5. Causation and Scope of Liability

Author(s):  
Mark Lunney ◽  
Donal Nolan ◽  
Ken Oliphant
Keyword(s):  

Before liability can arise in negligence a causal link must be established between the negligence of the defendant and the injury for which the claimant claims compensation. The first hurdle that must be overcome is to show an historical connection between the defendant’s negligence and the injury (factual causation). This is normally decided by the application of the but-for test: but for the defendant’s negligence, would the claimant have suffered the injury that he or she did? If factual causation is satisfied, the claimant must then show that the defendant should be legally responsible for the damage the claimant has suffered. This second strand of the causation enquiry may involve issues of ‘legal causation’, which is to say consideration of the effect of intervening acts, whether of the claimant or of a third party, occurring between the defendant’s negligence and the claimant’s injury. It may also involve consideration of whether the defendant should not have to pay for the full extent of the damage because it is considered too remote. These issues are considered in this chapter.

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Tomasello

Abstract My response to the commentaries focuses on four issues: (1) the diversity both within and between cultures of the many different faces of obligation; (2) the possible evolutionary roots of the sense of obligation, including possible sources that I did not consider; (3) the possible ontogenetic roots of the sense of obligation, including especially children's understanding of groups from a third-party perspective (rather than through participation, as in my account); and (4) the relation between philosophical accounts of normative phenomena in general – which are pitched as not totally empirical – and empirical accounts such as my own. I have tried to distinguish comments that argue for extensions of the theory from those that represent genuine disagreement.


Author(s):  
Carl E. Henderson

Over the past few years it has become apparent in our multi-user facility that the computer system and software supplied in 1985 with our CAMECA CAMEBAX-MICRO electron microprobe analyzer has the greatest potential for improvement and updating of any component of the instrument. While the standard CAMECA software running on a DEC PDP-11/23+ computer under the RSX-11M operating system can perform almost any task required of the instrument, the commands are not always intuitive and can be difficult to remember for the casual user (of which our laboratory has many). Given the widespread and growing use of other microcomputers (such as PC’s and Macintoshes) by users of the microprobe, the PDP has become the “oddball” and has also fallen behind the state-of-the-art in terms of processing speed and disk storage capabilities. Upgrade paths within products available from DEC are considered to be too expensive for the benefits received. After using a Macintosh for other tasks in the laboratory, such as instrument use and billing records, word processing, and graphics display, its unique and “friendly” user interface suggested an easier-to-use system for computer control of the electron microprobe automation. Specifically a Macintosh IIx was chosen for its capacity for third-party add-on cards used in instrument control.


2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Kander ◽  
Steve White

Abstract This article explains the development and use of ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes, CPT procedure codes, and HCPCS supply/device codes. Examples of appropriate coding combinations, and Coding rules adopted by most third party payers are given. Additionally, references for complete code lists on the Web and a list of voice-related CPT code edits are included. The reader is given adequate information to report an evaluation or treatment session with accurate diagnosis, procedure, and supply/device codes. Speech-language pathologists can accurately code services when given adequate resources and rules and are encouraged to insert relevant codes in the medical record rather than depend on billing personnel to accurately provide this information. Consultation is available from the Division 3 Reimbursement Committee members and from [email protected] .


2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shoko Watanabe ◽  
Sean M. Laurent

Abstract. Previous forgiveness research has mostly focused on victims’ forgiveness of transgressors, and offenders’ post-transgression efforts intended to promote victim forgiveness have been collectively branded as apology. However, decisions concerning forgiveness frequently occur outside of dyadic contexts, and the unique roles of repentance and atonement in determining forgivability of offenders, despite their preeminence in theology and law, have received little empirical attention. Across five experiments ( N = 938), we show that repentance and atonement independently influence third-party perception of forgivability for a variety of harms, even in disinterested contexts. Our findings provide a systematic examination of decisions about forgivability disentangled from direct personal involvement, demonstrating that components of apology known to facilitate forgiveness in victims also increase perceived forgivability from unharmed observers.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaclyn M. Moloney ◽  
Chelsea A. Reid ◽  
Jody L. Davis ◽  
Jeni L. Burnette ◽  
Jeffrey D. Green

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document