Related Research Articles
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
In criminal law, mens rea is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus before the defendant can be found guilty.
In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.
A mistake of fact may sometimes mean that, while a person has committed the physical element of an offence, because they were labouring under a mistake of fact, they never formed the mental element. This is unlike a mistake of law, which is not usually a defense; law enforcement may or may not take for granted that individuals know what the law is.
In criminal law, automatism is a rarely used criminal defence. It is one of the mental condition defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant. Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability (unconsciousness) or excuse. Automatism means that the defendant was not aware of his or her actions when making the particular movements that constituted the illegal act.
Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions.
Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea to comprise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.
In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness.
The legal principle of vicarious liability applies to hold one person liable for the actions of another when engaged in some form of joint or collective activity.
In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense. The liability is said to be strict because defendants could be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.
United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States which held the Chief Executive Officer of a company may be criminally liable for contaminating food in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Under United States law, an element of a crime is one of a set of facts that must all be proven to convict a defendant of a crime. Before a court finds a defendant guilty of a criminal offense, the prosecution must present evidence that, even when opposed by any evidence the defense may choose, is credible and sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of the particular crime charged. The component parts that make up any particular crime vary now depending on the crime.
Fault, as a legal term, refers to legal blameworthiness and responsibility in each area of law. It refers to both the actus reus and the mental state of the defendant. The basic principle is that a defendant should be able to contemplate the harm that his actions may cause, and therefore should aim to avoid such actions. Different forms of liability employ different notions of fault, in some there is no need to prove fault, but the absence of it.
Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It prescribes conduct perceived as threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and welfare of people inclusive of one's self. Most criminal law is established by statute, which is to say that the laws are enacted by a legislature. Criminal law includes the punishment and rehabilitation of people who violate such laws.
Rex v. Prince, L.R. 2 C.C.R. 154 (1875), was an English case that held the mens rea necessary for criminal liability should be required for the elements central to the wrongfulness of the act, and that strict liability should apply to the other elements of the statute, such as the believed age of an abductee being irrelevant.
R v Stephens (1866) is an English criminal law, public nuisance in land law and vicarious liability case decided by the Queen's Bench that applied a strict liability standard to the violation of the criminal statute prohibiting dumping of refuse into a river.
Fitzpatrick v. Kelly, L.R. 8 Q.B. 337 (1873), was an English case decided by the Queen's Bench that adopted a strict liability standard for violations of the Adulteration of Food Act. The defendant was prosecuted for selling adulterated butter, and the court did not require a showing of mens rea.
Betts v. Armstead, L.R. 20 Q.B.D. 771 (1888), was an English case decided by the Queen's Bench that adopted a strict liability standard and furthermore no requirement of knowledge or suspicion for violations of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875. The defendant contended that he did not know that his product did not abide by the standards of the statute, but the court held that there was no mens rea requirement for the violation.
United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld strict, vicarious liability for the president of a company convicted of a public welfare offense.
United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280 (1922), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Harrison Narcotics Act did not require a mens rea element and was thus a strict liability crime.
References
  | This article related to the history of England is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
 | This article related to English law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |