As increasingly sophisticated personal-use technologies like drones and home surveillance systems become more common, so too will interpersonal privacy conflicts. Given the nature of these new personal-use technologies, privacy conflicts will increasingly occur in public spaces. Tort law is one area of the Canadian legal system that can address interpersonal conflict and rights-infringements between people with no other legal relationship. However, building on a historical association between privacy and private property, the common and statutory law privacy torts in Canada fail to respond to such conflicts, I argue inappropriately. Privacy is an important dimension of public space, and the social interactions and relationships that arise in public spaces. Failing to recognize public space privacy in tort law leads to an overly narrow understanding of privacy, and can be considered contrary to binding precedent that says that the common law should evolve in line with (or at a minimum, not contrary to) Charter values. The Charter values of privacy, substantive equality, and expressive freedom support various reforms to the judicial understanding of the privacy torts in Canada. Privacy, also understood as "private affairs" or "private facts" in tort, should not be predicated on property, and can sometimes take on greater value in public spaces. Privacy interests should be assessed through a normative lens, with a view to the long-term implications of a precedent for both privacy and substantive equality. Courts should assess privacy through a subjective-objective lens that allows for consideration of the lived experiences and expertise of the parties, their relative power, and their relationships. Adopting these principles into the statutory and common law torts would permit tort law to serve as a legal mechanism for addressing interpersonal, technology-mediated privacy conflicts arising in public spaces. This will be a socially valuable development as such conflicts become increasingly common and potentially litigated.

Legislative policies play a pivotal role in shaping the socio-political landscape of a nation, addressing critical issues, and reflecting the values and priorities of its citizens. This case study examines the implementation of Florida's House Bill 837 (HB837), a significant piece of legislation that has generated substantial interest and debate. The study aims to shed light on the practical implications of this policy within the context of its introduction, passage, and subsequent results. The research of this case study explores the historical and political backdrop against which HB837 was enacted. It examines the motivations behind the bill, the debates that unfolded during its legislative journey, and the key stakeholders involved in its development. Additionally, the study assesses the impact of HB837 on various sectors and considers the extent to which it aligns with its intended goals. Ultimately, this case study provides a comprehensive overview of HB837 while investigating the Florida political landscape that led to this bill being signed into law.

The Alien Tort Statute is a short, thirty-two word section of the United States Code enacted in 1789 as part of the Judiciary Act. The Alien Tort Statute, or ATS, has an uncertain and controversial beginning and remains controversial in current jurisprudence. The ATS reads as follows: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." It is my intent for this thesis to be an academic discussion of the mysterious history, intent, and court cases that have evolved the ATS; and the way in which the evolution took place. Having lain dormant for almost two decades, it is important to understand how the ATS was finally utilized and how this affected the statutes ability to become a tool for human rights persecution abroad; until the decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. Examining the language of two opinions by the District Court of the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court in Kiobel we will be able to understand, but reject, the arguments of both these courts.

Note:

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Darbe atliekamas Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio kodekso (CK) ir Europoje vyraujančių deliktų teisės vienodinimo tendencijų – Europos deliktų teisės principų (PETL) ir Bendros principų sistemos projekto (DCFR) civilinės deliktinės atsakomybės sąlygų palyginimas, siekiant skirti ir įvertinti jų atitiktį dabartiniame Europos deliktų teisės harmonizavimo ir unifikavimo etape. Atliekant tyrimą apibendrinamos pagrindinės Vakarų Europos deliktų teisės tradicijos, pateikiama bendra PETL, DCFR ir Lietuvos deliktų teisės sistemos charakteristika. Daromos išvados, kad PETL ir DCFR grindžiamos generalinio delikto principu. Juose skiriamos ir detaliai konkretizuojamos visos, būdingos ir Lietuvos deliktų teisės sistemai, sąlygos, kurioms esant gali būti taikoma civilinė deliktinė atsakomybė – žala, kaltė ir priežastinis ryšys. Konstatuojamas esminis CK skirtumas nuo PETL ir DCFR nuostatų, apibrėžiant trečiųjų asmenų, turinčių teisę į neturtinės žalos atlyginimą, ratą. CK trečiųjų asmenų teisė į neturtinės žalos atlyginimą įtvirtinta tik nukentėjusiojo gyvybės atėmimo atveju. PETL ir DCFR tokią trečiųjų asmenų teisę numato ir nukentėjusiojo sveikatos sužalojimo atvejais. Kaltė pagal PETL ir DCFR nuostatas gali turėti ir tyčios formą. Pabrėžiama, jog tokia nuostata prieštarauja CK. Vertinant priežastinio ryšio sąlygą daroma išvada, jog CK įtvirtinta jos samprata neprieštarauja PETL ir DCFR nuostatoms. / Work carried out the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania (CC) and Europe prevailing trends in the convergence of tort law – the Principles of European Tort Law (PETL) and the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) civil tort liability in terms of comparison in order to allocate and assess their compliance with current European tort law harmonization and unification stage. The study summarizes the main Western European tradition of tort law, the general PETL, DCFR and Lithuanian tort law system performance. Conclude that PETL and DCFR based on the general tort principle. They are awarded and all the details down specific characteristic of the Lithuanian tort law system and the conditions, under which may be subject the civil tort liability – damage, fault and causation. Finding the essential difference between CC and the PETL, DCFR provisions under definition the circle of third parties, who are entitle to non-pecuniary damages. The right of the third parties by CC consolidated only the victim’s death. PETL and DCFR provide the third party under victim’s death and personal injury cases. Fault by PETL and DCFR provisions could have the form of intentional. Emphasized that such a provision is contrary to CC. Assessing the condition of causality, it is concluded, that the CC provides its conception in compliance with the PETL and DCFR provisions.

Den tekniska utvecklingen, närmare bestämt introduktionen av fenomenet självkörande fordon, har medfört att det i skrivande stund föreligger viss oklarhet beträffande ansvarsfrågan enligt gällande rätt. Denna oklarhet har varit föremål för diskussion i ett delbetänkande från regeringen. I SOU 2016:28 finns sammanfattade förslag på reglering, däremot endast avseende försöksverksamheten ”Drive Me” som biltillverkaren Volvo ligger bakom. För att bemöta denna oklarhet har rättsläget diskuterats och problematiserats i hopp om ökad insikt i frågan. Detta utifrån framförallt skadeståndslagen, trafikskadelagen och produktansvarslagen samt generella skadeståndsrättsliga principer och ansvarsformer. Sammantaget har det kunnat konstateras att det inte finns någon självklar lösning på problemet, även om det i ett flertal situationer går att få en uppfattning av vad som vore juridiskt rimligt. Uppsatsen bidrar således till en problematisering av rättsläget inför den kommande harmoniseringen av teknik och juridik; ett steg i utvecklingen. / The technological development, specifically the introduction of the phenomenon of driverless vehicles, has meant that the time of writing, some ambiguity regarding the issue of liability under the law exists. This uncertainty has been discussed in an interim report from the government. Proposals on regulation are summarized in current SOU, however, only for the pilot project “Drive Me” as the automaker Volvo is behind. In order to address this uncertainty, the legal position has discussed and problematized in the hope of increasing awareness on the issue. Mainly from tort liability, Traffic damage Act, product liability law and liability forms and general principles of tort law. Overall, it´s been established that there is no obvious solution to the problem, although it´s possible to get an idea of what would be legally reasonable in a number of situations. The essay contributes thus to a discussion of problems of the legal position for the upcoming harmonization of technology and law; a stage of development.

This dissertation examines the impact of the 1992 Georgia Tort Claims Act on educators in court decisions involving liability cases against Georgia school districts and/ or their respective employees. By examining pertinent court cases in which Georgia educators were, for the first time, subjected to potential litigation, the researcher outlines circumstances in which educators can and should be held liable for their actions. Additionally, the researcher analyzes the Tort Claims Acts of Texas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi as well. This analysis allows the researcher to contrast the types of litigious actions that educators in each of these states are held liable. Findings include the types of actions in which educators in each of the respective states are subject to liability. Case study analysis of randomly selected court cases involving tort liability, provides the infrastructure for in-depth research allowing the following questions to be addressed: (1) How have Georgia courts interpreted the Georgia Tort Claims Act in litigation against school personnel and school districts? (2) How do tort liability rulings, involving school personnel or districts, in other states within the United States compare with similar cases filed in Georgia since 1992? The Georgia Tort Claim Act of 1992 propelled an array of circumstances in which educational entities would be held liable for their actions. This research clearly explains the types of actions in which educators in the state of Georgia are subject to suit and to what degree they are subsequently held liable. Case study research also uncovered specific areas in which Georgia educators can be held liable. Specific research involving actions deemed either ministerial or discretionary are detailed specifically through case analysis. Additionally, the degree to which liability insurance provides protection for educational entities or their respective employees is also addressed in this research in order that state-by-state comparisons can be understood.