Adverse Possession Problem Question

Adverse Possession Problem Question Land Law (Adverse Possession) Problem Question (3000 words) In this scenario, Molly is concerned to establish the status of the plot of land that lies beyond the garden of the house that she has inherited from her cousin, Ms Twigg. The plot is adjacent to the garden of the property, and is a natural extension of the garden’s length. Ms Twigg, and subsequently Molly, have taken measures to demarcate the plot of land, clear it, and assert a measure of control over it. Molly is not keen to establish title over the land, in order to prevent the local council from proceeding with their plan to convert it into a highway lay-by. It is possible, as will be seen, that the doctrine of adverse possession operates in this situation so that by virtue of the fact that Ms Twigg and Molly have asserted some control over the plot, and there has not, until 1997, been any expression by the local council of its control over the plot, Molly can rightly claim ownership of the plot. Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1980 is entitled ‘Time limit for actions to recover land’. The section is concerned with the time limits after which a legal owner of a piece of land cannot bring an action to recover the land in question where third party rights have been accrued. It states ‘No action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or, if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that person’ (section 15(1)). There are, of course, certain provisos in the latter part of the section, the relevant ones of which will be discussed, but if the section does indeed apply, it would mean that after the period of 12 years from the date Ms Twigg obtained a right in the land, the local authority would lose their title to it. This is provided for by section 17 of the Act. This, then, is one of the statutory bases for the doctrine of adverse possession. What are the elements of this doctrine? It is clearly a manifestation of the concept of relativity of title that is so central to English land law; that is that all title to land is only relative to other claims on that land, and never absolute in the true sense. It is a means of granting ownership to persons who do not have legal title to the land in question, as is the case here. Indeed, it is usually very clear in cases of adverse possession that not only does the claimant not have title, but an identified other party does have legal title. This is why the doctrine is so controversial; it deprives one party of a legal right in favour of a second party with no legal title. Adverse possession operates where, within the period of time mentioned above in the Limitation Act 1980, the legal owner (in this case the local council) fails to take action to evict a so-called ‘squatter’ (in this cas e Ms Twigg and subsequently Molly) from the land in question. In the case of Newington v Windeyer (1985), the doctrine was applied in practical terms. It was stated that possession gives title that is ‘good against everyone except a person who has better, because older, title.’ This means that even a wrongful intruder can acquire title in another’s land. The doctrine of adverse possession was most recently considered in the seminal case of JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham (2003), in which the importance of possessory control was highlighted. There are, however, two elements to this concept. The first is factual possession (or factum possessionis in the parlance of the judgments). Secondly, and equally importantly, there is a mental component, characterised by an intention to possess on the part of the squatter (animus possidendi). Although considered in the case of Pye, the duality of the possession factor was mentioned by Gibson LJ in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Waterloo Real Estate Inc (1999). The squatter must have ‘subjective intention to possess the land but he must also show by his outward conduct that that was his intention.’ This idea was confirmed in Pye by Lord Hope, who acknowledges that such an intention was usually evidenced by ‘acts which have taken place.’ How, then, does this apply to the prese nt scenario? The first element, factual possession, can be seen to be met by the fact that the boundary fence has been knocked down by Ms Twigg, thereby removing a barrier to the plot in question, and by her removal of the debris in the new area. In Powell v MacFarlane (1977), it was held that possession throughout the period of alleges adverse possession must be exclusive to the claimant, although a single possession by or on behalf of several persons jointly is adequate. This, then, applies to Ms Twigg’s situation, and her subsequent conveyance of the property to Molly. Furthermore, that possession must, in the words of Lord Templeman in Browne v Perry (1991), be ‘peaceable and open’. This requirement has also been met by Ms Twigg and Molly, as a physical inspection of the plot by the local authority would reveal that the occupant of the house was now in factual possession of the plot of land. It is also important to note that if there was any element of permission from the local authority for Ms Twigg to use the land, this would negate any claim of adverse possession, as the whole essence of the doctrine is that the possession must be adverse to the paper owner. Even some implied licence would defeat the claim of possession. In the present case, however, it seems unlikely that such a licence exists. The amount or ‘factum’ of physical possession required to meet the requirement of adverse possession was considered in Buckinghamshire CC v Moran (1990), in which Slade LJ said that ultimately, it depended on the claimant asserting ‘complete and exclusive physical control’ over the land in question. He had deliberated on this point in the earlier case of Powell v MacFarlane (1997) when he stated that it must be shown that ‘the alleged possessor has been dealing with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to deal with it and that no-one else has done so.’ Will Ms Twigg’s and Molly’s actions be sufficient to establish this necessary level of factual possession? As we know, the plot is bounded on three sides by hedges and trees, and the fence boundary shared with the house has been knocked down. In Seddon v Smith (1877), it was held that enclosure is the ‘strongest possible evidence of adverse posses sion.’ While Ms Twigg did not actually construct an enclosure, she did remove an artificial boundary so that the garden and the plot are now bounded in their entirety. This will probably be a sufficient degree of factual possession. The sufficiency of the possessory control depends on the context, and here, it seems likely the clearance will be sufficient. In Hounslow London Borough Council v Minchinton (1997), an unsubstantial use of the land in question was considered sufficient because it was the only sensible use of the land. A similar situation applies here. The second element of possessory control, then, is the requisite intention to possess. Ms Twigg and Molly must have shown a continuing intention to possess throughout the period of adverse possession, following Railtrack plc v Hutchinson (1998). In Powell v MacFarlane (1977), this was held to mean ‘the intention, in one’s own name and on one’s own behalf, to exclude the world at large, including the owner with the paper title †¦ so far as is reasonably practical and so far as the processes of the law will allow.’ This intention must be both genuine, and also must be made clear to the world. This includes the paper owner (that is, the local authority as the legal title holder) if that owner was present on the land in question. Again, as was mentioned above, it seems likely that this requisite intention will be satisfied by the removal of the boundary fence, and the clearance of the debris on the plot by Ms Twigg and subsequently by Molly. The relevant i ntention can, and usually will, be inferred from conduct, so to some extent it can be met by the same measures as demonstrating factual possession. It seems, then, that between them, Ms Twigg and Molly have met all of the pre-requisites of making a successful claim of adverse possession of the plot of land. The potential for controversy caused by this doctrine was illustrated in the case of Ellis v Lambeth London Borough Council (2000), in which a squatter successfully claimed a council house worth  £200,000. Indeed, in Buckinghamshire CC v Moran (1990), Nourse LJ described adverse possession as unashamedly ‘possession as of wrong’. How can this doctrine be squared with the increasing awareness of and focus on human rights, and particularly on those enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, which was incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998? This issue was considered in the case of JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham (2001). It was noted that the doctrine often results in the deprivation of possessions, and hence might be thought to be in breach of human rights contained in the Convention. It was considered, however, that the rule operates, ultimately, in the public interest, and is therefore justified under the Convention. How, then, does the doctrine apply in the present circumstances? In the first scenario, the dates are significant because they pre-date the Land Registration Act 2002, which had a significant impact on the area of adverse possession (which will be considered under the second scenario). The significant dates here, then, are 1980, when Ms Twigg moved into the property, and at which time there was no question of the local authority holding the title to the plot of land at the bottom of Ms Twigg’s garden; and 1984, when Ms Twigg removed the broken down fence, and commenced clearing the ground of the bracken and rubbish that had built up there. In the strict operation of the Limitation Act 1980, then, under section 15(1), this is the date on which the right to the land accrued to her. That is to say, the clock started running at this time. Also under section 15(1) of the Act, the successor in title to Ms Twigg – that is, Molly – will also be able to claim the title. A significant factor is whether the property was registered by Ms Twigg when she purchased it. Since there was no compulsory registration in 1980, it will be assumed that the property was not registered. As was mentioned above, under section 15(1) of the Limitation Act 1980, the legal owner of the plot of land (the local council) has a period of twelve years from the date on which Ms Twigg accrued a right to the property, even as a squatter. The date in question, then, is 1984, when Ms Twigg asserted control over the land by removing the broken down fence, and clearing the area. Furthermore, the local authority did not take any action even insofar as repairing the boundary fence in order to evict Ms Twigg. Again, the fact that the property passes from Ms Twigg to Molly in 1985 does not affect the claim of adverse possession. This is because under the Act, immediately consecutive periods of adverse possession (as Ms Twigg’s and Molly’s were) can be aggregated to contribute to the twelve year time limit. This was applied in Mount Carmel Investments Ltd v Thurlow Ltd (1988). After this period of 12 years, then, the local authority’s title will be ‘extinguished ’ in favour of Molly. Molly, therefore, emerges as the legal title holder. This, then, is the situation in the first scenario, where the dates in question pre-exist the Land Registration Act 2002. In the second scenario, however, the outcome may be different as the dates have been moved forward. The two factors that are likely to affect the claim of adverse possession in this second scenario are, firstly, that Ms Twigg did not taken action to exert her control over the land in question until 2000; and secondly, that the LRA 2002 will apply in the present circumstances. To reiterate, the significance of Ms Twigg taking down the broken fence completely and commencing to clear the plot of land is that it is at this point that she becomes a ‘squatter’, with some measure of possession of the plot of land. Again, it is from this point in time that the clock starts to run in respect of adverse possession. As several commentators have noted, it is perhaps strange that even after the passage of the LRA 2002, adverse possession should continue to play a significant role, given that the registration of title is supposed to be definitive in assessing ownership. This was also noted by Lord Bingham in the seminal case of JA Pye (Oxford) v Graham (2003). This case involved the acquisition of 25 hectares of development land, reportedly worth over  £10 million, which prompted the Guardian to report on ‘Britain’s biggest ever land grab’ (9 July 2002). The effect of the LRA 2002 can be seen as a response to the criticisms that have increasingly been targeted at adverse possession, particularly in the case of squatters claiming rights in the land of registered proprietors. Smith describes the impact of the LRA 2002 as ‘undoubtedly one of the most fundamental changes to property law in the pat century’ (Smith, R. (2002) ‘The Role of Registration in Modern Land Law’, in Tee, L. (Ed) Land Law: Issues, Debates, Policy (London: Willan), p55). One of the key provisions of the Act, then, is that unlike under the pre-2002 doctrine, mere passage of time does not bar a registered title holder from regaining possession. This means that time is no longer in Ms Twigg’s and Molly’s favour under the LRA 2002, section 96. Furthermore, the onus is now very much on the squatter rather than the legal title holder to assert their control over the property in question. For the first time, under the LRA 2002, a pos itive application is required by either Ms Twigg or Molly. This application must be made to HM Land Registry to be registered as the proprietor of the plot of land in question. Under section 97 of the Act, this application can only be made in the event that the ‘squatter’ has been in adverse possession of the property for a period of ten years immediately preceding the date of the application. In this instance, then, that time frame has not been reached. Even if Molly had been able to make an application to HM Land Registry to be registered as the proprietor of the plot, the local authority would have been able to defeat this application simply by registering objection to it. Again, this shows the change in focus ushered in by the LRA 2002 in favour of the legal owner at the expense of the squatter, who was in a better position with regard to the land on which they were squatting prior to 2002. Not only can the local authority object to the application for registration from Molly, however; so too can any legal charge holder or, if it were relevant, the proprietor of a superior leasehold estate. Under Schedule 6 of the Act, any objection by any of these parties within a period of 65 business days of the application being made will defeat the application. It should be noted that had Ms Twigg’s and Molly’s time ran successfully prior to the date at which the local authority wished to proceed with its lay-by plan in 2003, M olly would retain some protection for her rights over the land under the LRA 2002. BIBLIOGRAPHY Statutes Human Rights Act 1998 Land Registration Act 2002 Law of Property Act 1925 Limitation Act 1980 Cases Browne v Perry [1991] 1 WLR 1297 Buckinghamshire CC v Moran [1990] Ch 623 Ellis v Lambeth London Borough Council (1999) 32 HLR 596 Hounslow London Borough Council v Minchinton (1997) 74 P CR 221 JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2000] Ch 676 Mount Carmel Investments Ltd v Thurlow Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 1078 Newington v Windeyer (1985) 3 NSWLR 555 Powell v MacFarlane (1977) 38 P CR 452 Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Waterloo Real Estate Inc [1999] 2 EGLR 85 Railtrack plc v Hutchinson (1998) (unreported) Seddon v Smith (1877) 36 LT 168 Secondary sources Davies, C.J. (2000) ‘Informal Acquisition and Loss of Rights in Land: What Justifies the Doctrines?’, 20 Legal Studies 198 Gray, K. and Gray, S.F. (2003) Land Law, 3rd Edition (London: LexisNexis) Gray, K. and Gray, S.F. (2005) Elements of Land Law, 4th Edition (Oxford: OUP) Rhys, O. (2002) ‘Adverse Possession, Human Rights and Judicial Heresy’, Conv 470 Smith, R. (2002) ‘The Role of Registration in Modern Land Law’, in Tee, L. (Ed) Land Law: Issues, Debates, Policy (London: Willan) Thompson, M.P. (2002) ‘Adverse Possession: The Abolition of Heresies’, Conv 480

Guilt in Shakespeares Macbeth Essay -- Macbeth essays

Guilt in Macbeth      Ã‚  Ã‚   There is a large burden of guilt carried by Lady Macbeth and Macbeth in Shakespeare's tragedy Macbeth. Let's look at this situation closely in the following essay.    Fanny Kemble in "Lady Macbeth" asserts that Lady Macbeth was unconscious of her guilt, which nevertheless killed her:    A very able article, published some years ago in the National Review, on the character of Lady Macbeth, insists much upon an opinion that she died of remorse, as some palliation of her crimes, and mitigation of our detestation of them. That she died of wickedness would be, I think, a juster verdict. Remorse is consciousness of guilt . . . and that I think Lady Macbeth never had; though the unrecognized pressure of her great guilt killed her. (116-17)    In "Memoranda: Remarks on the Character of Lady Macbeth," Sarah Siddons mentions the guilt and ambition of Lady Macbeth and their effect:    [Re "I have given suck" (1.7.54ff.)] Even here, horrific as she is, she shews herself made by ambition, but not by nature, a perfectly savage creature. The very use of such a tender allusion in the midst of her dreadful language, persuades one unequivocally that she has really felt the maternal yearnings of a mother towards her babe, and that she considered this action the most enormous that ever required the strength of human nerves for its perpetration. Her language to Macbeth is the most potently eloquent that guilt could use.   (56)    Clark and Wright in their Introduction to The Complete Works of William Shakespeare explain how guilt impacts Lady Macbeth:    Having sustained her weaker husband, her own strength gives way; and in sleep, when her will cannot control her thoughts, she is p... ...    Frye, Northrop. Fools of Time: Studies in Shakespearean Tragedy. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1967.    Kemble, Fanny. "Lady Macbeth." Macmillan's Magazine, 17 (February 1868), p. 354-61. Rpt. in Women Reading Shakespeare 1660-1900. Ann Thompson and Sasha Roberts, eds. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1997.    Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Macbeth. http://chemicool.com/Shakespeare/macbeth/full.html, no lin.    Siddons, Sarah. "Memoranda: Remarks on the Character of Lady Macbeth." The Life of Mrs. Siddons. Thomas Campbell. London: Effingham Wilson, 1834. Rpt. in Women Reading Shakespeare 1660-1900. Ann Thompson and Sasha Roberts, eds. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1997.    Wilson, H. S. On the Design of Shakespearean Tragedy. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1957.

Safety in the Fire Service

Fire accidents had caused many deaths and casualties among people and this do not choose to who will attack this life threatening catastrophe. It can turn a 1 million dollars worth property into an ash. From the name itself, fire accident can occur in almost every place whether it is in the school, office, market, or in a car, or ship. And what is more drastic is the possibility of more casualties that can affect more people. Some of the results of fire accidents include deaths, burn injury, casualties and destruction of ownership and properties. Though fire accidents can be associated to carelessness, still it can be prevented. That is why there are many studies that have been conducted to minimize the drastic effect of such fire problems. The main concern of these studies is the safety of the people as well their belongings. Also, part of the goal of fire science management is the protection of the environment (Barbour, 2007). Fire science management was created to lessen fire accidents and also to create a well management decisions among the members of the fire service industry. Despite of the creation of fire science management programs, there are still many fire incidences (Bird, 2007). This paper will try to examine key notes or fire management problems that causes fire accidents and try to relate them to fire science management. After connecting the two situations, a solution or solutions must come up so that it helps in the minimization of the said accidents. One of the main reasons why fire management problems occur is the miscommunication between the firefighters. Communication is very important especially when in times of fire catastrophe. This is because every decisions and moves are being transmitted through communication. It is very crucial when one firefighter dose not understands the instructions of their firefighter leader and this will only cause greater destruction. In fire science management, this is known as fire communication and command structures (DelPonte, 2004). In case were a fire accident broke, there are certain procedures that must be done in such a way that there is a standard operating procedure in every action. There are many cases when a firefighter does not execute the right procedures in extinguishing the fires or the instructions of the firefighter leader are not being complied. This can be blame on the unpreparedness or lack of experience. Because the standard operating procedures are not strictly done, casualties of fire will be more likely drastic if compared to a more standard way of attacking the blazing inferno (Ridge, 2004). Fire do not only attack people in an urban area where there is more likely to occur fire accidents, but also in forest where many animals and living things live (Noss, 1990). The very hot temperature (Gale , 1991) can ignite a small dried leaf and may cause disaster in a forest. Many environmentalists are very concerned on the probable distraction that can be brought by fire accidents (MacGregor1, 2007). It can also be analyzed that firefighting in a forest is more difficult than attacking fire in an urban area (Failing, 1991). This is because of the unavailability of roads for faster response to fire calamity. Solutions were proposed to this kind of situation and one of the probable answers to this dilemma was the use of Geographic information system (GIS). GIS will play a key role to determine whether a fire broke in a forest (Wagtendonk, 2007). In this way, a faster response can be given by the fire service industry to stop the further distraction. Though we cannot escape the disaster of fire accidents, it can be prevented by being more responsible on your belongings (Club, 2003). Be sure that fire will not break in your area especially in your house. Always check the connection of the wiring system of the house. Always secure a fire extinguisher in every part of the house and make sure that it is filled. But the most important part of fire prevention procedures by being responsible. Cigarette butts must be put properly in an ash tray. Remember that ignoring these little preventive actions may cause fire accidents.

Essay about Experimentation on Animals is Ethical and...

Experimentation on Animals is Ethical and Necessary How is it that ensuring the safety of human lives can be perceived as immoral? It is difficult to understand that some people are more concerned with an animal’s quality of life rather than their own or a loved one’s. It is true that some experiments used to insure human safety may inflict pain upon animals, but how can it be that some people value the comfort of an animal over that of a human life. Vivisection is the experimentation on animals subjects and has often led to many significant scientific discoveries. Despite what may be believed by animal right activists, scientist do not conduct vivisection without reason; many experimental breakthroughs have come out of it, and it†¦show more content†¦Often these scientists will also use what is referred to as â€Å"Good Tactics.† For this method they will often question themselves, â€Å"Is the experiment really necessary?† â€Å"Can some sort of benefit be gained by it?† In addition to th ese guidelines the scientist also must follow a number of laws and regulations concerning the welfare and the care of the animals. With all the regulations and guidelines that are set, only the most essential of experiments are conducted on living creatures. Aside from the fact that vivisection is necessary, most of the experiments can be indeed considered moral due to guidelines the scientists follow and the fact that human lives are at stake. Vivisection is thought to be one of the most accurate ways to test scientific inquiries and is an absolute necessity in assuring the safety of the general public. It is predicted that vivisection will never be replaced. Although many alternatives have been found, animal experimentation will still remain a prominent role in medical research and product testing. Some of the alternatives that are out today include tissue and cell culture studies, cadaver research, and computer simulation. Though these alternatives are considered valuable they do not replace surveying how an intact living organism reacts to certain diseases or toxins. Vitro systems are cultures derivedShow MoreRelatedAnimal Experimentation And Animal Testing1261 Words   |  6 Pagesand against animal experimentation. The report begins with an introduction briefly outlining what animal experimentation refers to, introducing the three perspectives and highlighting the intention behind this investigation. The report then explores the positive and negative medical aspect of animal experimentation stating that it has resulted in vital vaccines benefitting both humans and animals, but also accepting it is not always reliable. The advantages and disadvantages of animal testing onRead MoreEssay about We Need More Animal Research, Testing, and Experimentation1416 Words   |  6 PagesWe Need More Animal Research, Testing, and Experimentation    A life can be taken or created in a matter of seconds and with that has come the miracles of modern medicine. People have come to expect science to save lives, prevent illness, relieve suffering and improve the quality of life. The means of curing, treating and preventing diseases are not achieved by magic or accident. Medical advances are gained through years of intensive research -- research in which laboratory animals have playedRead MoreThe Use Of Scientific Testing On Animals1503 Words   |  7 Pageshumans have used animals as means of learning more about the world. The first known vivisection was done by a Greek philosopher, Alcmaeon, in 450 B. C. E (â€Å"Animal Testing† NP). Since then, animals have had invasives tests performed on them, been killed, and been experimented on in the name of science or for profit. Some experiments are in order to demonstrate already known facts to students, others are to further medical knowledge, and some are to test drugs and cosmeti cs (â€Å"Animal Testing† NP). ScientificRead MoreEssay about Animal Testing Should Be Outlawed1110 Words   |  5 Pagesto Biology Online, animal experimentation is defined as the use of animals in experiments and development projects usually to determine toxicity, dosing and efficacy of test drugs before proceeding to human clinical trials. Animal experimentation has been going on since ancient Greece when Aristotle and Hippocrates first made their model of the human body based on what they had observed through animal dissection. Then, Romans used animals to do more psychological tests on animals like pigs, monkeysRead MoreArgumentative Essay On Animal Testing859 Words   |  4 Pagesuse non-human test subjects by medical research institutions. Animals used for experimentation can provide extremely important information due to their physical and genetic similarities to humans. The tradeoff to furthering the field of medical science is that often times these experiments r esult in pain, suffering, and death of the test subjects. This raises serious ethical and moral questions about the use of animal experimentation. It is a matter of serious debate as to whether the use of livingRead MoreThe Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing1725 Words   |  7 Pages Each year, more than 100 million animals are experimented on in U.S. laboratories. These experiments are for things such as biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing.(Procon writers) Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the variables that affect the behavior or biological system under study. Animal testing is controversial and people findRead MoreA Comparison Of Advocates And Adversaries Of Animal Research1641 Words   |  7 Pages A Comparison of Advocates and Adversaries of Animal Research Tony Lee April 20, 2015 Dr. Baine Craft Abstract The belligerent perspectives of animal research hold strongly to different goals. Advocates hold the view that animal research is beneficial to science and medicine, which can be applied for humans and animals alike. This is opposite from the perspective of adversaries who value the life of an animal, as well as related lives. History shows the progression of the adversariesRead MoreAnimal Testing Is Cruel And Unusual Punishment And Should Discontinue1308 Words   |  6 Pages Animal Testing Animal testing has been going on for years; however, few question the ethics of testing medicines that would cure human diseases on animals. Various animals being tested in labs and cruelly force them to be a host of harmful diseases negatively affect their health. Animal testing is cruel and unusual punishment and should discontinue. Animal experimentation is a subject that many know of but don’t know much about. Although it is a big topic, people still don’t pay much attentionRead MoreThe Philosophy Of Virtue, By Jeremy Bentham And John Stuart Mill Erect The System Of Utilitarianism Essay1544 Words   |  7 Pagesto Plato’s philosophy of virtue, as this integrates the concepts of help and harm altogether. For instance, an ethical dilemma is that, on one hand any action taken by men could cause happiness to some individuals, but on the other hand, it could cause unhappiness to others therefore, leaving individuals thinking about what to do? Meanwhile, if we look in to our modern society, the ethical views from the past have changed because people these days have their own ability to define happiness throughRead More Animal Experimentation: A vital role in medical reasearch Essay1035 Words   |  5 PagesAnimal experimentation has been and will continue to be a source in scientific research. Similarities between animals and humans allow for researchers to provide safer drugs and new treatments for diseases. (Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR), 2008). Animal experiments have provided many positive outcomes in medical advancements that save human and animal lives. However, many people in today’s society have an emotional attachment to animals which fuels opposition to animal experimentation