ahhhhhhhhhh, j’ai desolé!
i have been so busy in between working and having midterms, i’ve been all over the place, but alas spring break has officially started (even though, i mean, i don’t have a spring break since i work the whole week anyways. but having money in the bank was never a bad thing in my opinion.)
through all the chaos, i did bullet point a few potential topics that i wanted to write about because i was eager to find a bit of free time where i could sit down and dedicate time to it. but the time has come, so here we go.
theoretically, in a perfect world, if every human had a general law background, we easily would have no need for law enforcement, due to the fact that it would be to no avail seeing as people are more in tuned to knowing what they’re to do/not to do, and if they do/don’t do something, how to get around the consequences that comes with it (which, as i’ve said before, is completely 100% possible. always.)
i figure, i’ve gone over scenarios with you, but now let’s get to me.
if anything, torts will always remain my favorite part of law to study. (what did she just say?)
tort, if you know french, literally means “wrong”. it’s a wrongful act due unto another person, and there are two types, intentional and unintentional. one of the ones you will remember if you’re in law is negligence. easy.
yes. in court, your obligation as an attorney is to provide enough proof that eases the guilt from your client, or to succeed in proving enough against the opposing party to acquit guilt. negligence is an intentional tort, because to prove negligence, there are four hard key elements (this means that in the legal definition, it’s written as “and” which… remember what we talked about before?) that need to be evident. duty, breach, causation, and damages. (to any law student, that’s literally the abc’s…) now here’s where i’ll draw the scenario for you.
you’re driving along, enjoying the day, casually speeding, but that’s what everyone does in california (right?). you look at your phone to unlock it to get to your maps app, only because you’re slowing down to a red light so you felt it was valid to look down for a moment. all of a sudden, you feel an impact that jolts you forward, shatters your windshield, leaving you a bit torn up and shaken up. off the bat, you haven’t even exchanged numbers, hell, you haven’t even gotten out of the car, and have barely realized what just happened. everything happened so suddenly that you couldn’t quite catch up to speed without it not making any sense. what you’re also not understanding is that you’ve already committed an intentional tort. realize i didn’t say crime, i said tort.
you prevailed in acting negligently.
understanding the difference between torts and crimes is crucial, because the law, the court, and everything the gray area treats them completely differently.
crimes are wrongful acts that the state has identified as a crime.
in tort law, the accused is the “defendant,” and the victim is the “plaintiff,” whereas in criminal law, though the accused is also the defendant, it’s either the person who suffered injury or the state or other government entity. (roe v. wade vs. brown v. board of education… makes a lot more sense, doesn’t it?)
anywho, back to your negligence…
you had a duty to drive safely, which you did not do because you (obviously) got into an accident. you breached that duty by rear ending the car in front of you, and because of that breach, you caused the event to occur, and in which case, there are evident and obvious damages.
… you haven’t even stepped out of the car and you’ve already got all that pinned against you? damn, ouch.
now, assuming that’s all you did, you can only be tried for committing a tort.
but that’s never fun, is it? so let’s add to your (idiocy) scenario.
the same thing goes on, but now, beforehand you had just gone out for drinks with an old friend, so you have alcohol in your system, enough so that you probably shouldn’t have gotten up and driven so soon. now, you’ve entered criminal territory, because you’ve committed a crime against society. driving under the influence. why does everyone know that phrase? well, that my friend, is, like i said before, a wrongful act that the state has identified as a crime. (funny how this all comes together, right?)
being accused of two different types of law is very possible, which means you’re going to be tried civilly for one thing in one court, then tried for another correlating factor in criminal court. (…sound familiar?)
shying away from the topic, in drivers ed, you’re always told, if you get into a bit of an accident, you’re never supposed to admit fault. even if it so obviously is. anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law… hm… where have i heard that before?
in addition, i’m going to start posting the part we’ve all been here for… the “vuitton” in my lawyer vuitton.
so here’s a few of the outfits i’ve had throughout the week, (as well as my eventful life)
as always, i’ll see you again soon.