This case brings up the issue of morality and the law. Here, M was completely innocent, if not a little naïve, in his financial investments. L and his brothers were in a better position and had more knowledge regarding the outcome of M's financial investment. Because they chose not to impart this information prior to M's investment, L and his brothers should be held liable. Although L was the one who actually defrauded M, his brothers were members of this partnership and were in a better position than L to prevent his loss. Thus, they should be held responsible.
In this case, there are many benefits in allowing the public access to trials via live televised coverage. They can better understand the ways in which our legal system work and evaluate the flaws of such a system. This sort of public exposure can change the legal system for the better. Although some televised trials can become circuses, there can be regulations in place to avoid a media frenzy. There may be limited members of the media present in the courtroom, certain types of cameras, and certain parts of the trial carried out without the media present.
Facts of the case is given below:
In the case of S vs. O, the fight escalated, and a man shot and killed S's father. S sued the owner of the circle inn for negligence and argued that the bartender violated a legal duty when he refused to call police. Here, they were fighting for the duties that bartender should have.
But in this case K vs. PZ,
• PZ is a bar owned by MK. From her experience in attending bar, she knows that there is a threat from some gangs to attack customers for no reason.
• A gang named P has entered the bar, followed a customer K and knocked him unconscious with numerous fractures of facial bones.
• Here, they were quarrelling against either that whether PZ has a duty to protect from P gang's attack.
From the above two cases, we can clearly say that both the cases are different from each other, so will have different outcomes and hearings from the jury.