liability of public authorities in contract and tort differ from that of private defendants?
824764
i am an atty in nebraska so i don't know the law specifically in your state (unless it's neb, of course) but public officials are governed by specific statutes. normally the law is the same in that all people must be honest, not hide important facts ( in contract law) and not hurt people (in tort law), but in old english law the king and country could not be sued so gov't officials were protected. but all states passed laws subjecting themselves to suit, but the rules are very specific when it is allowed, and what notice requirements are necessary. the statute of limitations is also different. good luck
785127
If there was a lawsuit won against the company for damages then the liablity is "Limited" to the assets of the company, not the assets of the owners of that company, that is the main difference, there are also different regulations regarding the reporting of accounts etc.
124406
It's all going to depend on the agreement with the attorney.  Some attorneys will take a plaintiff's case on a contingency basis and you will sign a fee agreement.  Generally, the fee agreement will delineate what the attorney will get if the plaintiff recovers (example: 35%).  Some break it down by the point when the plaintiff recovers (before suit is filed 10%, after suit is filed but before trial 25%, after trial 35% etc - generally going to be measured on the amount of work).  These are generally the "you don't pay if you don't win" arrangements, but the client is usually still responsible for expenses.  They don't advertise that, but it has to be in the fee agreement.  Some plaintiff attorneys are paid hourly.  Civil defense attorneys are typically paid by the hour, win or lose (since they typically won't be recovering anything unless there is a cross complaint).  Criminal defense lawyers are generally paid by the hour since (in many jurisdictions if not all) criminal defense attorneys cannot have contingency arrangements with their clients.  Public defenders will generally be paid whatever the court deems appropriate (a lawyer will submit their fees to the court and the judge can either approve or alter the amount).
704889
A crime is a wrongdoing against society punishable by prison time or possibly death. A tort is a wrongdoing against another person, punishable by a fine or jail time (think Judge Judy or suing).
502708
My friend is a public defender.  Even guilty people have a right to a competent defense.  They need an attorney since the other side has one.  Someone who helps them get a fair deal or plea bargain.  Someone who can help them evaluate the evidence against them and decide if they should plead or go to jury trial.  They have a right to legal advice.  It's a part of our justice system.  You can disagree if you want.  That's just how our laws have evolved.
763040
A "tort" is a private wrong, for which one is entitled to compensation in common law (or as decided by the legislature).\n\nNow, torts do not go on your record.  Why?  Because to be found "guilty" of a crime, you must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  No torts require this standard of proof.\n\nNow, lets turn to your example.\n\nDrunk driving, by itself, is not a tort.  In order for there to be a cause of action, there must be a duty (to act reasonably), a breach of that duty to the plaintiff, and that breach of duty must cause the plaintiff harm.  For simple drunk driving (get in car drunk, drive, get caught), you have not injured anybody.  Hence, while you breached a duty to drive reasonably, that breach has not caused harm.\n\nWhew.  What next?  Lets say you HIT someone while driving drunk.  The tort would USUALLY be negligence (duty to drive reasonably, breached -- swerved all over the road -- caused harm -- hit someone).  But, it could also be willful, wanton violation of someone's rights (by getting into car drunk, you acted in wanton violation of rights, which caused harm).  This could expose the driver to punitive damages.  But, unless the cops catch him and prosecute him criminally, it will not go on the driver's CRIMINAL record.\n\nWhy is the burden of proof important?  Well, lets take a very famous case, not of drunk driving, but of murder.  A famous football player was charged with MURDER (which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt).  He was found NOT GUILTY by a jury, and he has no criminal record.\n\nBut wait, he was also charged with the tort of "Battery" which, in this case, caused death (wrongful death).  Battery is an INTENTIONAL TORT, which means you must prove wrongful conduct by "clear convincing and satisfactory" evidence.  It is the "middle burden" of proof.  The football player was found "guilty" or liable by a jury.  So he owes millions of dollars in damages, but he does NOT have a criminal record.\n\nNow, there is no TORT of DUI.  Instead, one who drives while intoxicated has breached a duty.  If he kills someone while driving in that condition, he would likely be found liable for wrongful death.\n\nNow, here's the real kicker.  Often, it is BETTER for the family (of the dead person) to sue for negligence in a wrongful death action than for intentional, willful or wanton conduct.  Why?  Because insurance will pay damages caused by negligence, but usually excludes willful, wanton or intentional conduct.  So, while you can get punitive damages for such conduct -- there is no money to be gained (few people have the money to pay such judgments).\n\nWell, I suppose this is more than you were looking for, so let me finish with this.\n\n1.  A crime is a violation of the "King's peace."  It is a violation of a state law,.  The state/gvt prosecutes, and you can be fined and perhaps put in jail.  The goal of the criminal system is to punish the wrongdoer and deter others.\n\n2.  A tort is a violation of another "individual's" rights.  That is, the wrongdoer violated the rights of another.  The goal of the tort system is to compensate the victim.\n\n3.  Sometimes, for public policy reasons, punitive damages may be awarded even for torts.  This is because there is a public policy to prevent egregious conduct.  The situations are rare (and controversial).\n\n4.  The same conduct can give rise to criminal conduct and tort liability, but the wrongdoer would need to be tried twice.\n\n5.  There are other related legal doctrines, called "res judicata" and "collateral estoppel," which essentially say that, if you are found guilty of criminal conduct, those elements are "deemed proven" in the civil case.  THe elements of the crime, since they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, are deemed proven for the civil case.  The reverse, however, is not true.
505673
The owner is responsible but their is negligence on both parts.
1039692
Breach of contract is not a "crime".  It is pursued for damages in the civil or small claims division.  "Theft (or services or products)", \n"fraudulent schemes and artifices", "forgery" and others are criminal charges often confused with breach of contract.  \n\nSometimes a breach of contract may be both.  For example, if a business did not provide services  as a contract required it can be considered fraud.  You would also have the option of suing them in civil court to get your money back along with court costs and possible damages.\n\nIt's a fine line occasionally so I would check with your attorney if you are ever in doubt.
449409
I haven't seen the tape, but in order to sue you need either to have your own interests harmed, or you need to be suing under a law which grants a private right of action to sue to enforce the law.  Animal cruelty statutes are usually criminal, and have to be enforced by the district attorney or county prosecutor, not by suit of a private individual.
828605
Presentment and Indictment - No one can be prosecuted without having first been indicted by a grand jury who has found that probably cause exist to believe the suspect committed the crime.\n\nSelf Incrimination - The state cannot coerce you to make statements about your guilt - the state must prove their case against you and cannot force you to do it for them.\n\nDouble Jeopardy - The state may not try someone multiple times for the same crime.\n\nDue Process - The government cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without giving them a meaningful opportunity to be heard.\n\nGovernment Taking of Property - the government may take property from a private person but only to use it for a public purpose (e.g. build a road) and they must give the owner compensation (fair market value)
1082405
Your question is impossible to answer without added facts. I assume that the limited vs. absolute immunity you're referring to is to certain kinds of criminal prosecution or civil suit, particularly libel and slander.\n\nIf this is a slander or libel situation you're concerned about, then it would appear from those facts that the DA would be enjoying complete immunity, as discussions with another attorney concerning a case, particularly in terms of a plea agreement, would certainly fall within the "activities intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process" definition for immunity.\n\nRegardless, good luck suing any district attorney in any city in any state in this country.
871284
Tort is a stricter law but might offend the offenders.  Maybe, the regulatory law could be a better choice but must be implemented properly.
496000
it really all depends on the natyre of the injury i beleive.  A lot of times it is done in a settlement...but it may vary from palce to place so take a look at some government web sites to get more informed.
173651
State and federal statutes would not cover the same crimes. Federal statutes can only involve things that the feds have jurisdiction over (things involving interstate commerce or mail/wire fraud), while the state statutes would deal with things the state has jurisdiction over.
1155210
Governments and any agencies are protected by soverign immunity.  This means unless the government consents to be sued it can not be sued.  Also in your case since it involves policy they would be protected since they would not be able to make policy if they had a fear of being sued.
509090
I am not able to understand your question clearly. \nContractual liability is the liability arising out of the contract and spelt out in the contract. The contract may be for supplying an item or service or doing or not doing certain acts etc etc.\nIf A has placed an order on B  for supply of ten footballs for a match to be played and the date of delivery is clearly spelt out as 10th May and the match is on 11th May and the party B fails to supply the ten foot balls by 1oth May or supplies only 5 nos by 10th May there is failure on the part of B to meet his contractual responsiblity as well as liability.\nThe contract may say in such an even B has to pay a penalty  to A plus the actual cost of procurement of the foot balls from another source at a higher price even because of emergency etc.Consequential loss clause may also be there.\n\nThe other liability I have not heard of It seems to be mis spelt. May be a liability out side of the contract but still a liability.\n\nSimilarly failure to pay for the footballs IN TIME as agreed is a contractual on the partv of A.
1186355
usually, white collar crimes receive a lesser penalty than violent crimes. My personal feelings on how that differentiation is really messed up, a lawyer is absolutely the best person to consult on this matter.