Jeffrey Cart 10-2-12

51. What is the function of law? Some observers claim we have too much law today. What accounts for the increased number of laws that exist today?

The function of law is to establish stability in the social, political, and

economic system while at the same time permitting change. These basic functions

include dispute resolution, protection of property, and preservation of the state.

Since that society is becoming more complex everyday these new laws are needed

and required to keep up with that change. As society evolves and grows so does its

functions as well, an example being technology. As we gain the access to such

great innovations, such as the internet, the need to establish laws to prevent the

abuse of it is necessary. So new laws are created to keep up with the changing

world that we live in today to help protect the people.

52. The State of Hawaii enacts a piece of legislation that taxes all airplanes that land in the state. Several airlines challenge the legislation as unconstitutional. What is the likely result of the court case? Explain.

The commerce clause along with the import-export clause limits the power

of the state to impose taxes without the consent of congress. This is to protect

goods that are in commerce, in this cause the airlines, from being taxed multiple

times. So more than likely the airlines will win this cause due to the fact that the

state cannot impose taxes on their own due to it being unconstitutional by law.

53. Compare and contrast the intent necessary to commit a tort to the intent necessary to commit a crime.

The intent necessary to commit a tort does not require mean actions upon

someone rather it requires just a consequence of the actor and that they know

something will result upon their actions. A crime however is composed of two

different elements: the wrongful act, and the criminal intent. The wrongful act is

composed of the physical act that must be performed, the consequence, and the

circumstances that were involved. The criminal intent represents the mental

situation of a person that has committed a crime or act. Both of these however

require that an action is taken for them to be committed.

54. Think about and then discuss why, in your analysis, the reasonable standard of care differs for the following categories of individuals: children, persons with physical disabilities, persons with mental disabilities, people with superior skill or knowledge, people in emergency situations, and those who violate statutory duties. Is there any logic on which to base these differences because of societal need and expectations? Does justice demand a different result? Why would the courts make these distinctions?

Duty of care expressed by law is measured by the degree of carefulness a

reasonable person would exercise in any given situation. According to law

children do not possess the judgment, intelligence, knowledge, and

experience of adults therefor they will be trialed on a different judgment

than an adult. Persons with physical disabilities standard conduct is that of

someone with the same disability as they have. If a person that has mental or

emotionally disability is not a child, they are held to the standard of a person

who is not mental or emotionally unstable. Someone who is superior or who

has greater knowledge in a certain skills trade in compassion to common

knowledge is required to exercise that skill. In an emergency a person is still

held under the standard of a reasonably person but the emergency is taken

into consideration given the circumstances that were pertaining to the

emergency. When a statue has been violated it is up to the court to determine

if the statue was applicable in the situation. Logic can be applied to these

because it is not reasonable for child to have the understanding of situations

that an adult will have. It will be wanted by the justice system to try and

claim that everyone should have a certain degree of carefulness but, that

would be unreasonable and the courts make the distinctions to make sure

everyone will be given fair judgment.

55. The All-Power Gas and Electric Company cleared a right of way across Larry's land and put up a power line, which it has maintained for the past 20 years. Now the company wants to replace the old line with a new one, and Larry has decided he doesn't want them on his land.a. Does the Power Company have a recognizable interest in Larry's land? Explain.b. Can Larry keep them from installing a new line? Explain.

The state has police power which entitles them to place controls on

privately owned land. The taking of private land for public use is called

eminent domain and is recognized as a power of the government by the U.S

constitution. Seeing how the power company will be building the power

lines for the improved service for the public, their exercise of this power will

be upheld. So, yes the power company does a recognizable interest in

Larry’s land due to the use of the public good. Larry will not be able to keep

them from installing but he will be able to receive compensation as a result

of the building of power lines. If however, he does receive compensation for

this, then the use of the by the power company will be ruled unconstitutional

by law.