After reading Alberta's contributory negligence legislation, choose the statement below that is FALSE:Select one:O a. A person may be held liable for damage or loss even where that person's fault has not contributed to it.O b. The name of the legislation is the Contributory Negligence Act.Oc. The legislation indicates that certain questions in every action are questions of fact.Od.Where a person may be partly responsible for the damages claimed, but is not yet a party to the lawsuit, thatparty may be added as a defendant on such terms that are determined to be just.

Contributory negligence legislation is a set of legal concepts and rules that govern how liability…

Answered: After reading Alberta's contributory…

Similar questions

What factors must be considered in determining whether an individual with a communicable disease that is a disability is otherwise qualified for the job? Does the employer still have a defense in case he or she terminates an employee based on such a disability?
Chapter 10 Explain why the tendency to point the finger at the medical community for creating an environment of error seems at times to be the province of the legal profession. List and briefly explain the deficiencies in the current medical culture.
Business Law assign
help
Can you please help me answer this?
What is the legal concept of negligence and the 4 elements that make up that concept
2) Punitive Damages: Regardless of whether you feel the case was an appropriate one for strict liability, was the McDonald's coffee case an appropriate case for the award of punitive damages? Look over the requirements for punitive damages and assess whether the jury award was appropriate in this case. Why or why not?
Should the public have taken more of a stance against his actions? If so, what action(s) could the public have taken? If not, give reasons why the public should not involve itself in such situations. Should the government have taken any action in this situation, given that the CEO was making a point against legislation it had introduced? If so, explain the action that you believe the government should have taken. If not, explain why you do not believe any government action is justified.
In US Supreme Court case O'Hagan v. United States (1997), O'Hagan was a lawyer working for Grand Met, a company that was secretly planning to make a tender offer for the stock of Pillsbury, the 'target' firm. O'Hagan bought call options on that stock before Grand Met offer went public. The misappropriation theory articulated by the Court's majority in this case is also called the theory of 'outsider' (rather than 'insider') trading. That is because 0'Hagan was not an insider of Pillsbury, the target. He was an outsider who did not owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders of Pillsbury. The Court's majority held that he did, however, owe a fiduciary duty to Grand Met, the outside firm holding private material information releyant to the future value of Pillsbury stock.(T/F/U and Why?)
In 2018, Carlos Ghosn, the chairperson of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Nissan), was arrested for alleged misconduct and criminal offences related to underreporting remuneration and misrepresenting annual disclosures. Detailed investigations revealed similar misrepresentations by the company’s chief executive officer (CEO) Hiroto Saikawa, who was forced to resign. The actions of senior officials left a deep stain on Nissan’s reputation, causing investors to question the effect of corporate governance at Nissan—and by extension, at similar companies across Japan and the world. As details of the scandal unfolded, Nissan suffered negative public repercussions. Its share-based incentive systems, excessive focus on profitability, and cost-cutting measures had caused deviations from normal risk management procedures, resulting in the production of poor-quality vehicles and thus vehicle recalls. Consumer trust in the company dropped, as did sales and profitability figures, with a continuous fall in…
Discuss the concept of strict liability. Should this be applicable to businesses in product liability cases? Is this fair? What if a business is extremely cautious and yet a person is injured by the product? Why would it make sense to hold the business (who was not negligent) liable?
Please answer this very simple question displayed with the image above

SEE MORE QUESTIONS