Question

*After leaving work one night, Bill decided to stop at local bar to have a few drinks before he got home. Bill had one drink too many and become intoxicated. Nevertheless, Bill though he was able to drive home. On his way home, Bill swerved to avoid hitting a little boy in the street and hit Melissa with his car. Melissa broke her leg and wants to sue Bill. Can Bill be held liable under tort law and criminal law? If so, explain in details the importances differences between tort law and criminal law. Be sure to include in your answer (1) who may commence an action against; (2) who has the burden of proof in the tort action and criminal action; (3) the standard of proof required to prove each action; (4) and the possible consequences Bill faces as a result of his conduct.

*Using the sane fact above, discuss in some details the elements of negligence that Melissa must prove by a preponderance of the evidence to find Bill liable for her damages. Be sure to use the facts to establish each of the neccesary elements for an action of negligence.

Answer 1

In this specific case bill can be held liable under tort law as he did not intentionally hit Melissa on her leg.

In this specific case Melissa comments and action against bill, as bill was the one who damaged malissa's leg which is a form of tort.

Defendant has the burden of proof in this is specific case introduction as well as in The Criminal action. Bill has specifically no difference in this case as he was already intoxicated and there was no fault of Melissa but of Bill.

Bill was driving a responsible e in influence of alcohol which is illegal in United States of America. .08 percent is the permissible limit which bill has crossed and proven to be in toxicated.

Bill would definitely face charges regarding loss of his driving licence as well as he will be fined and would have to provide medical support to the Melissa.