A mean-spirited neighbour, Lahey, yelled insults at Rob, a real estate agent, as Rob was leaving an open house. Lahey then suddenly rushed toward Rob. Although Rob tried to defend himself by throwing his briefcase at Lahey, Lahey hit him above the eye, causing a serious cut that required stitches. Lahey was arrested, convicted, and sentenced in a criminal action for his attack. Rob couldn't work for two months because of the injury. On these facts, which of the following is false?
◦ Although Rob suffered damages because of the attack, he could not sue Lahey in a civil action because a criminal action had been taken, and the same incident cannot result in both types of proceedings.
◦ The attack by Lahey shows the elements of the torts of assault and battery; the assault was making Rob apprehend the hit, and the battery was the hit.
◦ Rob could not succeed in an action against Lahey for the tort of nuisance.
◦ The insults yelled at Rob would not, in themselves, give Rob the right to hit Lahey with his briefcase.
◦ If Lahey sued Rob for hitting him with the briefcase, Rob most likely would argue that it was justified on the basis of self-defence.
Schools are a primary agent of socialization. One of their functions is to teach children the ...
NADH acts as a reducing agent in several reactions
Math Joke: Be Rational, Get Real
Please help me with a Real Estate Course Problem
Prove that each of the following real functions f has a discontinuity. For each function, ...
The TaqMan approach to quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR)