To some extent both the criminal law and torts hold defendants accountable for harm to others even though the injured party has an invisible susceptibility to greater injury than the ordinary or average person. Describe in some detail two tort cases and one criminal case in which this has occurred. How do the different courts reason for holding defendants accountable or not? What considerations/reasons do the courts appeal to? Are there substantial differences between the use of these considerations in the two areas of law? If there are differences, what accounts for them? If there are none, why are they similar? Discuss.