Practice question · True or false
Where harm is caused in a state of necessity, those in whose favour the harm was averted may be civilly liable even though nobody is criminally liable.
Hints
- Ask who gained from the harm being caused.
- The Code makes the beneficiaries answer in proportion to what they were spared.
Show the answer
True
Why
True, and it is the exception that shows the rule. Justification generally removes civil liability along with criminal liability; in the state of necessity the Code makes the beneficiaries answer civilly in proportion to the harm they were spared. The loss is shifted from the person whose property was sacrificed to the people it was sacrificed for.
Practise Justification and Personal Imputation
The app has 6 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. Law I is free to start.
More questions on Justification and Personal Imputation
- Why does it matter whether an exemption removes unlawfulness or only personal imputation, if in both cases…
- Which are true of the requirements for exemption on grounds of incapacity?
- Complete the account of the last two stages.
- Under Article 14.3, an insurmountable mistake about the unlawfulness of the act reduces the penalty by one or…
- A cause of justification makes an act entirely lawful, whereas an excuse merely removes personal blame. What…
- Under Article 19 of the Criminal Code, below what age is a person not criminally responsible under that Code?
- Sort each case by the kind of exemption it involves.