence. Contributory Negligence of Ruth However, negligence may not be solely on the part of Keith but also on Ruths part. The Law Reform Act 1945 (Contributory Negligence Act) states that when a person suffers some damages or experiences harm partly because of his or her own doing, then a claim will be made as a partial defence by reason of the negligence on the part of the individual suffering damages (Devenney and Johnson, 2013). Contributory negligence is expected to operate as a partial defense whereby the loss is divided between the two parties (Goudkamp, 2015). It was found in Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239 that contributory negligence is something that will often succeed most especially when the other defenses fail. Furthermore, in Pitts v Hunt, the courts used the contributory negligence Act to find the claimant 100 percent guilty of contributory negligence (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2017). Moreover, the court finding was considered to be illogical and inconsistent due to the wording of the Act that necessitates th e damage to be shared by both the plaintiff and the claimant (Goudkamp Klar, 2016). Hence for one to be accused of contributory negligence, it is the duty of the defendant to provide proof that the plaintiff failed to take proper measures to ensure their safety, and that the lack of good care contributed to the damage suffered. It was found in Capps v Miller [1989] 1 WLR 839 that failing to take proper care of ones safety is considered to be contributory negligence such as failure to wear a crash helmet when riding a motorcycle. In Jones v Livox Quarries, exposing oneself to danger is also contributory negligence (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2017). Hence, it requires that an individual becomes able to foresee harm to himself since if he reasonably might have expected it, and failed to act as a prudent and reasonable person then he is considered negligent and must be held liable for part of the damages experienced (van Dongen Verdam, 2016). If Keith could manage to prove that the injuries suffered by Ruth were due partly to her fault, then she may be forced to cater for part of the compensation. Section 1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 requires that whenever a claimant suffered loss or injury partly due to his or her act of negligence, then there should be an apportionment of the loss incurred (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2017). The court will examine the claimants responsibility for the damages and reduce the claim in a just and equitable manner (Goudkamp, 2015). The harm on Ruths part was foreseeable especially since the replaced tread began to swell weeks later. It was unavoidable for her to miss seeing the swelling because she walks down the stairs every morning to feed her caged birds. Furthermore, after she noticed the swelling tread, she should have taken measures to have it repaired again and avoided that path until she was sure it was safe. Moreover, she ignored the swollen tread and continued t o use the stairs, and whats more, she used it without proper measures of care to ensure her safety contributing to the damage and injury suffered. Legal Remedies available to Ruth Therefore, the advice to Ruth regarding her negligence case against Keith would entail the negligence and personal liability that is evident on the side of Keith putting the tort law into consideration as well as the event of contributory negligence that the Keith might use against her to reduce the number of damages. But first, for Ruth to have a negligence case, she would have to prove that Keith was the one responsible for her accident since he had a duty of care and acted negligently. This would not be hard due to the materials Keith used while he was supposed to use other quality products to do the repair. I would advise Ruth to use the seriousness of her injury, the damages to her house, as well as the damages to her job to set a strong case against Keith. Alternatively, I would assert that she would also have to be held partially liable for the contributory negligence act since she failed to take proper measures to ensure her safety. She should have avoided using those stairs or guaranteed to check it well before using it. But since there was an actual injury, Ruth may need not to worry since the defendant will have to pay some of the damages provided she would be able to prove that the injuries suffered are closely connected. Additionally, it would be vital to let her know that aside from the contributory negligence, Keith may also attempt to use the defense of consent to the injury to defeat her claim for damages. But my utmost advice to her would be to let her know that she will also be held partly liable for the injuries due to contributory negligence and that if Keith succeeds to prove that she was indeed responsible for the contributory negligence, then she would receive a partial compensation for the damages (Goudkamp Nolan, 2016). Hence, in conclusion, conducting actions negligently and causing harm may result in negligence and personal liability forcing one to pay for damages. But in most cases, both parties are usually at fault for being negligent in one way or another resulting in harm or loss. A plaintiff may be accused of contributory negligence due to part of their actions that are not viewed as the decisions of a reasonable person. Hence, to avoid the cases of neglect, it is vital to act reasonably while considering the best possible actions before carrying out activities. References Devenney, J. and Johnson, H, 2013, Contract, Tort and Restitution Statutes 2011-2012, 1st ed. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. E-lawresources.co.uk. (2017). Contributory negligence. [online] Available at: https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Contributory-negligence.php [Accessed 30 May 2017]. Goudkamp, J, Klar, L 2016, 'APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES FOR CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: THE CAUSAL POTENCY CRITERION',Alberta Law Review, 53, 4, pp. 849-862 Goudkamp, J, Nolan, D 2016, 'Contributory Negligence in the Twenty-First Century: An Empirical Study of First Instance Decisions',Modern Law Review, 79, 4, pp. 575-622. Goudkamp, J 2015, 'Apportionment of damages for contributory negligence: a fixed or discretionary approach?',Legal Studies, 35, 4, pp. 621-647. Goudkamp, J 2015, 'Apportionment of Damages for Contributory Negligence: Appellate Review, Relative Blameworthiness and Causal Potency',Edinburgh Law Review, 19, 3, pp. 367-373. Hedley, S 2016, 'Making sense of negligence',Legal Studies, 36, 3, pp. 491-512. Misenti, NC 2016, 'PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR COMMISSION OF A TORT: A SIGNIFICANT, AND OFTEN OVERLOOKED, EXCEPTION TO LIMITED LIABILITY IN THE LLC AND CORPORATION',Southern Journal Of Business Ethics, 8, pp. 11-37. Raz, J, 2010, Responsibility and the Negligence Standard, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30, 1, pp.1-18. van Dongen, E, Verdam, H 2016, 'The Development of the Concept of Contributory Negligence in English Common Law',Utrecht Law Review, 12, 1, pp. 61-74.