Imminent peril

Last updated

Imminent peril, or imminent danger, [1] is an American legal concept that defines the term as "certain danger, immediate, and impending; menacingly close at hand, and threatening." [2] In many states in the US, a mere necessity for quick action does not constitute an emergency within the doctrine of imminent peril, where the situation calling for the action is one which should reasonably have been anticipated and which the person whose action is called for should have been prepared to meet; [3] the doctrine of imminent peril does not excuse one who has brought about the peril by their own negligence. [4]

Contents

Legislation

In California, legislation authorizes a person to use deadly force to defend against death or serious injury if they believe they are in imminent peril. [5] Raymond L. Middleton, Warden v. Sally Marie McNeil is a California case that espouses this doctrine. [6] The 2012 Florida Statutes lay measurable conditions to determine if the "fear of imminent peril" is reasonable under the law. [7] Both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Law Commission (ILC) have recognized the profound motivations of one's lawful fear of imminent peril and have adopted measures to define consequences, of self-defense against such peril, as reasonable. [8]

Peril

Peril is synonymous with danger [9] but lacks the suddenness of the "imminent" qualifier. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates safety standards for workplaces in the United States. Its charter obligation is to identify dangerous conditions in the workplace with a potential for sudden peril, and to require employers to actively mitigate the risks. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is a regulatory agency of the United States Department of Labor that originally had federal visitorial powers to inspect and examine workplaces. The United States Congress established the agency under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which President Richard M. Nixon signed into law on December 29, 1970. OSHA's mission is to "assure safe and healthy working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance." The agency is also charged with enforcing a variety of whistleblower statutes and regulations. OSHA's workplace safety inspections have been shown to reduce injury rates and injury costs without adverse effects on employment, sales, credit ratings, or firm survival.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Occupational Safety and Health Act (United States)</span> United States labor law

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is a US labor law governing the federal law of occupational health and safety in the private sector and federal government in the United States. It was enacted by Congress in 1970 and was signed by President Richard Nixon on December 29, 1970. Its main goal is to ensure that employers provide employees with an environment free from recognized hazards, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. The Act created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

In United States labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason, and without warning, as long as the reason is not illegal. When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will", courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave their job without reason or warning. The practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power.

In insurance, the insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the policyholder, which determines the claims which the insurer is legally required to pay. In exchange for an initial payment, known as the premium, the insurer promises to pay for loss caused by perils covered under the policy language.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

In criminal procedure law of the United States, an exigent circumstance allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, allows them to enter without knocking and waiting for the owner's permission to enter. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect's escape is imminent. Once entry is obtained, the plain view doctrine applies, allowing the seizure of any evidence or contraband discovered in the course of actions consequent upon the exigent circumstances.

A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used. The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party who could face potential injury or death without being rescued. In common law systems, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions and awarded civil penalties, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue even where law does not punish failure to rescue.

In tort law, the standard of care is the only degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care.

A terroristic threat is a threat to commit a crime of violence or a threat to cause bodily injury to another person and terrorization as the result of the proscribed conduct. Several U.S. states have enacted statutes which impose criminal liability for "terroristic threatening" or "making a terroristic threat."

Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984), was a 1983 case before the US Supreme Court determining that a warrantless home arrest without exigent circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.

In the state of Maryland, the right of self-defense is mostly governed by case law, but there is also a statute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Implied consent</span> Legal concept in United States law

Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation. For example, if a person is unconscious as a result of injuries sustained during a traffic collision, medical treatment may be provided to that person, despite the unconscious person being unable to expressly grant consent for that treatment.

In the North American legal system and in US Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, willful violation or willful non-compliance is a violation of workplace rules and policies that occurs either deliberately or as a result of neglect.

Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations, such that a lawsuit may potentially be filed even after the statute of limitations has run. Although grounds for tolling the statute of limitations vary by jurisdiction, common grounds include:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Landlord–tenant law</span> Law that details rights and duties of landlords and tenants

Landlord–tenant law is the field of law that deals with the rights and duties of landlords and tenants.

The Penal Law of the State of New York combines justification and necessity into a single article, Article 35. "Defense of Justification" comprises sections 35.05 through 35.30 of the Penal Law. The general provision relating to necessity, section 35.05, provides:

§ 35.05 Justification; generally.

Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:

Canadian criminal law allows for a common law defence of necessity. Necessitas non habet legem; "Necessity knows no law." This well-known maxim reflects the theoretical basis of the defence of necessity: that in dire circumstances of looming peril, the claims of positive law seems to weaken. This controversial common law or judge-made defence has only been firmly recognized in Canadian law since 1984. It is recognized in Canada as a defence for crimes committed in urgent situations of clear and imminent peril in which the accused has no safe avenue of escape or legal way out of the situation.

References

  1. Imminent-Peril Doctrine Law & Legal Definition USLegal.com
  2. Lehman, Jeffrey; Phelps, Shirelle (2005). West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 1 (2 ed.). Detroit: Thomson/Gale. p. 105. ISBN   9780787663742.
  3. Kuist v. Curran, 116 Cal. App. 2d 404
  4. Warren v. Sullivan, 188 Cal. App. 2d 150
  5. Cambridge Dictionary Online
  6. No. 03-1028. Decided May 3, 2004 FindLaw.com
  7. The 2012 Florida Statutes Sunshine Online
  8. "New Approaches to the State of Necessity in Customary International Law: Insights From WTO Law and Foreign Investment Law" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-01-08. Retrieved 2012-11-16.
  9. Danger Law & Legal Definition USLeagal.com
  10. Call (800) 321-OSHA immediately to report imminent dangers, United States Department of Labor, retrieved 11/17/2012