Provide a 4 pages analysis while answering the following question: Questions to Answer. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is required.

Provide a 4 pages analysis while answering the following question: Questions to Answer. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is required. These laws are what are regarded to as common law.

When there is incongruity between two parties in relation to the law, then a common law court is obligated to listen to the case and refer to analogous or similar cases that have occurred in the past and incorporate their resolutions in decision making (Pozgar, 2011). In other words, if a judgment had been issued in a similar case in the past, then the judge or arbitrator in this case is required to follow the same logical thinking as the previous case. If there has never been a similar case, then it is the obligation of the judge or arbitrator to form or create a standard model as an example that would be referred to by other judges and arbitrators in future. Pozgar (2011) further notes that having a case to refer to and use it in decision making introduces the concept of impartiality in judgments as issues not covered by other laws in a jurisdiction are awarded similar rulings or verdicts. These common laws are however not permanent as they can be changed depending on the current needs of the society (Pozgar, 2011).

According to Pozgar (2011), foreseeability is "The reasonable anticipation that harm or injury is likely to result from a commission or omission of an act" (p. 41). An individual can prevent the occurrence of a damaging incident or event if he or she predicts that the incident will occur on the basis of available information or facts. Having a clear understanding of the facts can help an individual in making decisions that would avert or prevent the occurrence of any harmful incident. In a court of law, a defendant is investigated or questioned with an intention of finding out whether he or she could have prevented injury or harm to a petitioner through analyzing data and information at hand.

As an example, take the case of a patient lying to a healthcare practitioner when he seeks a clarification of the patients medical history.