What is the major difference between a strict liability law and presumptive law?

Strict liability and presumptive law differ a great deal. In cases of strict liability, whether a person or company negligently or intentionally caused harm to person or property does not matter; the person or the company is still held liable. In cases of presumption, there is a legal presumption about the situation, but this is generally what is called a rebuttable presumption.

Strict liability is a legal construct designed to protect society from situations in which there is such inherent danger that someone must be liable if something goes wrong. The examples of this I learned about in law school included the use of explosives and owning a tiger. No matter how careful people are with these "dangerous instrumentalities," it is easy to see how things could go wrong with them. If we are going to allow people to use explosives and keep wild tigers, we want to be sure that, when things go wrong, someone will have to pay for it. So, even if people handle explosives and tigers properly, if there is harm, these people are liable for it.

On the other hand, a rebuttable presumption simply provides that the court will presume something unless there is evidence to the contrary, a presumption that can be rebutted with evidence. For example, a state might have a statute that provided a rebuttable presumption that minors aged 14-16 are not capable of formulating consent to have sex with an adult. Evidence might be entered to show a 16-year-old female has been emancipated from her parents, is living on her own, attending school, and earning a living. These might very well be factors that show she is perfectly capable of consenting to having sex with someone. Another example is that, in some states, a child born to a married woman is presumed to be the offspring of the people in the marriage. This is not, of course, always true. The law will treat that offspring as though it is, though, unless and until that presumption is rebutted.

There should be no confusion about these terms because they have very different meanings and purposes. Strict liability is meant to protect everyone in society from dangerous activities and objects, while presumptions are a way of making an assumption that can be shown to be false with proper evidence.

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

nouns - what do you call the person who passes the trophies to the prize giver/presenter?

The person who gives out the trophies to the winners are called award presenters. So what do u call the person who passes the trophies to the presenter? Thanks!

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.

Notes

Search This Blog