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that UPRR was relying on common law principles, like ferae naturae and proximate cause, that had been deliberately superseded by FELA, which states that a railroad will be liable for on-the-job injuries to a worker if the railroad "caused or contributed to" a worker’s injury just so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).]

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

Answer:

The answer is a.

People help each other.

I hope this is helpful!

When a commercial real estate sale involves two agent sales associates working under a broker, the broker may create a co-brokerage agreement or a dual agency arrangement.

A co-brokerage agreement is a contractual agreement between two real estate brokers, each representing different parties involved in a transaction. In this case, the broker representing the seller and the broker representing the buyer collaborate to facilitate the sale. The agreement outlines the responsibilities, duties, and compensation arrangement between the two brokers.

Under a co-brokerage agreement, the brokers typically share information, work together to market the property, coordinate showings, negotiate terms, and assist in the closing process. The agreement specifies how the commission will be divided between the brokers, typically based on a predetermined percentage or a negotiated split.

On the other hand, a dual agency arrangement occurs when the broker represents both the buyer and the seller in a transaction. In this scenario, the broker acts as a neutral intermediary, facilitating the transaction while maintaining impartiality.

know more about intermediary here:

https://brainly.com/question/29732040

#SPJ8

The Environmental Impact Assessment Act evaluates and manages the environmental impacts of proposed projects, promoting sustainable development and environmental protection.

A framework for assessing and managing the potential environmental effects of proposed projects or activities is established by the Environmental Impact Assessment Act. Its main advantages include promoting sustainable development by taking into account social, economic and environmental factors, protecting the environment by identifying and mitigating negative effects and facilitating public participation in decision making processes.

The act promotes project enhancements and modifications, ensures adherence to environmental regulations and provides comprehensive information on environmental impacts to enable informed decision making. The EIA Act promotes more environmentally conscious and sustainable development, ecosystem protection and a balance between development and conservation by incorporating environmental factors into project planning.

Learn more about Environmental Impact Assessment Act. at:

brainly.com/question/33015812

#SPJ4

Restorative justice should be thought of as simultaneously being a philosophy of justice, a strategy of justice, and a combination of justice programs.

Restorative justice is a comprehensive approach to addressing harm and resolving conflicts that involves all parties affected by an offense. It is often described as simultaneously being a philosophy of justice, a strategy of justice, and a combination of justice programs.

1. Philosophy of justice: Restorative justice is grounded in a particular philosophy of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior rather than solely focusing on punishment. It recognizes that crime or wrongdoing not only affects the victim but also the community and the offender. The philosophy emphasizes accountability, healing, and the restoration of relationships.

2. Strategy of justice: Restorative justice is also considered a strategy or approach to justice. It seeks to address the root causes of crime and prevent future offenses by providing opportunities for meaningful dialogue, understanding, and reconciliation between the victim, offender, and community. It aims to promote active participation and engagement from all parties involved in order to achieve a sense of justice and restore harmony.

3. Combination of justice programs: Restorative justice encompasses a range of programs and practices that are implemented to operationalize its philosophy and strategy. These programs may include victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, circle processes, community reintegration programs, and more. These programs are designed to create a structured and supportive environment for communication, accountability, and healing.

Restorative justice emphasizes the importance of repairing harm, promoting healing, and reintegrating offenders into the community. It acknowledges the interdependence of individuals and the need for social connections and mutual understanding. By actively involving all stakeholders and considering the broader context of crime, restorative justice seeks to address the underlying causes of harm and foster long-term transformation and justice.

It is worth noting that restorative justice practices and implementations can vary across jurisdictions and contexts. Different countries and communities may have specific models and approaches tailored to their unique needs and cultural backgrounds.


To learn more about justice click here: brainly.com/question/14342080

#SPJ11

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.

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?