The Link Between Dinosaurs and Birds :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

The Link Between Dinosaurs and Birds There have been many recent discoveries pertaining to the finding of dinosaurs. However, there has never been a link between dinosaurs and birds at least not like this before. There has been a discovery in China of a remarkable dinosaur with birdlike feathers on its hind legs and tail including others places. A man by the name of Henry Gee has been researching this topic since 1996 and has come up with new discoveries. This four-winged dinosaur has fueled debate over evolution of airborne birds. This subject has re ignited debate over and over again about the origins of birds including feathers and their flights. The researchers believe that this bird has been around for about 124 to about 145 million years. Researchers also believe that these birdlike animals belong to a new species called Microraptor gui, a stem from the previous species Microraptor. The discovery of the fossil was found in the beds of Liaoning Province of the northeast China. They have seemed to measure 77cm long in diameter and lived in trees and survived by using here wing spanned to glide through branches. These birds use inter limb skin flaps to leap from branch to branch. It has been stirring up questions about which extinct reptiles do birds really belong to. â€Å"Microraptor gui: Researchers are keen to study its hip and shoulders†(Gee). Its been finally agreed upon that dinosaurs, due to recent discoveries, are closely related to birds through there common ancestry To be more specific they are related to small birds carnivores called dromaeodaurs. This group of reptiles includes such names as Tyrannosaurus and others; they are all called theropods. To make an even clearer link between the two, theropods had feathers much like the birds during their time of existence. Theropods are called bipeds; bipeds have long back legs adapted for running. This includes them trying to excape from their enemies using tactics that help them to quickly climb trees. This adds to the hypothesis that birds evolved from a two-legged runner. Also there wings added to there thrust in running and helped in the elementary flight of young birds when trying to excape from enemies. Further discovery suggests when young birds learn to fly it helps for them to just fall out of a tree and let gravity take its course.

A Wall of Fire Rising Essay

An image that was prevalent in this story was the hot air balloon. The hot air balloon represented freedom for Guy, who was trying to escape the unfair poverty that his family was experiencing. This symbol of freedom is first introduced to the reader when Guy, his wife Lili, and their son all go down to the sugar mill to hear the evening news that is displayed for them. This is a little place of enjoyment that they have found since they don’t go and sit with everyone else, â€Å"where in the past year they had discovered their own wonder.† I thought it was fitting that Danticat separated Guy and the balloon with barbed wire. It was like he wasn’t supposed to be free. â€Å"As Guy pushed his hand through the barbed wire, she could tell from the look on his face that he was thinking of sitting inside the square basket while the sooth rainbow surface of the balloon itself floated above his head†, this was foreshadowing that he would end up in that balloon of freedom one day. Before Guy jumped out of the balloon, he was asking Lili how she thought a man is judged after he is gone. She responded with â€Å"A man is judged by his deeds, the boy never goes to bed hungry.† Guy took this as an approval to go forth with his search for freedom. Guy is not judged after death based on the act of killing himself, he is judged based on his deeds and actions while he was alive. I was definitely caught off guard when he jumped out of the balloon. Why didn’t he take his family with him!? When Lili and Guy were lying in the grass together he said â€Å"Sometimes I just want to take that big balloon and ride it up in the air. I’d like to sail off somewhere and keep floating until I got to a really nice place with a nice plot of land where I could be something new. I’d build my own house, keep my own garden. Just be something new.† I was left wondering what his little family would do to survive now. He was the main provider and Lili was always building him up and trying to make him feel like a man. I was also confused as to why Guy would want to put his son on the list to work at the mill if that’s not what Guy even wanted to do in his life. I would have thought he would feel the same way as his wife in that he would want a better life for their son instead of just working at the only mill in the area.

Rylands v Fletcher in the 21st Century - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1720 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Analytical essay Level High school Did you like this example? Does the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher still have any useful role to play in the 21st Century? To define specifically what a field of law encompasses, be it tort or any of the other fields that the law branches into, can tend to be rather difficult. The definition of the law of tort can be interpreted as an on-going materialization of our civil wrongs and its effects on our society. Our modern society is ever-changing, which in turn means that the issues that arise in our society are also changing. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Rylands v Fletcher in the 21st Century" essay for you Create order Due to the unpredictability of these issues, the law has to merge and evolve to meet the requirements imposed on by our society. The decision that arose from the dispute in Rylands v Fletcher[1] ushered in and established a new area in the law of tort in order to remedy the disputes that arose in regards to strict liability. Controversy in regards to the ruling that arose from Rylands and Fletcher has been on-going since the late 19th century as more and more disputes in regards to strict liability have used the rule in Rylands for their claims. While some very recent cases have seen the rule in Rylands being used, many scholars and judges condemn its use and role in our modern day society and cite that it would harm us economically and that the ruling arose from the case was poor. Countries such Australia have completely abolished the ruling and instead depend on the tort of nuisance to find a ruling in regards to similar disputes[2]. By assessing the reasoning behind the ruling, me rits and demerits/faults in Rylands v Fletcher with the use of relevant case law, statues and legal journals a clearer consensus in regards to its usefulness in the 21st century can be drawn out. As the law was developing in the late 19th century multiple aspects of society were developing as-well. The industrial revolution had started and multiple incidents that included deaths, accidents and damage to property had occurred[3]. Fault liability, a liability in which the claimant must prove that the defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s conduct was intentional[4], had made progress in the law as it was used more regularly than strict liability. By the time the ruling in Rylands and Fetcher had come, reconsideration in regards to the importance of the liabilities had commenced. Influenced by the industrial revolution and events that had occurred in regards to water reservoirs[5], Lord Hoffmann and Lord Cairns recognized the necessity for such a controversial ruling and agreed with Blackburn Jà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s reasoning but altered it slightly by adding the requirement that the use be non-natural[6].This Judgement courted controversy throughout the 20th century with scholars debating its interpretation, but had a common understanding of the pressures the Judges had during the 19th century to further develop the Law of tort. American jurist Wigmore in 1984 wrote: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“What gave the exposition on this occasion its novelty and its permanent success was the broad scope of the principle announced, the strength of conviction of its expounder, and the clearness of his exposition, and perhaps, too, the fact that the time was ripe for its acceptanceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [7]. While some legal writers debated the interpretation of the ruling in Rylands by closely relating it to trespass and nuisance, others argued that nuisance itself related to the loss of enjoyment to land and the ruling had focused on physical damage and the reasonableness test was not applicable i n Rylands. After additional debate Professor Newark in 1949 argued that the Judges at the time of the ruling had not been aware of its grave importance and effect on the law and stated that: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“This case is generally regarded as an important landmarkà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ indeed, a turning pointà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ in the law of tort; but an examination of the judgments shows that those who decided it were quite unconscious of any revolutionary or reactionary principles implicit in the decision. They thought of it as calling for no more than a restatement of settled principles, and Lord Cairns went so far as to describe those principles as à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"extremely simpleà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [8]. And that the case was: A simple case of nuisance[9] Implying that the Judges could not have foreseen the changes the society would undertake and the somewhat impracticability of their ruling in our modern day society. Interpretations of the case during the 20t h century had taken odd turns that forced Judges to question the rulings usefulness. In cases such as Hale v Jennings Bros, Judges upheld the claimants claim in that it utilized the ruling in Rylands to find the defendant liable for personal injury. Further controversy had amounted with the ruling as this was the first time Rylands was used for personal injury. Legal writers found that while utilizing Rylands narrow rule, personal injury was attainable, however under a wider rule it was not the case. Blackburn J had based his ruling on the law of liability for animals, which allowed the ruling to encompass personal injury as well[10]. What the ruling in Hale outlined, was that the case the was initially utilised for damage to land had been broadened to encompass areas that did not closely relate to the original ruling, bringing forth ambiguity in regards to the utilisation of the ruling in Rylands. As with most precedents, the ruling in Rylands had been developed to slowly accomm odate the issues that arose in cases such as Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc[11] and Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council[12]. Benefits and limitations had started to be outlined by Judges and scrutinized in order to clarify some shortcomings with the broadness of the ruling[13]. Lord Goff in Cambridge Water had looked closely at the implication of strict liability in Rylands and utilized some of Professor Newarkà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s reasoning to conclude that the Rylands was essentially an extension to the law of nuisance[14]. By implying a foreseeably test to the ruling, Rylands had taken dramatic stride in order to accommodate the ambiguity of the original ruling. Lord Goff had also abolished the wider rule in Rylands in order to further clarify the usefulness of the ruling, which helped indicate a clearer direction for the ruling in the future. In Transco plc, Lord Bingham held that ruling in Rylands could beà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  engaged only where the defendants use is shown to be extraordinary and unusual.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [15] The Judges in Transco were also faced with the questions of either following the Australian example of abolishing the ruling or further clarifying the ruling and giving it greater certainty[16]. The Judges chose the latter indicating that, there was a niche number of cases that would require the use of strict liability and that enforcing fault liability might remedy some issues by approximating the law with neighbouring countries, however it would widen the gap between other nations that still utilise strict liability (i.e. USA (for extra-hazardous actions)).The changes that occurred in the aforementioned cases can be seen as a clarification of the ruling in Rylands, as the Judges of both cases had now started to develop the ruling for the modern era and have indicated that the rule is here to say for the time being. Some scholars have even linked the ruling in Rylands with environmental cases, citing that it would create an incentive to avoid harming the environment by forcing those who undertake dangerous activities to be more self-aware and that they should bear consequences irrespective of negligenceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s presence during an event.[17] It can be argued that there is legislation already in place to adequately resolve disputes in regards to environmental malpractice, but since there might be aspects that the legislation doesnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t cover, which case law (Rylands) can prove to be very useful as it allows for more flexibility in regards to finding a ruling. While most people argue against the ruling in Rylands v Fletcher by stating that it does not have usefulness in our day and age, it should be relatively clear that the ruling has advanced through the years to slowly but eventually accommodate the issues of the modern era. It might be argued that utilisation of strict liability is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“un-fairà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and impartial as it does not take into consideration negligence or the intention of the defendant, but since it is only invoked in a niche number of cases it should be held that strict liability should not be abolished and that rather than removing the ruling from English common law, it could be better integrated more cohesively into the fields the law of tort encompasses. References Goff R, Cases, Materials And Text On National, Supranational And International Tort Law. By Gerven Walter Van, Lever Jeremy, And Larouche Pierre. [Oxford: Hart Publishing. 2000. Xcix + 963 Pp. ISBN 1à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å"84113à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å"139à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å"3. Price Not Given. (PBk).] (2001) 50 International Comparative Law Quarterly Nolan D, The Distinctiveness Of Rylands V Fletcher [2005] Westlaw Oxfordreference.com, Fault Liability Oxford Reference (2015) https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095812106 accessed 20 March 2015 The Industrial Revolution, Working And Living Conditions (2015) https://firstindustrialrevolution.weebly.com/working-and-living-conditions.html accessed 18 March 2015 Waite A, Deconstructing The Rule In Rylands V Fletcher (2006) 18 Journal of Environmental Law Wigmore J, Responsibility For Tortious Acts: Its History (1894) 7 Harvard Law Review [1] Rylands v Fletcher[1868]UKHL 1 [2] Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd(1994) 179 CLR 520 [3] The Industrial Revolution, Working And Living Conditions (2015) https://firstindustrialrevolution.weebly.com/working-and-living-conditions.html accessed 18 March 2015. [4] Oxfordreference.com, Fault Liability Oxford Reference (2015) https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095812106 accessed 20 March 2015. [5]A.J. Waite, Deconstructing The Rule In Rylands V Fletcher (2006) 18 Journal of Environmental Law. [6] Rylands v Fletcher[1868]UKHL 1 [7] John H. Wigmore, Responsibility For Tortious Acts: Its History (1894) 7 Harvard Law Review. [8] A.J. Waite, Deconstructing The Rule In Rylands V Fletcher (2006) 18 Journal of Environmental Law. [9] ibid [10] Rylands v Fletcher[1868]UKHL 1 [11] Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc[1994] [12] Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council[2003]UKHL 61 [1 3] Donal Nolan, The Distinctiveness Of Rylands V Fletcher [2005] Westlaw. [14] Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc[1994] [15]Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council[2003]UKHL 61 [16] A.J. Waite, Deconstructing The Rule In Rylands V Fletcher (2006) 18 Journal of Environmental Law. [17] Robert Goff, Cases, Materials And Text On National, Supranational And International Tort Law. By Gerven Walter Van, Lever Jeremy, And Larouche Pierre. [Oxford: Hart Publishing. 2000. Xcix + 963 Pp. ISBN 1à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å"84113à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å"139à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å"3. Price Not Given. (PBk).] (2001) 50 International Comparative Law Quarterly.