Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:28 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The way it will be
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30019
Quote:
Third parties:

Under tort principles, a victim who accidentally injures a third-party in the course of defending himself is also protected from suit by that third party. A majority of jurisdictions also allow the defense of victims only if the victims themselves have a right to self-defense.

Thus, if the rescuer makes a mistake regarding the victim’s right to self-defense, he too will be liable. However, there is a strong modern trend toward protecting rescuers from suit if their wrongful assistance of a victim is based on a reasonable mistake (Pennsylvania tort law allows for a reasonable mistake). The rescuer may use as much force as the victim could have used in self-defense.


To remember is that whether or not you will be exonerated, you Will still need to retain an attorney to defend you, and that attorney will charge you $$$...

Now you need to answer who will pay for such defense?

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The way it will be
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30019
Quote:
Defense of property:

In the defense of property, a request to desist prior to the use of force is required, unless it would be futile or dangerous. There is almost never a right to self defense when the ‘intruder’ in fact has a right to be on the property. Thus, it is unwise to attack a supposed intruder without ascertaining his identity first! A significant exception occurs when the ‘intruder’ contributes to the ambiguity regarding his identity or purpose.

As at criminal law, there is a right to use force in the recovery of stolen property, as long as the victim is in ‘hot pursuit’ of the taker.

Also as under the criminal standard, deadly force may never be used simply to defend property.

Finally, the right to trespass for necessity supersedes the right to self-defense. Thus, a home-owner is not privileged to use force to turn away those who need refuge from an emergency.
~Atty Hobart

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The way it will be
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30019
Quote:
Prevention of crime:

Since the right to use force is limited to the prevention of the commission of a tort in civil actions, one who subdues an attacker and then continues to use force to hold him until the police arrive, must be aware that he has moved over from a tort privilege, to the privilege of arrest under criminal law.

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The way it will be
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30019
And now...martial arts:

Quote:
Martial arts teachers’ liability:

Under the Theory of Agency, the principal is liable for unlawful acts which he causes to be done through an agent.

There are three possible ways in which a martial arts instructor might be held liable as the principal for the unlawful acts of his students, as agents.

First, if the instructor appears to ratify or approve of unlawful conduct, he may be held liable for the commission of such acts. Thus, a dojo which encourages the use of excessive force, or lethal force in inappropriate situations may be seen to ratify and approve of unlawful conduct.

Similarly, an instructor who continues to teach a student who has abused his knowledge may be held responsible, if not liable, for subsequent torts.

Second, an instructor may be held liable for having entrusted a student with ‘an extremely dangerous instrumentality’. "[W]hen an instrumentality passes from the control of a person, his responsibility for injuries inflicted by it ceases. However, when an injury is caused by an exceptionally dangerous instrumentality, or one which may be dangerous if improperly used, a former owner or possessor may ... be charged with responsibility for [its] use...." The implications for instructors who teach potentially lethal techniques is clear.

Finally, an instructor may be liable for harm to the student or other parties as a result of negligent instruction. Anyone who holds himself out as an expert capable of giving instruction is expected to conform to the standards of his professional community. Thus, any instructor who, by his own negligence, fails to provide, teach and require adequate safe-guards and supervision, may be liable for any resulting injury.


Think about this a lot.

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The way it will be
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30019
Quote:
Among the most important and at the same time most misunderstood elements of any liability insurance policy is the concept of negligent acts as opposed to intentional acts of the insured and under what circumstances the policy will respond.

That an insurer would seek to limit coverage to only those circumstances involving negligence should come as no surprise. Were it not for this requirement an insured could commit an act with the intent of causing harm, confident that the insurance policy would respond for defense costs and monetary damages.

Since the premise of any insurance policy is that the loss be fortuitous, unintended and unexpected from the point of view of the insured ... many readers often question the concept of coverage for an affirmative wrongful act.

The important distinction is “intentional act” versus “intentional harm”.


Policies universally exclude claims where the harm was intentional.

However, the insurance industry recognizes the important distinction between an intentional act that results in unintended harm and unmitigated intent to cause harm.

Accordingly certain types of liability insurance respond only in the event that negligence is asserted in the complaint for damages while others respond to claims involving either (or both) negligent and intentional acts of the insured.

It should be clear that the broader scope of coverage is found under those polices that respond to both negligent and intentional acts.

Regardless of policy form type, it should be just as clear that the carrier would deny coverage where there is evidence that an insured committed an act with the intent to cause harm.


So if you use a martial arts technique in self defense, will you be seen legally as using it with intent to cause harm?

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The way it will be
PostPosted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30019
Quote:
There is some overlap with criminal law, an assault can be both a crime and a tort. In a negligence case the defendant has not conformed to a level of reasonable care, but in an intentional tort the defendant wanted to harm the plaintiff or knew there was risk in their actions that would cause harm to the plaintiff.

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group