Astor manufacturing stores hazardous and volatile chemicals in its warehouse. the warehouse has state of the art equipment to make sure the chemicals do not explode. an unexpected earthquake shakes the warehouse, causing the chemicals to explode and injure will-a passerby on a nearby sidewalk. astor manufacturing is
a. liable to will only if the company was grossly negligent
b. not liable to will because it satisfied its duty to passerbys
c. strictly liable for will's injuries
d. not liable to will because jason voluntarily assumed the risk of injury

A. in weeks v. united states (1914), the court established the exclusionary rule, which was incorporated to the states in mapp v. ohio (1961), and the court established the concept of a "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule in united states v. leon (1984). in their opinion, the supreme court pointed out that compliance with the exclusionary rule can have a cost to society (criminals can go free) that outweighs the benefits (stopping illegal searches by police). ultimately, the court determined that despite the exclusionary rule, evidence can still be admitted in situations where police made genuine "good faith" efforts to act legally, but technically acted illegally, in obtaining the evidence. explain the exclusionary rule good faith exception and explain and support whether you agree or disagree with the concept of a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule? why or why not? use the lesson notes and/or one news source to support your answer.

What is naturalistic about chopin's two stories, "the story of an hour" and "a pair of silk stockings"? provide textual evidence to support your claim.

Which argument for religious reform might be convincing to a priest, pope, or king?