This is a case study which seeks to show how one can be absolved from a wrong done. In this case study two people are sponsored to go on a ride and events turn out in the wrong way. A legal wrong in this context is a violation of a person’s rights .Tex and Rex, have violated my right and therefore must take legal liability for their actions. Legal liability arises from 3 general classes of legal wrong: crime, tort, and breach of contract. We are dealing with crime here and crime is a wrong in which a person intentionally inflicts injury. We also have to understand the term damages so we can be able to give a fair judgment. There are three general types of damages; special damages, general damages and punitive damages. This case falls in general damages, which are losses that can not be known with certainty or can not really be compensated with money, such as loss of consortium or pain and suffering. In the context of this issue there was pain caused (Hill & Kathleen, 2005).
The resort that sponsored the rides must take full responsibility. This is so because under the principle of strict liability, it allocates the presumption of responsibility for certain types of accidents to the defendant instead of the plaintiff. The accident occurred while I was under the care of the resort that sponsored the rides. This is also justified by the principle of Actus Reus under the clause of possession, which says that constructive possession means that something is physically under someone’s control, which is true in this case. Basing on the above principles the resort must therefore recover all my damages (Spaulding, 2008).
On the other hand Tex and Rex must also take responsibility for what happened; in this case they must reimburse everything to the resort. This raises the presumption that if for example a wild animal escapes or a blast accident occurs, the owner of the animal or whoever created the explosion would be automatically liable for any harm caused; this therefore implicates also the stable that employed them (Owen & Rowley, 2010). Under the requirement of an Overt Act (actus reus); a defendant purposely, knowingly, or recklessly does something prohibited by law. An act is purposeful when a person holds a conscious objective to engage in conduct or to a particular result. To act knowingly means to do so voluntarily and deliberately, not owing to mistake or some other innocent reason. Tex and Rex knowingly allowed me to use the mare known for its impulsive urges to return to her stable mates without warning the rider. Tex and Rex had the intent; they had knowledge of what was coming this therefore amounts to criminal intent (mens rea) (Owen & Rowley, 2010).
Tex on the other hand can not be absolved from liability because they acted together or better even because, he knew about it and chose to keep quiet. This is conspiracy; when two or more people act together to break the law, conspiracy is an additional charge to the intended crime (Spaulding C. William, 2005).
Tex and Rex are guilty under criminal intent. Tex can not be absolved he conspired to cause harm because he knew what was coming. Under strict liability, the owners of the stable are dully liable for the offense committed by Tex and Rex. The law of strict liability also convicts the resort that sponsored the ride because the plaintiff was under its possession at the time the crime was committed and must therefore meet all the damages and decide on whether to be reimbursed or not.