U-turns are prohibited on one-way streets, where there is an obstructed view of the roadway for at least 200 feet in both directions and in front of fire stations to ensure safety and efficient traffic flow. Therefore, all the options are correct.
Firstly, U-turns are not allowed on one-way streets. Performing a U-turn on a one-way street would cause you to go against the direction of traffic, increasing the risk of collisions and disrupting the flow of traffic.
Secondly, U-turns are prohibited where you do not have an unobstructed view of the roadway for at least 200 feet in both directions. This rule is in place because it is crucial to see oncoming traffic before making a U-turn. If your view is obstructed, you may not see approaching vehicles, pedestrians, or cyclists, leading to a potential accident.
Lastly, U-turns are not permitted in front of fire stations. Fire stations require unobstructed access to the road for emergency vehicles to quickly respond to calls. Performing a U-turn in front of a fire station could impede emergency vehicles from exiting the station, causing delays in response time and potentially putting lives at risk.
In summary, U-turns are prohibited on one-way streets, where there is an obstructed view of the roadway for at least 200 feet in both directions, and in front of fire stations to ensure safety and efficient traffic flow.
To know more about one-way streets refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/30323547#
#SPJ11
____ are powers, privileges, or interests that belong to a person by law, nature, or tradition.DutiesFreedomsRights
Rights are powers, privileges, or interests that belong to a person by law, nature, or tradition. The correct option is c.
Rights are generally considered to be inherent and inalienable, meaning that they cannot be taken away or surrendered by the person who holds them. Rights are an important concept in political and legal philosophy and are often seen as the foundation of individual autonomy and dignity.
Examples of rights include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the right to free speech and expression; the right to a fair trial; and the right to own property.
These rights are typically protected by constitutions, laws, and other legal and social institutions, and are considered essential to the well-being and dignity of individuals and societies. Therefore, the correct option is c.
To know more about Rights here:
https://brainly.com/question/11254636
#SPJ4
T/F Testimony by an expert that a particular quantity of drugs was possessed for the purpose of distribution violates Rule 704.
Rule 704 is broken if an expert testimony that a certain amount of drugs was kept with the intention of distributing them. This statement is true.
Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of expert testimony regarding ultimate issues in a case. The rule states that "an opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue." However, an expert may not provide an opinion on whether a defendant had a particular mental state or intent at the time of the alleged offense.
In drug cases, it is common for the prosecution to call a law enforcement officer or forensic expert to testify about the number of drugs possessed by the defendant and whether it was consistent with personal use or indicative of intent to distribute. However, if the expert testifies that the number of drugs in the defendant's possession was sufficient for distribution, this could be interpreted as an impermissible opinion on the defendant's intent or mental state.
To avoid violating Rule 704, an expert in a drug case should not explicitly state that the defendant possessed drugs for the purpose of distribution. Instead, they should limit their testimony to the physical characteristics of the drugs and the typical patterns of use and distribution associated with those drugs.
To learn more about expert testimony
https://brainly.com/question/3635812
#SPJ4
how does the HRA mean that judges protect civil liberties
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) was established to protect the rights of individuals against abuses of power by the state and other public authorities.
It outlines the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to, including the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, and the right to private and family life. Judges play a key role in protecting civil liberties by ensuring that the rights outlined in the HRA are respected.
When a law appears to infringe on an individual’s fundamental rights, judges have the authority to interpret the law in order to protect those rights. In some cases, judges can even declare the law to be incompatible with the HRA and order the government to make changes. Ultimately, the HRA is a powerful tool for protecting civil liberties, and judges are a crucial part of making sure these rights are respected.
Know more about Human Rights Act here
https://brainly.com/question/28392863#
#SPJ11
T devises property "to A for life, and on A's death to A's children for their lives, and upon the death of A and A's children, to ["B if A has no grandchildren then living"]." A and B survive T. A has one child, X, who also survives T.
What effects the vesting of this interest?
The effects of the vesting of the interest will be B's contingent remainder is void. B's remainder would vest if there is no living grandchild of A at the death of the longest-lived of A's children. The interest would remain contingent for the lives of all of A's children; only then would we know whether A has surviving grandchildren.
A can affect vesting by having more children, A's children can affect vesting by having more of A's grandchildren, and the presently-living grandchildren can affect vesting by surviving B. None of these qualify as validating lives. A's children can conceivably outlive A by more than 21 years, and so A cannot be the validating life. A's children who were living at T''s death are not validating lives. Since A is alive, A might have a child after T's death.
This child might live more than 21 years after the deaths of those of A's children who were living at the time of T's death. The death of the survivor of A's children could therefore conceivably occur more than 21 years after the death of those of A's children who were living at the time of the conveyance.
Hence A's presently-living children are not validating lives. Nor are A's currently-living grandchildren validating lives. They could all die, another grandchild might be born, and, by surviving B, that grandchild's interest could vest more than 21 years after the deaths of all of the currently-living grandchildren.
Nor is B. B could die and pass B's interest to heirs or devisees who have not been born yet, and whose interest could vest long after B's death. Nor is there anyone else in existence at the time of the conveyance about whom you can say that the interest is guaranteed to vest or fail within their lives or within 21 years of their death. The interest therefore does not satisfy the Rule Against Perpetuities, and must therefore be stricken.
Learn more about grandchildren, here:
https://brainly.com/question/14464910
#SPJ4
Explain why it is more important than ever to be able to independently research and comprehend news stories from multiple sources.
Answer:
Explanation:
In today's world, we are bombarded with news and information from various sources, and it can be challenging to distinguish between credible and fake news. Misinformation can spread rapidly, and without the ability to research and comprehend news stories from multiple sources, it can be challenging to form an accurate understanding of what is happening in the world. Being able to independently research news stories from multiple sources allows us to form informed opinions, make better decisions, and ultimately, become more responsible citizens. It also helps us to avoid falling prey to biased reporting and propaganda, which can be used to manipulate public opinion. With the rise of social media and other online platforms, it has become more critical than ever to be able to identify trustworthy sources and verify information before accepting it as fact. Therefore, being able to independently research and comprehend news stories from multiple sources is an essential skill that enables us to stay informed, make informed decisions, and participate meaningfully in society.
PLS MARK ME BRAINLIEST
1) Skinner: Explain the differences between positive reinforcer, negative reinforcer and punishment. Give examples.
In the context of Skinner's operant conditioning theory, positive reinforcer, negative reinforcer, and punishment are all forms of consequence that can affect the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated in the future.
Positive reinforcer refers to a consequence that increases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated by adding a desirable stimulus. For example, suppose a student receives praise from their teacher for answering a question correctly. In that case, the positive reinforcement of the praise will likely increase the likelihood of the student answering questions correctly.
A negative reinforcer refers to a consequence that increases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated by removing an unpleasant stimulus. For example, suppose a student wears a jacket to avoid feeling cold. In that case, the negative reinforcement of removing the unpleasant stimulus of feeling cold will likely increase the likelihood of the student putting on a jacket in the future.
On the other hand, punishment is a consequence that decreases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated by adding an unpleasant stimulus or removing a desirable one. For example, if a parent scolds a child for hitting their sibling, the punishment is intended to decrease the likelihood of the child hitting their sibling.
To learn more about Skinner, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/14829851
#SPJ4
50. A state has 11 electoral votes. In a presidential election, the democratic candidate recieves 48 percent of that states popular vote, the Republican candidates receives 12 percent of the vote.
If the state is similar to most other states, how will the electoral votes most likely be allocated?
The electoral votes will most likely be allocated based on the winner-takes-all system, in a state with 11 electoral votes, where the Democratic candidate receives 48 percent of the popular vote, the Republican candidate receives 40 percent, and an independent candidate receives 12 percent,
In most states, the candidate with the highest percentage of the popular vote wins all of the state's electoral votes. In this scenario, the Democratic candidate has the highest percentage of the popular vote at 48 percent. Therefore, the Democratic candidate would most likely receive all 11 electoral votes from that state.
Here's a step-by-step explanation of the process:1. Determine the candidate with the highest percentage of the popular vote (Democratic candidate with 48 percent).
2. Based on the winner-takes-all system used in most states, allocate all of the state's electoral votes to the candidate with the highest percentage of the popular vote.
3. In this case, the Democratic candidate would receive all 11 electoral votes from the state.
This allocation method is used in 48 out of the 50 US states and the District of Columbia. The exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which allocate their electoral votes using a proportional system.
To know more about winner-takes-all system refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/29705963#
#SPJ11
Complete Question:
A state has 11 electoral votes. In a presidential election, the Democratic candidate receives 48 percent of that state's popular vote, the Republican receives 40 percent of the vote, and an independent candidate receives 12 percent of the vote.
If the state is similar to most states, how will the electoral votes most likely be allocated?
If Sam points a gun at Harry, a stranger, and says "Prepare to die," but then does nothing, the tort possibly committed is:
A) Assault
B) Battery
C) Negligence
D) Invasion of Privacy
Answer:
A) Assault
oR
Negligence
How do prior appropriation rights differ from littoral and riparian rights?
Prior appropriation rights are rights to use a water source that are granted to the first person to make use of it.
These rights can only be acquired by diverting and using the water before anyone else. On the other hand, littoral and riparian rights are rights that are connected to land ownership.
Littoral rights are rights to use the body of water that the land borders, while riparian rights allow the owner to use the water that passes through the land.
These rights usually involve the right to access and use the water, but may also include fishing, navigation, and other activities. Prior appropriation rights can be held by any person, while littoral and riparian rights are only held by the owner of the land.
Know more about water source here
https://brainly.com/question/29854885#
#SPJ11
In Lawler v. Montblanc North America, where Lawler, a store manager, was fired after telling her employer that she could not work more than 20 hours a week due to a medical condition, she sued for:a. libelb. emotional distress c. assaultd. battery e. slander
TRUE/FALSE. Depositions are usually taken in the courtroom for purposes of discovery.
FALSE, Depositions are usually taken outside of the courtroom, in a lawyer's office or another neutral location.
They are taken as part of the discovery process in a legal case, where one party can ask questions of the other party or witnesses under oath.
Depositions can be used to gather information, assess witness credibility, or prepare for trial. While depositions can be used in court as evidence, they are not typically taken in the courtroom itself.
Depositions allow both parties to gather information, clarify facts, and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their cases before the trial begins. They are an essential part of the pre-trial process and help ensure a fair and efficient trial.
To know more about Depositions visit:
https://brainly.com/question/14719594
#SPJ11
T/F A woman leaving the scene of a robbery may be described by a witness as elegantly dressed in black.
A woman leaving the scene of a robbery may be described by a witness as elegantly dressed in black True
The Daubert decision of the United States Supreme Court, handed down in 1993, clarified the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal court cases. The decision set forth a new standard, which is now known as the Daubert standard, which emphasizes the importance of scientific validity and reliability in determining whether expert testimony should be admitted as evidence.
While the Daubert decision applies only to federal courts, many state courts have also adopted the Daubert standard, making the use of the Frye standard unconstitutional in those states. The Frye standard, which was the previous standard for admitting expert testimony, emphasized general acceptance within the scientific community.
Learn more about the United States Supreme Court
https://brainly.com/question/30028163
#SPJ4
fight a Diablo, and cut someone on the face
why might judges being socially biast stop them from protecting civil liberties
Judges are human beings and may have social biases that stop them from protecting civil liberties. This bias can be based on their own beliefs, or the beliefs of their social and political circles.
For example, if a judge is a conservative, they may be biased against LGBTQ+ rights or the right to an abortion. Similarly, if a judge is of a certain social class, they may be more likely to view certain civil liberties as more important than others.
This bias can lead to a judge not taking into consideration the social implications of their decisions and choosing to protect certain civil liberties over others.
This can be detrimental to civil liberties, as some may be overlooked or completely disregarded due to a judge's personal beliefs. Therefore, it is important that judges remain impartial and consider all civil liberties equally when making decisions.
Know more about civil liberties here
https://brainly.com/question/2375577#
#SPJ11
1. Few peasants became government workers because of high education costs
2. New class was formed- Mandarins, well-educated civil servants who controlled government
In many societies, high education costs have made it difficult for peasants to attain government positions.
Consequently, the civil service often comprised a class of individuals known as Mandarins. These were well-educated civil servants who held considerable power and control over the government.
The Mandarins often enjoyed significant privileges and were able to exert their influence over decision-making processes. Their education provided them with an advantage over others, and they were seen as the most capable individuals to handle government affairs.
This led to the creation of a new class system where the Mandarins held a prominent position, and their status was often inherited by their descendants.
Learn more about Mandarins here
https://brainly.com/question/1142347
#SPJ4
The law of torts reflects all EXCEPT:a. social valuesb. community standardsc. the way we deal with each other in the current environment d. the international perspective on liabilitye. none of the other choices
The answer is (d) - the law of torts does not necessarily reflect the international perspective on liability.
The law of torts is primarily concerned with civil wrongs that cause harm or injury to another person, and it is developed and applied by courts to reflect social values, community standards, and the way we deal with each other in the current environment.
Therefore, options (a), (b), and (c) are all accurate statements regarding the law of torts. However, option (d), the international perspective on liability, is not necessarily reflected in the law of torts, as liability standards and legal systems may vary widely between different countries and regions.
Therefore, the answer is (d) - the law of torts does not necessarily reflect the international perspective on liability
To learn more about international perspective here:
https://brainly.com/question/30550961
#SPJ4
What are the different personal protective equipment and state their function?
There are several types of PPE available, each with a specific function, such as respirators, gloves, eye and face protection, head protection, hearing protection, protective clothing. Personal protective equipment is specialized equipment designed to protect individuals from workplace hazards and injuries.
Respirators: Respirators are designed to protect workers from inhaling hazardous substances such as dust, smoke, fumes, and vapors.
Gloves: Gloves protect hands from cuts, punctures, abrasions, and exposure to chemicals, infectious agents, and other hazards.
Eye and Face Protection: Eye and face protection includes safety glasses, goggles, face shields, and helmets with visors. They protect workers from flying debris, splashes, and other hazards that can cause eye and facial injuries.
Head Protection: Hard hats and bump caps are designed to protect the head from falling objects, electrical hazards, and other impacts.
Hearing Protection: Earplugs and earmuffs are designed to protect workers from noise-induced hearing loss.
Protective Clothing: Protective clothing such as aprons, lab coats, and coveralls protect workers from exposure to chemicals, biological agents, and other hazards.
Overall, the selection of PPE depends on the specific hazards in the workplace, the task being performed, and the level of protection required. It is important for workers to use and maintain their PPE properly to ensure its effectiveness in protecting them from harm.
To know more about Personal protective equipment here:
https://brainly.com/question/17663098
#SPJ4
how does judicial influence over policing sentencing policy means they're more assertive
Judicial influence over policing and sentencing policy means that judges have more power to shape how the law is applied in specific cases.
Judges are able to take a more assertive role in setting the standards of policing and sentencing, as they are the ones responsible for making decisions around these issues.
This makes them more directly involved in the criminal justice process, rather than relying solely on the police to decide how to proceed. By being more assertive in their decisions, judges can ensure that laws are applied fairly and justly.
This also gives them the power to set precedent for future cases, so that any similar situations will be handled in the same manner. This helps to ensure that laws are applied consistently, regardless of the circumstances or individuals involved.
Know more about criminal justice here
https://brainly.com/question/30629034#
#SPJ11
What are the exception to the general rule that lay witnesses may not offer opinion testimony?
The general rule is that lay witnesses may not offer opinion testimony, meaning they may not express their opinions or beliefs about the facts of the case.
However, there are some exceptions to this rule, including:
Lay witnesses opinion on the person's emotional state: A lay witness may offer an opinion as to the emotional state of another person, based on the witness's observations of that person's behavior, demeanor, and appearance.
Lay witness opinion on identity: A lay witness may also offer an opinion as to the identity of a person, object, or location, based on the witness's personal knowledge or familiarity with the subject matter.
Expert testimony by a lay witness: A lay witness may also offer expert testimony on a subject that falls within the witness's personal experience or expertise.
To learn more about testimony here:
https://brainly.com/question/508593
#SPJ4
2. Locate two examples of programs used to promote the community policing philosophy from two different police departments in
Indiana (one program from each department).
5.One widespread effect of the mass media on presidential campaigns is that the mass media have
One widespread effect of the mass media on presidential campaigns is that it has shaped how campaigns are conducted and how candidates present themselves to the public.
The mass media, including television, newspapers, and social media, can reach a large audience quickly and can greatly influence public opinion. Presidential candidates use various forms of media to convey their messages, promote their agendas, and respond to criticism.
Additionally, media coverage can significantly impact a candidate's image and public perception, ultimately affecting their election chances. The media's role in presidential campaigns has also changed with the evolution of technology and the rise of social media platforms. The mass media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion, influencing political discourse, and ultimately, determining the outcome of presidential elections.
To know more about presidential campaigns, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/29522958
#SPJ4
TRUE/FALSE. Courts have increasingly set aside arbitration clauses involving small businesses or consumers.
TRUE, In recent years, there has been a growing trend among courts to set aside arbitration clauses that are included in contracts involving small businesses or consumers.
This is because such clauses are often seen as unfair to these groups, as they may not have the resources or bargaining power to negotiate more favorable terms. Additionally, arbitration proceedings can be costly and time-consuming, which may further disadvantage these groups.
As a result, many courts have been willing to invalidate arbitration clauses in such cases, allowing small businesses and consumers to pursue their claims through traditional legal channels.
However, it is important to note that this trend is not universal, and some courts may still enforce arbitration clauses in certain circumstances. Ultimately, the outcome will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
To know more about arbitration proceedings visit:
https://brainly.com/question/30656532
#SPJ11
If causal connection between a person's act and the resulting harm to another is broken by an intervening act or event, the act or event is called:a. proximate cause b. unforeseen cause c. superseding cause d. foreseeable causee. none of the other choices
If the causal connection between a person's act and the resulting harm to another is broken by an intervening act or event, the act or event is called c. superseding cause
In the context of legal causation, a superseding cause is an intervening act or occurrence that sever the link between a person's original action and the harm that results to another person. The first conduct is no longer regarded as the major source of the injury and is instead blamed for this subsequent act or incident.
It is an unanticipated or unexpected incident that happens after the original act and that the person who did the initial act could not have reasonably anticipated. The first act's causal relationship with the injury is superseded by this intervening occurrence, which releases the person who performed the initial act from responsibility for the harm.
Read more about superseding cause on:
https://brainly.com/question/31145729
#SPJ4
why does pressure on the courts mean they cannot protect our liberties freely
Often when the courts experience pressure from outside sources, it can compromise their ability to protect our liberties freely.
Pressure from the government, other branches of government, public opinion, and other sources can force the courts to make decisions that are more politically or socially appealing than those that are based on laws and the Constitution.
This can lead to decisions that are either in line with the popular opinion of the day or those that are more palatable to the government, but that do not necessarily provide a secure foundation for the protection of our liberties.
This pressure can also lead to decisions that are more influenced by personal beliefs or interests than by an honest application of the law. When this happens, the courts are no longer able to protect our liberties with the objectivity and impartiality that they should.
Know more about Constitution here
https://brainly.com/question/14453917#
#SPJ11
TRUE/FALSE. If questions of fact are involved, a judge will usually decide the case based on the pleadings alone
FALSE, If questions of fact are involved, a judge will usually not decide the case based on the pleadings alone. Instead, the judge will allow both parties to present evidence and witnesses to support their claims before making a decision based on the facts presented in court.
This is because questions of fact require a determination of what actually occurred, and this cannot be done solely based on the allegations made in the pleadings. Therefore, a judge will require evidence and testimony to be presented before rendering a decision in cases involving questions of fact.
Pleadings are essential for setting the framework of the case, but they alone are insufficient for resolving questions of fact, as these require an examination of the evidence and testimony provided during the trial.
To know more about testimony visit:
https://brainly.com/question/29244222
#SPJ11
T/F Civil plaintiffs have overall benefited by the replacement of Frye with Daubert/Kumho/Rule 702 in federal court.
Some argue that civil plaintiffs have not overall benefited from the replacement of Frye with Daubert/Kumho/Rule 702 in federal court, while others believe that the new standards have improved the quality of expert testimony and the reliability of scientific evidence.
One argument against the new standards is that they place a higher burden on plaintiffs to provide admissible expert testimony, which can make it more difficult for them to prove their case. Under the Frye standard, expert testimony was admissible if it was generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, while under the new standards, the testimony must meet a more rigorous test of reliability and relevance.
Learn more about plaintiffs
https://brainly.com/question/1065754
#SPJ4
What did the Citizens United case decide?Corporations enjoy the same First Amendment rights to free speech as individuals. The Bill of Rights applies to corporations. Corporations may vote. Corporations have a duty to protect their employees from discrimination.
The Citizens United case decided that corporations enjoy the same First Amendment rights to free speech as individuals.
The decision was made on January 21, 2010. In the context of the case, the ruling allowed corporations to engage in political spending without limits, as restricting their spending was considered a violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech.
This means that corporations can spend unlimited money on political campaigns to support or oppose candidates, as long as they do it independently and do not coordinate with the candidates directly. The decision was based on the principle that the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, applies to corporations as well as individuals. However, the case did not address whether or not corporations may vote or have a duty to protect their employees from discrimination.
Learn more about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) : https://brainly.com/question/29361585.
#SPJ11
The exception to the Statute of Frauds, which allows an oral contract for the transfer of land to be enforced, if the buyer has either paid for the land or taken possession of the land is called the ________ exception.
a. Parol evidence
b. Equal dignity
c. Promissory estoppel
d. Part performance
e. Novation
The exception to the Statute of Frauds, which allows an oral contract for the transfer of land to be enforced, if the buyer has either paid for the land or taken possession of the land is called the Part performance exception. The correct option is d.
The part performance doctrine is a important rejection from the Statute of Frauds' application to agreements involving the sale of real estate. When an oral contract for the sale of land has been partially performed, the part performance exception applies.
Performance in part is When a person agrees to transfer any movable property for money in writing that is either signed by him or on his behalf and contains all the terms that must be agreed upon in order for the transfer to be valid. The correct option is d.
Learn more about Statute of Frauds at:
brainly.com/question/6806950
#SPJ4
Joe is angry at his neighbor Fred for allowing his dog to dig up Joe's flowers. In retaliation, Joe sets fire to Fred's wooden storage shed, which is located in Fred's backyard. Joe has committed the crime of arson instead of merely criminal mischief because the storage shed:
Joe has committed the crime of arson because he intentionally set fire to Fred's wooden storage shed.
Arson is a criminal offense that involves the willful and malicious burning of someone else's property. The key element that distinguishes arson from other crimes, such as criminal mischief or vandalism, is the intent to destroy or damage the property by fire.
In this case, Joe's actions of setting fire to Fred's wooden storage shed were intentional and malicious, and they resulted in the destruction of Fred's property.
The fact that the storage shed was made of wood is also relevant, as burning wooden structures can cause fires to spread quickly and can put people and other property in danger. Therefore, Joe's actions meet the definition of arson, which is a serious criminal offense that can result in significant penalties, including imprisonment.
To know more about arson here:
https://brainly.com/question/29444103
#SPJ4
Defenses to a negligent act include:a. assumption of the riskb. comparative negligencec. assumption of the risk and comparative negligence d. existence of proximate causee. none of the other choices
Defenses to a negligent act include both assumptions of the risk and comparative negligence. The correct answer choice (c). These defenses focus on the plaintiff's actions and their contribution to their own injury.
Assumption of the risk is a defense used in negligence cases where the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks associated with the activity that led to their injury. This means that the plaintiff was aware of the potential dangers and chose to engage in the activity anyway.
If the defendant can prove that the plaintiff assumed the risk, then the defendant may not be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries. Comparative negligence is another defense in negligence cases. It is based on the idea that the plaintiff may have contributed to their own injury by acting negligently.
In cases involving comparative negligence, the plaintiff's damages will be reduced by the percentage of their own negligence. For example, if the plaintiff is found to be 30% at fault for their injury, their damages would be reduced by 30%. This defense allows for a more equitable distribution of damages based on the parties' respective levels of fault.
In summary, the defenses to a negligent act include both assumption of the risk and comparative negligence. These defenses focus on the plaintiff's actions and their contribution to their own injury.
By successfully proving one or both of these defenses, the defendant can either avoid liability or have the plaintiff's damages reduced accordingly.
To know more about negligent acts refer here:
https://brainly.com/question/30258088#
#SPJ11
