The defendant, Union Pacific RR (UPRR), was sued, under the authority of the Federal Employees Labor Act (FELA), by one of its own employees who was afflicted by West Nile virus after being bitten by a mosquito while on the job. After coming down with the virus, William Nami, the plaintiff, could not walk without a cane, could not drive, and had experienced memory loss. He argued that he was bitten by an infected mosquito while working for UPRR outside Galveston, Texas, and next to an area on UPRR’s right of way, that was infested by the virus-carrying mosquitoes. He noted that the infestation had been exacerbated by UPRR’s negligence in never mowing the grass and allowing the standing water to accumulate. Nami also argued that UPRR did not warn employees about the mosquitoes, did not provide insect repellent, and did not equip employees with long-sleeved shirts. UPRR replied that under the doctrine of ferae naturae, the company was not liable for Nami’s illness because he was injured by a wild animal that was not in UPRR’s possession. UPRR also claimed that because the danger was commonly understood to exist (Galveston is known by local inhabitants as the "mosquito capital of the world"), the company had neither a duty to warn nor a duty to supply employees with repellent or long-sleeved shirts. UPRR also disputed the claim that it did not mow the grass and that it let the standing water accumulate. Nami argued that UPRR was relying on common law principles, like ferae naturae and proximate cause, that had been deliberately superseded by FELA, which states that a railroad will be liable for on-the-job injuries to a worker if the railroad "caused or contributed to" a worker’s injury just so long as the railroad’s "negligence played a part—no matter how small—in bringing about the injury." The trial court held for the railroad, but the court of appeals reversed. The case then went to the Texas Supreme Court. Does FELA supersede the Roman law principle of ferae naturae, and if not, does the doctrine of ferae naturae protect UPRR from liability? Explain. [See: Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Nami, 498 S.W. 3d 890 (Texas 2016).]

Option C The organisation can save costs by doing one report instead of many that addresses all stakeholders' concerns  is NOT a benefit of integrated reporting.

For more questions on stakeholders

https://brainly.com/question/15532995

#SPJ8

Answer:

Limited flexibility: Companies may have unique circumstances that make it difficult to conform to GAAP guidelines. Eliminating Rule 203 would limit their ability to present financial statements that accurately reflect their situation.

Explanation:

Challenges to safe drinking water in the US include aging infrastructure, contamination, disparities, compliance issues, and emerging contaminants. Barriers include funding, enforcement, and neglect of vulnerable communities.

Despite regulations and technological advancements, the US ability to provide safe drinking water is threatened by a number of issues. Key issues include deteriorating infrastructure, pollution, access disparities, regulatory and compliance problems, emerging contaminants and climate change.

Due to obstacles like insufficient funding, dispersed responsibility, poor enforcement, economic inequality and a lack of infrastructure, short term progress in solving these problems is constrained. In order to guarantee safe drinking water these issues must be resolved through more funding, stricter enforcement, giving marginalized communities top priority and taking preventative measures for new problems.

Government, communities and other stakeholders must work together to ensure that everyone has equitable access to clean drinking water.

Learn more about safe drinking water at:

brainly.com/question/30128990

#SPJ4

A mutual mistake is not grounds for rescission. False.

Courts today do not require a threat of physical injury for a finding of duress. True.

Fraud does not arise through making reckless statements. False.

Fraud in the application may result if a party to a contract prevented another party to the contract from reading the contract. True.

An injured party does not have to prove a detriment (injury) to cancel a contract due to misrepresentation. False.

A situation where both parties to a contract have made an incorrect assumption about a material fact may be cause for rescission is known as a mutual mistake. A mutual mistake may give rise to revocation or cancellation of the contract.

The threat of physical harm is no longer a requirement for courts to find duress. When someone is forced to enter into a contract against their will, duress is used to compel them to do so. Although physical threats can be a form of duress, the courts may also take other factors like economic pressure or psychological manipulation into account.

Making careless claims can lead to fraud. In order to deceive another party, fraud typically entails the willful misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. If reckless statements cause another party to sign a contract based on false information, they may be deemed fraudulent. Reckless statements are ones that are made without regard for whether they are true or false.

It may be considered fraud in the application if a party to a contract prevents another party from reading the contract or hides its contents. Fraud in the application happens when one party willfully withholds or misrepresents crucial information while the contract is being formed leading the other party to sign the agreement under false pretenses.

A party who has been harmed and wants to terminate a contract because it was misrepresented typically needs to show how the misrepresentation has negatively impacted them. Financial loss, reputational harm or other harm incurred as a result of relying on the false information given can all constitute the injury.

Learn more about rescission at:

brainly.com/question/33538402

#SPJ4

Combining two drugs and experiencing an intensified effect is commonly referred to as drug synergy or drug potentiation.

Drug synergy occurs when the combined effect of two or more drugs is greater than the sum of their individual effects. In other words, the interaction between the drugs results in a magnified or enhanced response. There are several mechanisms through which drug synergy can occur.

One mechanism is pharmacokinetic synergy, where one drug affects the absorption, distribution, metabolism, or excretion of the other drug. This can lead to altered blood levels and increased potency of one or both drugs. Another mechanism is pharmacodynamic synergy, where the drugs interact at the target site or receptor level.

They may have similar or complementary mechanisms of action, resulting in an additive or synergistic effect. For example, one drug may enhance the effect of the other by increasing receptor sensitivity or inhibiting metabolic pathways that break down the second drug.

know more about distribution here:

https://brainly.com/question/29834639

#SPJ8

The intensification of effects when two drugs are combined is known as a synergistic effect. It's relevant in pharmacology and can lead to hazardous situations when not managed properly, such as combining alcohol and sedatives.

When two drugs are combined and this leads to an intensification of their effects, it is referred to as synergism or synergistic effect. It's a principle of pharmacology where the combined effect of two drugs equals more than the sum of the individual effects of each drug. For instance, alcohol and sedatives both can depress central nervous system function. If taken together, their combined effects can be very dangerous, even fatal.

https://brainly.com/question/31620704

1)The  facts of this case, Fisher v. Motor Hotel, Inc. Carouse Plaintiff sued for assault and battery when Defendant’s employee Flynn who roughly snatch a plate from Plaintiff’s hand and shouted in an offensive and disrespectful manner that the physical contact was made with the Plaintiff Fisher should not be served because he was black American. The Plaintiff  Fisher stated that he was not assaulted but he was humiliated and embarrassed.

2)The issues in this case was that was there was evidence proving that the Plaintiff was physically assaulted or a battery had taken place.

3) However the trial or lower court set aside the case because there was no evidence to proof that  physical contact was made with the Plaintiff

4)There was no  actual touching of the person (Plaintiff Fisher) in this case.

5) The court states intension of the person touching something relating to that person and taken something from the person forcefully in an offensive manner justify it, which is stated in the case of  ''Morgan v. Loyacomo''

6) Examples of things/objects found to be part of the person or his body is any thing related or connected to the person

7)The court’s rationale or reasons was there was no physical assault but the forceful intention of snatching of the plate by the defendant is considered as 'intentional invasion of the plaintiff's person and not the actual harm done to the plaintiff's body'' in relation to a discussion of the tort of battery.                    

The court’s holding on the issue of whether Fisher suffered a battery was that the plaintiff was ''entitled to actual damages for mental suffering due to the willful battery, even in the absence of any physical injury''. But in the case of  liability of the corporation, the action of the defendant is acted  base on  the ambit of his work, Flynn action was spiteful there by the final verdict was $500 will be compensated to the plaintiff for the spiteful act  and for downgrading of the plaintiff feelings

Tort of battery is an intentional harm, injury or offensive contact afflicted one person but it will not be the fault of the person if is consented  

Therefor in the above case the plaintiff encounter tort of battery

Learn more about Tort of battery on brainly.com/question/30028200

#SPJ1

Harveer is facing a conflict of interest . He should disclose the conflict, recuse himself, and follow fair procurement processes.

For more questions on conflict of interest

brainly.com/question/21648646

#SPJ8

Answer:

Explanation:

Firstly, the politician's emphasis on the public's right to breathe clean air highlights the fundamental importance of environmental protection. Clean air is essential for human health and well-being, and it is the government's responsibility to ensure that the air quality meets acceptable standards. By allowing companies to trade pollution permits, there is a risk that certain areas or communities may suffer disproportionately from pollution, especially if those areas are economically disadvantaged or lack political influence. This approach raises questions about environmental justice and the equitable distribution of pollution burdens.

Moreover, the politician's concern for the health of the planet reflects an understanding of the global impact of pollution. Pollution does not respect national boundaries, and its effects can extend far beyond the immediate vicinity of the emitting source. Climate change, in particular, is a pressing global issue that demands collective action. While a market-based approach might incentivize emissions reductions, it may not be sufficient to address the urgency and magnitude of the environmental challenges we face. Comprehensive and enforceable regulations are necessary to ensure that environmental goals are met effectively.

The argument against the government's pollution permit policy highlights the limitations of relying solely on market mechanisms to address environmental problems. Critics of such policies argue that they create a system where companies can simply pay for the right to pollute, effectively commodifying pollution and externalizing the costs onto society. They contend that true regulation, which sets clear standards and enforces compliance, is needed to protect the environment and safeguard public health.

However, it is worth noting that pollution permit systems, such as cap-and-trade programs, can have their advantages. When properly designed and implemented, they can provide flexibility, incentivize emissions reductions, and allow for cost-effective pollution control. By putting a price on pollution, they create economic incentives for companies to adopt cleaner technologies and practices.

Ultimately, finding the right balance between market mechanisms and regulatory approaches is crucial. A comprehensive approach to environmental protection may involve a combination of market-based solutions, such as pollution trading schemes, along with robust regulations and enforcement mechanisms. This would allow for both economic efficiency and environmental effectiveness, ensuring that the public's right to clean air and a healthy planet are adequately protected.

Fusion centers, established after 9/11, have faced criticisms regarding privacy, lack of oversight, effectiveness, information overload, and mission creep, while proponents emphasize information sharing and coordination benefits.

Fusion centers, which were put in place in the wake of 9/11, have come under fire for issues like mission creep, ineffectiveness, information overload, and privacy violations. Critics claim that fusion centers lack transparency and accountability and may violate people's right to privacy. Citing a lack of well documented successes, they question the efficacy of fusion centers in preventing terrorism and enhancing public safety.

The enormous amount of data gathered may cause information overload and make it difficult to find pertinent intelligence. Critics also voice concerns about the expansion of the purview of fusion centers beyond counterterrorism, which might result in the surveillance of innocent people.

An illustration of overreporting, profiling, and subjective judgment issues is the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative. Despite objections supporters stress the value of agency coordination and information sharing in the fight against terrorism and crime.

Learn more about terrorism at:

brainly.com/question/31760752

#SPJ4

Answer:

Explanation:

My name is Elijah Washington, and I am an African American man living in the United States in 1870. The 14th Amendment has had a profound and transformative impact on my life, empowering me in ways I never thought possible.

Firstly, the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause has shattered the chains of inequality that bound us for far too long. With this revolutionary clause, I now have a legal shield against the insidious discrimination and unequal treatment that plagued our society. It declares that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This powerful language has emboldened me to challenge the systemic injustices that have stifled our progress. Whether facing racial segregation, unequal access to public facilities, or discriminatory employment practices, I can wield the Equal Protection Clause as a sword of justice, demanding fair treatment and equal rights.

Secondly, the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause has bestowed upon me the long-awaited recognition and dignity of being a true American citizen. For generations, African Americans like myself were denied the basic rights and privileges of citizenship. But with the stroke of a pen, the 14th Amendment has finally acknowledged our inherent right to belong. As a citizen, I now possess the unassailable armor of legal protection. I am entitled to due process, ensuring that the wheels of justice shall turn for me as they do for anyone else. I can exercise my newfound political power, actively participating in the democratic process, and working towards dismantling the chains of prejudice and injustice that still linger.

The 14th Amendment has become our collective anthem of freedom, an unwavering testament to the resilience and fortitude of our community. It has emboldened us to march forward, forging a path towards true equality. While I recognize that the battle for justice is far from over, the 14th Amendment has ignited a fire within our hearts, reminding us of the promise and potential that lie within each of us. Through the Equal Protection Clause, we have the power to challenge the darkest corners of prejudice, ensuring that our children and grandchildren will grow up in a world where they are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Through the Citizenship Clause, we have claimed our rightful place in this nation, ready to reshape its destiny and build a more inclusive society for all. As an African American man in 1870, I stand proud, shoulder to shoulder with my brothers and sisters, knowing that the 14th Amendment is our beacon of hope, guiding us towards a brighter and more just future. Together, we will overcome the challenges that lie ahead, forging a path of equality, freedom, and unparalleled achievement. The 14th Amendment has forever changed the trajectory of our lives, and we will seize this opportunity to reshape our destiny and inspire generations to come.

Answer:

microdosage

Explanation:

because of the effects of both chemically reacting to eachother

In the United States, it is generally considered unethical and illegal for law enforcement officers to base their observations or investigation solely on the ethnicity of a suspect.

Individuals cannot be targeted or treated differently purely because of their ethnicity or race, according to the Constitution. To ensure justice, impartiality, and the preservation of individual rights, law enforcement authorities are supposed to adhere to specific norms and protocols.

Racial profiling, or the practise of targeting people based on their race or ethnicity, is generally criticised since it can lead to unfair discrimination, violations of civil liberties, and a breakdown in confidence between police enforcement and communities. It is contrary to the norms of equality and due process.

Overall, law enforcement in the United States strives to preserve public safety while following the concepts of fairness, justice, and equality for all people, regardless of ethnicity or race.

For such more question on investigation

https://brainly.com/question/23323608

#SPJ8

The following question may be like this:

Is it ethical or legal for law enforcement officers in the United States to consider the ethnicity of a suspect when observing or investigating criminal activities? Why or why not?

The phenomenon of “moral panic” is a social phenomenon that has been recognized in many societies. The concept has been introduced to explain the way in which societies are prone to reacting to events, issues, or people.

The moral panic phenomenon can be defined as a reaction to a perceived threat to the morals, values, and ideals of society. Such events are often characterized by a sense of urgency, a call to action, and a sense of impending doom. The phenomenon is usually fueled by the media, which can exacerbate and amplify the perceived threat. The moral panic phenomenon has been used to explain a variety of social issues, including drug use, juvenile delinquency, and political extremism.

In the case of drug use, moral panics often result in the creation of laws and policies that criminalize drug use and lead to the imprisonment of large numbers of people. This approach has been criticized by some experts, who argue that it is ineffective and counterproductive. In recent years, the opioid epidemic has been a major concern in the United States. Opioids are a class of drugs that includes prescription painkillers such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and fentanyl, as well as illegal drugs like heroin.

The opioid epidemic has been fueled by a variety of factors, including over-prescription of painkillers, the availability of illegal drugs, and the high cost of treatment for addiction. In response to the opioid epidemic, many states have implemented policies aimed at reducing the availability of prescription painkillers. One such policy is the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP), which requires doctors to check a patient's prescription history before prescribing opioids.

The PDMP has been criticized by some experts, who argue that it is ineffective in reducing the number of opioid-related deaths and may lead to unintended consequences, such as patients seeking illegal drugs to treat their pain the opioid epidemic is a recent example of a moral panic. The moral entrepreneur in this case is the media, which has played a role in shaping public perception of the issue. The “folk devil” is the drug user, who is often portrayed as a dangerous criminal. The policy resulting from this moral panic is the PDMP, which has been criticized for its ineffectiveness and potential negative consequences.

For more questions on juveniles

https://brainly.com/question/29398659

#SPJ8

Answer:

Explanation: