Stick to what you know, what you chose as your career: murder.
The thing speaks for itself.
Stick to your career in that case: selling insurance.
I'm not asking for a translation but for the significance of that term in law.
That you don't know.
That things need not be proven beyond what is already given. It is applied to tort law when assessing negligence in order to determine the liability of an individual so that damages can (possibly) be recovered.
This was not my meaning, as should have been understood by my former post.
Stick to what you know, what you chose as your career: murder.
The thing speaks for itself.
Stick to your career in that case: selling insurance.
I'm not asking for a translation but for the significance of that term in law.
That you don't know.
That things need not be proven beyond what is already given. It is applied to tort law when assessing negligence in order to determine the liability of an individual so that damages can (possibly) be recovered.
This was not my meaning, as should have been understood by my former post.
You forget, I am a magistrate.
If so, you are "magistrate" abjectly ignorant of legal doctrines -- as I expected.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has a specific application in tort law, and it is not what you have described.
Stick to what you know, what you chose as your career: murder.
The thing speaks for itself.
Stick to your career in that case: selling insurance.
I'm not asking for a translation but for the significance of that term in law.
That you don't know.
That things need not be proven beyond what is already given. It is applied to tort law when assessing negligence in order to determine the liability of an individual so that damages can (possibly) be recovered.
This was not my meaning, as should have been understood by my former post.
You forget, I am a magistrate.
If so, you are "magistrate" abjectly ignorant of legal doctrines -- as I expected.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has a specific application in tort law, and it is not what you have described.
You have proven that Wikipedia doesn't teach law.
Magistrates do not have to fully qualified in law, they have to sit and judge people on a panel of three.
I have not looked on Wikipedia FYI.
However, upon checking, with a reliable source, it nevertheless confirms what I have said.
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in a situation where physical damages could only have occurred due to someone's negligence and one person has exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the damages, there is a presumption of negligence attributable to that person.
For example, if an underwater electrical cable is dislodged causing a blackout at the moment a ship is right above the cable, the ship is presumptively negligent without the necessity of showing that the ship was dragging its anchor.
The presumption may be rebutted by showing that a different instrumentality controlled by a different person caused the physical damage.
That is how the doctrine is applied in tort law.
That you consider The Guardian a "reliable source" about the law speaks volumes.
Last edited by myron myron on Fri May 16, 2008 7:24 pm; edited 3 times in total
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in a situation where physical damages could only have occurred due to someone's negligence and one person has exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the damages, there is a presumption of negligence attributable to that person.
For example, if an underwater electrical cable is dislodged causing a blackout at the moment a ship is right above the cable, the ship is presumptively negligent without the necessity of showing that the ship was dragging its anchor.
The presumption may be rebutted by showing that a different instrumentality controlled by a different person caused the physical damage.
That is how the doctrine is applied in tort law.
That you consider The Guardian a "reliable source" about the law speaks volumes.
Nevertheless, what I have said not incorrect.
In any case, I was not referring to the legal term.
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in a situation where physical damages could only have occurred due to someone's negligence and one person has exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the damages, there is a presumption of negligence attributable to that person.
For example, if an underwater electrical cable is dislodged causing a blackout at the moment a ship is right above the cable, the ship is presumptively negligent without the necessity of showing that the ship was dragging its anchor.
The presumption may be rebutted by showing that a different instrumentality controlled by a different person caused the physical damage.
That is how the doctrine is applied in tort law.
That you consider The Guardian a "reliable source" about the law speaks volumes.
Nevertheless, what I have said not incorrect.
In any case, I was not referring to the legal term.
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in a situation where physical damages could only have occurred due to someone's negligence and one person has exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the damages, there is a presumption of negligence attributable to that person.
The presumption may be rebutted by showing that a different instrumentality controlled by a different person caused the physical damage.
That is how the doctrine is applied in tort law.
That you consider The Guardian a "reliable source" about the law speaks volumes.
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in a situation where physical damages could only have occurred due to someone's negligence and one person has exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the damages, there is a presumption of negligence attributable to that person.
For example, if an underwater electrical cable is dislodged causing a blackout at the moment a ship is right above the cable, the ship is presumptively negligent without the necessity of showing that the ship was dragging its anchor.
The presumption may be rebutted by showing that a different instrumentality controlled by a different person caused the physical damage.
That is how the doctrine is applied in tort law.
That you consider The Guardian a "reliable source" about the law speaks volumes.
Nevertheless, what I have said not incorrect.
In any case, I was not referring to the legal term.
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 1:29 pm Post subject: god allah ,
god is everything ,,think who braught life to u ,, how buld the universe who made the sky ?
and where we will go after we die ,
look how manythings are wonderful god made for us, we shuld thank god for everything,
islam or christianity ,, is the key
Life made all those things.. the universe, the sky, my eyes... then Man came along and made god, as a scam, to suck money out of the poor and the insane, to create hell on earth, and to send us all into an early extinction...
God is a scam to get your money, that's all it is...
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: Re: god allah ,
islam wrote:
god is everything ,,think who braught life to u ,, how buld the universe who made the sky ?
and where we will go after we die ,
look how manythings are wonderful god made for us, we shuld thank god for everything,
islam or christianity ,, is the key
However, they have exploited the God force, by creating a concept and image of God with a beard and a pointy finger who sits on a throne in the sky to make money from the gullible who can't handle the truth.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
