Howarth, Textbook on Tort?
968104
Hi Violet.\n\nWhat area of tort were you reading about? I don't have this particular book as it is too far out of date.\n\nThere must be some context in which importance was attached to what was said, perhaps a reference to some precident or case?
158605
Good resource\n\nhttp://www.klng.com/practices/practices_detail.asp?id=000002107003
453223
if it exists then you will be able to find it on Textbook411.com , they have prety mutch every textbook ever printed, and always the best price too! good luck
1150498
http://www.lectlaw.com/def.htm
121905
I believe this was a strict liability case that involved an accident with a trampoline?  Fallon v. Indian Trail School?\n\nThe Illinois Appellate Court publishes many of their cases online.  They are available to the general public without a fee.  I've posted a link to the site.  If you can't find the case you're looking for specifically, try looking up the general terms for relevant case law, i.e. "strict liability."\n\nLexisNexis is another resource but, like Westlaw, unless you have a student account you will have to pay.  \n\nGood luck!
815316
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/webintegration/WebIntegrationServlet?call=PurchaseInfoWeblet\n\nYou can buy the book on-line
129277
hello dude. go to these links:-\n\n1)www.elib.scot.nhs.uk/weblibrary.asp?cat=Books\n\n2) www.freebooks4doctors.com/fb/special.htm \n\n3)www.ebookmall.com/ebook/127647-ebook.htm\n\np/s-dunn't forget to choose best answer for ur question.
646019
Not a website, but there is an EXCELLENT book called "Law 101" by Richard Feinman. You can order it through Amazon. It is an excellent book.
531707
Try http://www.irbs.com/bowditch/pdf/chapt32.pdf
407148
http://www.law.stetson.edu/courses/crimlaw/assignments/download18.htm\n\np.s. I googled it.  Google search: Adrienne Rich "Rape"
616184
Your county law library -- the librarian can help you.  If you don't have a county law library, by some chance; call some law firms -- they often maintain libraries.\n\nIf you need help determining what book to look in, where -- e-mail me.  If I have time to look online, I will & will edit this or e-mail you.\n\n[EDIT]  I did a relatively quick search and found these:\n\nHustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).  This case can be found (word for word) at:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=485&invol=46\n\nIn it, you will find a lot of cases that were relied on to support this decision, so look for the cases cites.  (U.S. = Supreme Court cases; F. or F. Supp., = Federal (district) cases.) \n\nI forget exactly what's at this site.  I think it's another case, with case law cited also:  http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/tortsF01/IIEM.htm\n\nThere is general info at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress  \n\nPut IIED (abbreviated and/or spelled out, in quotes) in the search box at www.findlaw.com -- you might find some cases.\n\nI'll let you know if I find anything else.\n\n[EDIT]  This site has to do with bullying in the workplace.  9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  \nhttp://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20050920.html\n\n[EDIT]  If you find a U.S. Case you want to read, go to this page.  I believe you can pull up the case (word for word) by clicking on the appropriate link (on this page) and then the name/cite of the case.  \nhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder.html\n\n\n\n[EDIT]  I found more for you.  Amongst websites (below) that you may be interested in, there are Cases cited.  The cases cited all have Federal cases (cited) within them, so look at the body of the decisions for more case law.  The case I've cited may not be (exactly) what you want, but cases within them may be.\n\nThe U.S. Legal Landscape: Evolving Towards Protecting Employees Against Bullying At Work; Possible Theories Of Employer Liability: How Employers Could Be On The Hook \nThe Hostile Working Environment Harassment Theory:  EEOC v. National Education Association Alaska, 422 F. 3d 840 (9th Cir. 2005) at\nhttp://www.lorman.com/seminars/teleconference.php?product_id=152654&topic=LB\n\n\nThis is an excellent site for info (perhaps).  The case I've cited below com from it: http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/studies.html\n\nTwo US Supreme Court summer 1998 decisions that made employers responsible ("vicarious liability") for harassment and discrimination by management who act as "agents" of employers:\n\n(1)  Burlington Industries vs. Ellerth,  123 F.3d 490 (1998), affirmed.  This decision fixes "vicarious liability" for illegal harassment on the employer. Supervisors are agents of the employer.    http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/ellerth.html \n\n(2)  Faragher vs. City of Boca Raton, 111 F. 3d 1530 (1998), reversed and remanded.  This decision assigns liability for illegal harassment to the employer whether or not the employer was aware of its occurrence.  http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/faragher.html\n\nAlso:  http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/eeocnea.html   This case illustrates an alternative motivational theory in which an abusive bully takes advantage of a traditionally female workplace because he is more comfortable when bullying women than when bullying men.   CHRISTOPHER v. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION.  [This may be the same case I cited above, or related to, 422 F. 3d 840 (9th Cir. 2005).  Read the entire Ruling (in .pdf format) -- a lot of federal cases cited.]
477792
probably in a library.??  if not then in a law book store. \nmy guess
811091
http://www.icle.org/Michlaw/oview.cfm?caseid=11818111
440826
In a law library. The cite is 7 N.J.Super. 81. A reference librarian should be able to help you find a reporter that includes the case.
969178
In the UK, the burden of proof in civil (or tort) cases is "on the balance of probabilities" and in criminal cases "beyond a reasonable doubt". \n\nOf the three examples you gave:\n\n1. Negligence is generally a tortuous claim and therefore is determined on the balance of probabilities. (ie. 51% over 49%)\n\n2. Acting with undue care or attention is an aspect of negligence.  Although with negligence, you must first prove there was a duty of care owed and then secondly prove that on the balance, that duty was breached. (For a far better explanation of the above, see: Lord Atkins dictum in Donoghue v. Stevenson, Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, and most recently, Caparo Industries v. Dickman)\n\n3. The defence of Automatism is used in criminal cases and has a variety of barriers depending on whether you are claiming insane automatism which is caused by a "disease of the mind" (R v. Quick) or non-insane automatism with is due to external factors (R v. Hennessy).
121319
I would do a search on textbook411.com , it is a sire that is all about textbooks
683741
Michigan Statutes Annotated.\nThis is another commercially-published (by Lexis Law Publishing) version of the Michigan statutes, containing the same statutory law organized by subject matter.