Text 2 The Layman and the Courts
At some time in his life, almost every individual is a victim of circumstances, which would justify his taking another person to court. In most cases, litigation is impractical because the cost of going to court will be more than the sum involved.

Most states recognize the frustrating problem presented by these situations. For many years they attempted to alleviate the problem through the justices of the peace system. In general, this system proved to be a failure because it was disorganized, and because intrained individuals often presided over the proceedings.

The small claims court provided an answer. The purpose of the small claims court system is to provide a friendly forum for the litigation of cases that have high personal importance but involve little money.

A qualified judge presides over most small claims court proceedings. All such courts have, jurisdictional limits. For example, the limit in the District of Columbia is $ 750. Instead of the usual court costs, there is only a nominal filing fee of one or two dollars.

The most economical aspect of the system is that a party doesn't need to consult a lawyer. The form used to file a claim is simple. A knowledge of legal terms is unnecessary. The plaintiff — the person who starts the legal action — merely describes in his own words the basis of his claim against the defendant. If the individual requires assistance, the clerk of the court can provide it.

At the start of the hearing, the person who filed the suit, or plaintiff, tells his" story to the judge. The judge and the defendant then ask questions of the plaintiff. Next, witnesses relate their stories. If the defendant believes he is not responsible for the claim, he tells his side of the story. The judge and the plaintiff can ask questions of the defendant and his witnesses. After the judge has listened to both sides of the story, he makes his determination based on substantial justice.

Thus, the small claims court allows the individual to have his day in court without costs, without the need of a lawyer (although in most states he may have one if he desires), and without becoming involved in the technical procedures that normally govern a legal proceeding.
Text 3 The Duties of a Juror
In a civil action tried by a jury, the jury determines whether the plaintiff or the defendant wins the law suit. If damages are to be awarded, the jury decides how much money the successful party receives. In criminal law the jury must be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty before he can be convicted of the crime.

There are two kinds of juries: the petit or "petty" jury and the grand jury. The petit jury is a fact-finding body that decides civil cases and determines the guilt of an accused in a criminal trial. The grand jury is an accusatory body. It functions solely in criminal law. The grand jury hears preliminary prosecution evidence and determines whether that evidence is sufficient to indict of legally charge the person with a crime. When a grand jury indicts an individual, it charges him with a specific offence. The accused is then tried by a petit jury, which determines his guilt or innocence of that charge. Thus, the two juries each have important functions to perform.

In general, a prospective juror must meet the following requirements: He must be a citizen of the United States between twenty one and seventy years of age, in possession of his reasoning faculties, and in reasonably good health. However, the state laws governing the jury qualifications vary.

In most states certain conditions automatically disqualify an individual from serving on a jury. For instance, a person convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude (conduct contrary to honesty, justice, modesty, or good morals) cannot serve. The laws of many states specifically disqualify from jury duty members of parties or organizations, which advocate the violent overthrow of the government.

Some individuals are automatically exempted from jury duty because of their jobs. Thus, in many states, government officials are excluded from serving on a jury. Many others can claim exemption if they belong to professions that provide important public services. This list of people usually includes: surgeons, dentists, physicians, pharmacists, attorneys, priests, ministers, members of the military, policemen, firemen, and journalists.

To choose the actual trial jurors from among the veniremen, lawyers conduct what is known as a voir dire. In other words, they question each vepireman individually to determine whether he is qualified. For example, if the juror has prior knowledge of the case, personal prejudice or is a blood relation of a party, he is disqualified from serving on that particular jury. When the lawyers for both sides are satisfied, the jury can be seated and the trial can begin.

The juror performs his all-important function during the trial. He must listen to all the evidence and determine which witnesses are telling the truth. At the end of the trial, the jury returns to its private room where it deliberates on the case and seeks to agree on a verdict. In his determination of the facts, the individual juror must make his decision in accordance with the

instructions of the law given by the jut ge. Because compromises and other improper means of arriving at a verdict are occasionally employed, the use of a jury has been criticized. However, no one can deny that the jury has proven an effective means to determine litigated questions among the nation's citizens.

Text 4 The Duties of a Witness
Lawyers handle only the legal procedures of a trial and the substantive law involved. The individual witnesses provide the facts. This is an extremely important function, especially when one considers that- a trial is nothing more than a forum in which each party, through its witnesses, is given a chance to tell his side of the story. After hearing all the testimony, the jury then decides which are the true facts.

It is clear that the individual witness has a significant bearing on the outcome of a trial. It is important, therefore, to know what is expected of a witness when he appears at a trial.

If a person witnesses an event which may become the subject of a lawsuit, he will soon find himself interviewed by attorneys or investigators from both sides. In some instances, one interview will take place with attorneys from both sides and will be recorded word for word. This is called a deposition and affords a fair method for the lawyers to discover the relevant facts. At the initial interview, the attorney representing the party for whom the individual is testifying will go over the facts with the witness. They will also discuss the format of the questions that will be asked on direct examination, sometimes question by question. The lawyer will attempt to prepare the witness for the type of questions he can expect during the cross-examination.

Juries determine facts both by what is said and by the manner in which it is said. As soon as a person takes the witness stand, the jurors, consciously or subconsciously, begin to formulate

impressions on his credibility. There are many factors underlying these impressions:

• 
  Whether the witness answers promptly or hesitates;
  
• 
  Whether he exaggerates;
  
• 
  Whether he is overbearing;
  
• 
  Whether he appears insincere;
  
• 
  Whether he is crude;
  
• 
  Whether he is obviously prejudiced toward one side.
  

In addition, juries judge a witness by his physical appearance. Many jurors would not be wholly objective toward a witness who was unwashed, unkempt, and wore dirty clothes. Also, a lawyer representing a woman in an alienation of affection lawsuit would be taking a risk if he permitted her to testify in a provocative dress. In spite of honest assertions to the contrary, such factors subconsciously affect the jury's impression of a witness. Commonly approved ideas for witnesses include good grooming; good posture; simple, clear explanations; sincerity; and honesty.

In summary, the layman is the best witness when he presents a respectable physical appearance, honestly relates the facts as he remembers them, does not fabricate to put together the loose ends of his memory, and gives clear, forthright answers.

Text 5 The Individual as a Party in a Civil Lawsuit
At least two individuals are involved, in every civil suit: a plaintiff and a defendant. These individuals are called "parties". The plaintiff is the person who files the complaint. This statement claims that the defendant is responsible for the plaintiff's damages. At trial, although the burden of proof is usually on the plaintiff, the defendant may have to defend himself against this claim. In some cases he must show that he is not responsible for the injuries, either factually or legally. In

other civil suits, the defendant must prove that it was the plaintiff's negligence that caused the injuries.

The parties in most civil trials are laymen. Many are unfamiliar with the legal technicalities of courtroom procedure. If the parties personally testify at the trial, theideas expressed earlier about the responsibilities of witnesses are applicable.

The plaintiff and the defendant are directly affected by the outcome of a trial. One wins, the other loses. Sometimes substantial amounts of money are involved. It is paramount, therefore, that each does everything within legal limits to help his cause.

Initially, a concerned party can best help himself by telling his lawyer everything remotely connected with his legal claim. Let the Sawyer determine whether it is "legally relevant". Many individuals unwittingly damage their cases by leaving out 'unimportant' details, only to discover later that those facts could have changed the verdict.

The initial interview should disclose the facts of the incident, including the names of witnesses, any documentary evidence, the weather if relevant, the sequence of events, and other details. The lawyer can investigate these facts and seek corroboration by other witnesses. This process slowly solidifies the case. If, after initial interview, the individual recalls additional facts, he should inform his lawyer. However, the party should not talk to the opposing party, his attorney, or any investigator employed by the other person unless his own lawyer is present. The lawyer's presence can insure that the questioning is fair and relevant. If his lawyer is not there, an individual may be drawn into making misleading statements that could adversely affect his case.

At the trial itself, the party should present a neat appearance. Unconventional clothing can adversely affect a party just as it can a witness. In fact, he can lose his own case. Another important rule is to be concerned, but not insincere or overly

emotional. Honesty and restraint are the party's best assets. Apart from giving any direct testimony, the plaintiff or defendant stays with his lawyer at the counsel's table and observes the trial. During the course of the proceedings, the lawyer may consult with him frequently to verify facts or to seek additional information. Apart from this information the job of the layman as a party is completed.

Text 6 The Individual as a Criminal Defendant
A defendant in a criminal proceeding is in an extremely hazardous position. An unfavourable verdict can put him in prison for months, years, or even life. Ignorance of the law is no defence in a criminal prosecution. The individual is presumed to have knowledge of the law. Therefore, individuals must become as knowledgeable of the law as possible. Consequently, a person will know what to expect if criminal charges are preferred against him.

The Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution expressly protects individuals from police-state tactics. Before the police can interrogate an individual, they must orally advise him of the following rights:

• 
  He has a right to remain silent.
  
• 
  Anything he says may be used against him in a court of law.
  

• 
  He has a right to an attorney. If the cannot afford one, the state will appoint one, free of charge, to represent him before any questions are asked.
  

The individual, however, can waive, or relinquish, these rights. If he decides to answer questions anyway, the individual's statements can be held against him in court.

Another constitutional provision often involved in criminal cases is the Fourth Amendment right against "unreasonable search and seizures". Except when they make a search as a part

of an arrest, the authorities generally need a search warrant before they can search an individual's premises. However, there are certain exceptional circumstances, which preclude the need for a search warrant. One is the consent search.

An individual can consent to a search and. thereby waive his Fourth Amendment rights. It must be remembered that evidence obtained in a search may be used against the individual if the case comes to trial. For example, many individuals attempt to bluff their way in hopes that the authorities will not find what they are looking for. If the article is¹ found, there is little the individual can do since he consented to the search. In situations of these sorts, the individual should withhold his consent and consult an attorney.

Assuming that the individual is brought to trial, what happens next?

One course would be to plead guilty to the charges. In general an individual may wish to plead guilty if there is a solid case against him, if he has little or no defence, and if he hopes that a guilty plea will bring a lenient sentence.

It is imperative that the defendant understands the meaning and the effect of a guilty plea. By pleading guilty, the defendant judicially admits the crime and authorises the judge to enter a conviction against him. In addition, the defendant waives three important rights:

• 
  His Sixth Amendment right to be tried by a jury;
  
• 
  His Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses who would testify against him;
  

* His Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
These are important rights, and only the defendant, in

consultation with his attorney, can decide if he wishes to waive these rights by entering a guilty plea.

The defendant's other course of action is to plead not guilty. By pleading not guilty, the defendant requires the prosecution to convince the jury beyond areasonable doubt that he is guilty

of the offence. After the defendant has entered a plea of not guilty, the prosecution presents its case. The defence lawyer can present witnesses who support the defendant's claim of innocence. In addition the defendant may take the stand and give his own account. Whether or not the defendant testifies depends on the facts in that particular case.

However, it is important to remember that the Fifth Amendment guarantees the individual the right of remain silent. He cannot be made to incriminate himself. Thus the defendant can refuse to take the stand In fact, he can refuse to offer any evidence at all. Instead he may argue that the prosecution has failed to produce any conclusive evidence of his guilt. This may be a successful tactics. If the state fails to prove its case, the defendant is acquitted.

In conclusion, the individual participates in court proceedings in a number of important ways. His relative success will depend on how he reacts to a specific situation. However, knowledge of the law and legal procedures coupled with adequate preparation are the best aids to a successful handling of court cases and duties.

Text 7 Lawsuits for Personal Injury
During the early development of the law, it was recognised that whenever possible the court should award compensation to those persons harmed by the actions of another. As a result of this determination, the theory of tort liability was conceived. Tort law is based on the idea that anyone who causes injury to another person or his property should be held responsible for this harm. It differs from criminal law, in which a state imposes punishment upon the guilty party and thereafter seeks to rehabilitate him. Tort theory is also different from contract law,

which the court uses.to give legal effect to.the promises.of individuals.

In essence, a tort, or civil wrong, is the violation of a personal right guaranteed to the individual by law, A person has committed a tort if he has interfered with another person's safely, liberty, reputation or private property. If the injured party can prove that the defendant proximately caused him harm, the court will hold the defendant responsible for the plaintiff's injury. If he doesn't have a valid defence, the defendant will be forced to pay for the damage he caused.

Tort liability can be divided into three broad areas:

• 
  Liability as a result of intentional conduct;
  
• 
  Liability as a result of negligent conduct;
  
• 
  Liability without fault.
  

Individual torts include such offences as assault, battery, trespass, conversion, defamation, and deceit. In addition, accidental injuries caused by defective machinery or dangerous activities can render the owner or person in charge liable for the damage.

Since the individual can easily become involved in tortuous situation, often through little or no fault of his own, it is useful to know what actions are considered torts and what defences exist to eliminate or reduce liability.

Text 8 Liability Resulting from intentional Conduct
. An individual has committed an intentional tort if he has knowingly violated the rights of another. He may have considered his action a practical joke, or he may have believed that no harm would result. Neither excuse-constitutes a valid defence. He will be held liable for an intentional tort because he desired to wrongfully interfere with another's interests and because he

acted upon that desire, if the guilty party has injured his victim, he will be forced to compensate that individual for his injuries.

Since many seemingly harmless pranks or thoughtless actions can lead to liability for a civil wrong, it is useful to know what acts constitute intentional torts.

Assault. Assault is an intentional act, which provokes, in the victim a reasonable apprehension that the aggressor intends and is able to harm him. No contact is necessary. The harm is the mental fear of injury. To illustrate, suppose two neighbours, Jones and Smith, are always quarrelling. Jones starts to build a garage, which Smith believes will infringe on his property. In his anger Smith grabs a hatchet. Running toward Jones he begins yelling and waving the hatchet wildly. Although Smith does not actually hit Jones, he may be liable for assault because his acts placed Jones under a reasonable fear that he would be injured. Even if Smith meant no harm and was only carrying a practical joke to an extreme, the liability still exists.

An assault action, however, presupposes that the victim is aware of the impending harm. Suppose Smith was behind Jones when he raised the hatchet. At this point there is no assault because Jones is unaware of the raised hatchet. He has no apprehension of impending harm. Or, if Smith points a gun at Jones, but Jones doesn't see it, the result is the same. No liability exists because the victim is unaware of the act and therefore cannot be frightened or intimidated.

Normally, words alone are insufficient to cpnstitute an assault. The aggressor must have some ability to carry out the impending harm. Thus, words coupled with an overt act are sufficient. For example, if Alien approaches Baker, waves a pistol at him, and says 'stick'em up', he has committed an assault. The words alone are no cause for fear, but the words, coupled with the pistol, constitute a distinct threat. In this situation. Baker's fear that he will be harmed is entirely reasonable.

Battery. In simple terms, a battery is a completed assault. It can be defined as the unjustified use of force against the body of another person, resulting in unconsented contact with that person. Fear of apprehension of injury is not part of this tort. All that is necessary is that the force be intentional and that it be applied without the victim's consent. In our example, if Smith had actually struck Jones with the hatchet, he would have committed a battery upon him and would be liable for any resulting injuries.

Battery sometimes occurs as the result on unauthorised surgical operations. Suppose Dr. Casey is to perform an operation on Mrs. Olson's right leg. Permission is granted for that operation, but while in the operating room, Dr. Casey discovers an ugly tumour on his patient's left leg and removes it. Courts have held that since he did not have permission to operate on the left leg, the doctor is liable for battery. In view of these court results, hospitals often insert a protective clause in their consent forms. This clause gives them permission to perform any additional surgery that is both beneficial and minor. Therefore, it is important to read a consent form for an operation carefully in order to see what clauses it contains. If a question arises about the meaning of a particular statement, the doctor can usually answer it. The safer course of action, however, might be to ask a lawyer to explain the meaning and effect of the clause.

False imprisonment. False imprisonment is a violation of the individual's right of personal liberty. This tort is described as the unlawful and unjustified detention of a person against his will. The,law considers a person falsely imprisoned only if he is completely prevented from going about his business. A victim of this tort can bring an action against the person responsible and recover money compensation for his loss of time, any physical injury, illness, or any mental anguish he may have suffered. '

A simplified example-of false imprisonment would occur if Williams, without right, placed Young in a room and locked the door, thereby preventing him from leaving. However, if there were a window in the room through which Young could have escaped, a court might find that, the detention was not sufficiently complete to constitute false imprisonment.

In their attempts to curb shoplifting, store merchants occasionally violate the personal liberty of suspects by detaining them without a reasonable cause, as in the following example:

Mr. Davis, the store detective, stops Jimmy and Johnny as they try to leave the store. Davis didn't see the boys take anything nor did anyone report to him that they did. He just doesn't trust their looks or their mannerisms as they wander through the store. His examination of their shopping bags shows that they have paid fdr everything. Johnny and Jimmy could file a lawsuit against Davis and the store for the false imprisonment. • Shoplifting is such a major problem that many states have modified their laws governing false imprisonment. These new provisions allow authorised store personnel to detain a person whom they reasonably believe has stolen merchandise.

Trespass. Strictly speaking a trespass is the unlawful invasion of another person's real property. This tort has its roots in early English and American common law. Traditionally, the individual has enjoyed the right to own and use land without interference. Thus a person who intentionally enters private property without the owner's consent technically commits trespass, regardless of whether or not he harms the property. Examples of technical trespass include animals intruding on one's property, people using private property as a short cut, or children throwing rocks on someone's land. Since the harm to the land is minimal in these cases, a court would probably award nominal damages, such as one dollar.

However, many trespasses result in serious damage to the land or its owner. For example, a driver of a moving van, while attempting to turn around in the street, drives the truck over the curb onto a private lawn and crushes the owner's new sidewalk. The company is liable to the property owner for the damage. To illustrate another serious trespass, suppose some neighbourhood children camp on the far end of a man's acreage without his consent. Thinking that they have put out their campfire, the children bed down for the night. However, the wind comes up and fans the coals to life. The subsequent fire spreads and eventually burns down the owner's house. He can recover damages from the children and possibly from their parents for the loss of his house.

Error is no excuse in the eyes of the law. A trespass committed by mistake is still a trespass, and the transgressor is liable to the property owner for any damage he has caused. For example, John and George have the mineral rights for a parcel of land on which they discover natural gas. After capping their find, they seek a method of economically producing it. Meanwhile, ABC Gas Company, under the impression that it is drilling on its own land, "discovers" and attempts to recoup the same natural gas deposit. Since John and George have the legal rights to the minerals, they can recover for damages even though ABC Gas Company believed that it was drilling on its own' land.'.

Conversion. Trespass applies to the intentional invasion of real property. In a similar manner, conversion to the exercise of dominion over someone else's personal property. Personal property includes tangible possessions such as cars, appliances, clothing, and jewellery, and intangible property such as stocks and bonds.

The term conversion encompasses several different acts. One is unauthorised appropriation, either openly or fraudulently, of another's property.

John, a college student, goes into Joe's room and takes his typewriter. Joe has not given his permission for this act. Since he has no right to take the machine, John is liable to Joe for conversion.

Mr. Slick, a con-artist, convinces Mrs. Simpson to give him 2, 000 worth of stock certificates as an investment in Is uranium venture. There is no such venture. Mr. Slick is liable to Mrs. Simpson for conversion.

Another form of conversion is the unauthorised use of property. Under this principle a person legally acquires possession of the property but subsequently converts it to his own personal use without the owner's permission.

Mr. Porter drives into Acme Parking Company for off-street parking during business hours. Instead of parking the car, the parking attendant drives it around all day. Since Mr. Porter gave no consent for this use, the parking around all day. Since Mr. Porter gave no consent for this use, the parking attendant is liable to Mr. Porter for conversion of the car.

Another illustration of this tort is the unlawful destruction or alteration of property owned by another. When a person destroys another's property, the damage is obvious. It is a more difficult problem when the property is altered.

Mr. Stone takes his light tan suit to Ace Cleaners for dry-cleaning. Instead of cleaning it, Ace Cleaners dyes the suit a dull black colour. Ace Cleaners is liable to Mr. Stone for conversion.

Mr. Pane has a cord of large logs in the backyard. He plans to construct a fence with these logs. While Mr. Pane is away, Sam enters the yard and cuts the logs into small pieces, suitable only for firewood. This alteration of the identity of Pane's property renders Sam liable to Mr. Pane for the wrongful conversion of the logs.

Conversion also occurs when an individual disposes of property without the owner's consent. Mr. Dix lends Mr. Dent his diamond stickpin. Without Mr. Dix's permission, Mr. Dent gives it to a third party. Mr. Dent is liable for converting the pin to his own use.

A refusal to surrender property upon demand of the owner is also a form of conversion.

Mr. Lewis hires Acme Moving & Storage to transport his furniture across the country and then keep it in storage for a month. Upon finding a new house, Mr. Lewis demands his furniture. Acme, for no reason, refuses to surrender the goods. Acme is liable for conversion of Mr. Lewis property.

However, if the demand is unreasonable, there is no liability. Suppose Mr. Lewis demanded immediate delivery at 2: 30 a. m. In this case there is no liability. Also when there is a legitimate question as to the identity of the man who demands delivery, there may be no liability on the part of Acme.

The act of conversion is complete when the actor takes, detains, or disposes of the item of property. At this point the victim has the right to bring an action for conversion in court. If the owner subsequently recovers possession of the item, he can bring an action, but the amount of recovery will be decreased because he has recovered the object of the suit.

Defences. If an individual has a defence to an intentional tort, he will not have to pay damages. The. law will leave the victim as it found him. The more common defences to intentional torts are privilege, consent, self-defence, defence of property, and legal justification.

The law applies the term "privilege" to those situations in which the defendant, although otherwise liable, has acted in the public interest. He is therefore entitled to freedom from any liability, even at the expense of damage or injury to the victim.

One example would be the store owner who is privileged to detain suspected shoplifters in order to curtail this crime.

Privilege sometimes serves as a defence to battery. An immigration doctor who injects preventive shots in every incoming passenger to safeguard the health of the country's inhabitants is acting under a privilege. Hence he is riot liable for the unconsented contact with a passenger's body.

Another defence is consent, meaning that the victim "consented" to the act. For example, participants in sports consent to playing. If their bodies are touched, there is no tort. If two belligerents start to fight, most courts say that each consented to fight. Therefore, neither can recover from the other for any injuries he may have incurred in the melee Under the same theory, a surgical operation usually requires the consent of the patient in order to protect the doctor from liability for battery.

The privilege of self-defence is based on the necessity of giving a man the right to take reasonable steps to defend himself. The right to act in self-defence exists not only when the danger is real, but also when it is reasonably apparent that danger exists. A common situation allowing this defence occurs when an individual accosts another in an alley and tries to take that person's wallet. If the victim reasonably believes that his safety is threatened, he may use reasonable force to fend off his attacker. When he no longer faces any danger the individual cannot inflict further harm upon his attacker. Instead, he must seek the law's help.

The defence of private property is subject to the same rules that govern self-defence of one's person. An individual may use a reasonable amount of force to safeguard the peaceful possession and enjoyment of his property. A person cannot use excessive force. For example, a rifle should not be used to ward off

intruders when it is apparent that an oral command to leave would be sufficient.

Legal justification is the defence that protects all law enforcement officers who are acting in the line of duty. Their acts in apprehending suspects cannot be the basis for an intentional tort. Thus, a search of an individual premises conducted with a valid search warrant would not support a claim of trespass. The officer was legally justified in entering the property.

<предыдущая страница | следующая страница>