I am somewhat confused by the assertion that a tort must be rooted in common law as opposed to statute. This is the first time that I have read such a claim. PhatJew 10:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Video Talk:Wrongful death claim
Automatic win by Plaintiff
I am somwhat confused by the folowing:
"Unlike most criminal law cases, private parties bring the suit. In principle, the defendant can refuse to testify on the grounds of self-incrimination but if a defendant invokes this right, the defendant has presented no case and the plaintiff automatically wins the case."
Can someone please provide a citation for this, and preferrably an explanation. Surely a Defendant can refuse to testify, by invoking their right not to self-incriminate depending upon the jurisdiction in question, but still present a defense. Their defense could involve calling their own witnesses; presenting arguments to the trier of fact; and cross-examing the witnesses of the plaintiff, whom with the burden of proof would usually lie. -Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 15:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Maps Talk:Wrongful death claim
Murder and wrongful death claims
This article needs to clarify whether intentional murder can be the subject of a wrongful death claim.
This link [1] states: "Wrongful death" is a type of lawsuit which alleges that the victim died or was killed as a result of negligence, malpractice or other acts committed by another party (called the defendant), except for intent to commit murder.
The bolded text above would seem to exclude murder but since O.J. Simpson was sued using a wrongful death claim for allegedly murdering two people how is that possible? --Cab88 14:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Corpse Justice
The article says that 'under common law, a dead person cannot bring a lawsuit...'.
Surely under any law the dead person is at a very considerable disadvantage, so perhaps that needs to be rephrased? I don't feel qualified. --bodnotbod 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments