Synopsis of Tort Case Essay Sample
- Word count: 1780
- Category: injury
Get Full Essay
Get access to this section to get all help you need with your essay and educational issues.Get Access
Synopsis of Tort Case Essay Sample
As stated by the text a tort is a wrong that either intentional or unintentional (Cheeseman, 2010). The following are four scenarios each compiled of circumstances that exhibit various torts. Team B will identify the torts of each scenario while addressing the reasoning behind our selections and the parties that could potentially file suit. Scenario One
This scenario is example of the domino effect. One action set off a sequence of events that resulted in several injuries, false accusations, and termination. The initial tort in scenario one was facilitated by Daniel, his actions of pushing Malik battery. The next tort was slander. The worker at the concession stand accused Daniel of giving his young son Ruben alcohol. Though her statement was false it led to Daniel being terminated by his boss who happened to be in the concession line at the time of the accusations. The tort that followed was negligence of the concession stand worker who was filling Daniel and Ruben’s soft drink order. Though he was asked for diet drinks, in his distraction he filled their cups with regular sugary soft drinks. Malik then assaulted Daniel with an unloaded gun. Daniel defended himself by shooting Malik with the weapon he had concealed. Shortly after Daniel went into a diabetic shock which could have been brought about by the negligence of the concession worker and/ or the emotional distress brought on by Malik’s threat with a weapon. The plaintiff would be Daniel in a suit against with the concession workers for slander and negligence.
Thereafter he may sue Malik for assault and emotional distress on part himself and Ruben. Malik may pursue a suit of battery against Daniel for pushing into the bleachers. The elements of the torts that would justify these cases would be found under, Defamation of Character, Negligence, Assault, Battery, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Defamation or slander in the case is vocalizing false statements about another person (Cheeseman, 2010). The Breach of the Duty of Care would need to be proved on behalf of the concession worker. By exhibiting his failure to pay attention to what he was serving the customer.
The battery or physical harm Daniel inflicted, followed by the assault or threat of harm facilitated by Malik. Malik may argue as the defendant that his actions were in defense of the battery imposed on him by Daniel. In the cases that can be prosecuted in this scenario, Malik v. Daniel would likely end with a verdict for the plaintiff. The actions of Malik did not warrant Daniel’s battery. In regards to Daniel v. Concession workers the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiff. The false statements made by the concession worker directly affected Daniel’s boss’s decision to fire him. It also created the atmosphere which distracted the worker filling the drink orders. This then led to Daniel the incorrect drink which caused him to go into a diabetic shock. Scenario Two
The tort has several bases regarding the scenario facts of Anna at the Italian restaurant. The scenario authenticates injuries when Anna took a bite from a meal at an Italian restaurant. When Anna cried out in pain from her injuries, a waiter who was pouring wine at a nearby table turns around and bumps into Anna’s waiter, who is carrying a flaming dish. As a result, the flaming dish shifts onto Anna’s waiter and his apron catches fire. An old lady receives serious injuries from the trampling of the crowd and others suffered from smoke inhalation (University of Phoenix Syllabus School of Business Bus/415 Version 9 Business Law, 2011). The meal served to Anna is contaminated with a foreign object. The foreign object is the cause of Anna’s mouth injuries. The foreign object is not a natural product as one may find a chicken bone in chicken soup; therefore, the restaurant holds the liability of her injuries. The restaurant is also responsible for the act of medical malpractice of Anna’s leg amputation.
The owners of the restaurant may argue that they are not responsible for the medical malpractice but the glass in the food from the restaurant is the cause of Anna going to the hospital in the first place. In turn, the waiter is transporting a flaming dish through a crowd of people at the restaurant. This is negligence of the waiter because transporting a flaming dish through a crowded restaurant caused is a foreseeable consequence, which in this case, caused a fire. The fire, along with Anna’s mouth injury, resulted in need for Anna’s transportation to the hospital. This leaves the waiter a potential defendant. The waiter may argue that he is an employee of the restaurant and that the flaming dish is part of the menu of the restaurant, therefore he should not be liable. To be successful in a negligence lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached this duty of care, the plaintiff suffered injury, and the defendant negligent act caused the plaintiff injury (Cheeseman, 2010).
The physician and medical facility is responsible for the act of medical malpractice for the amputation of Anna’s leg. The physician may argue that he or she was not properly informed of the situation because the physician thought he or she was operating on another patient for leg amputation. The physician breached his or duty of care by not double checking the status of the patient before proceeding in the operation. As the plaintiff, Anna will file a lawsuit against the restaurant for her mouth and leg injuries. She will also file a lawsuit against the hospital and physician for medical malpractice. Anna may collect the damages for the leg amputation from the hospital and the restaurant or the hospital alone. Anna will collect mouth injury damage from the restaurant. The old lady and others will file his or her separate individual lawsuits. Anna will be successful in her lawsuit. Scenario Three
The tort in place is Fraud, Misrepresentation, negligence and aggravated battery on the boss’s side. She did it out of frustration and just a thought to scare him but, ended up in a tragic and a way to make Franco look like a victim but not exactly so. Raul and the rest of the customer in which Franco misrepresented the insurance is the potential plaintiff because they are the actual victims who got the wrong information concerning the business. They have been sold wrong ideas and lured into something with wrong information. Sure Co, Franco and Franco’s boss are the potential defendants, i.e. the busy and the representatives of the business. The elements Sureco should be aware of its employee’s actions, when he was deceiving its employees. The case element for Franco’s boss is” battery” because it is foreseeable that staple will cause injury if it hit Raul’s eye. The defense is that the company unaware of what Franco was doing. The Staple that was fired towards Franco’s was unintentional. The company would be liable for damages towards its customer one of its employees knowingly deceived its customers to induce customer to buy its products and services. They should also be held negligent because it should have been aware of what the company is doing. Since Franco’s boss is an Employee of the company she needs to be prosecuted and the company should be held liable to Raul’s eye. Scenario Four
In reviewing the tort case that took place at Buy-Mart, a store that sells guns in the hardware department. An employee named Randy proceeded to sell a potential customer, Lee, a rifle. Randy places the items on the counter unattended and turns away to ring up the items. At this time, unnoticed, Lee loads the gun, aims, and shoots another customer. Upon watching the customer fall, the customer husband suffers a heart attack. Another shot injures a boy in the store. Randy knocked Lee on conscious. The store guard in anger kicks Lee and cracks his ribs while he is still unconscious. This case involves such torts as assault, battery, and negligence. The potential plaintiffs are the woman who was shot by Lee with the shotgun, the woman husband who suffered emotional distress that led to him suffering a heart attack, and the boy who was hit with the bullet that bounced. Randy placed the customers at harm by displaying negligence with his actions, and the guard who out of anger, assaulted Lee while already subdued and on conscious.
The elements of the tort are as stated. Lee clearly is guilty of committing assault and battery to the woman and boy in whom he shot. Lee committed an intentionally inflection of emotional distress to the man who suffered the heart attack after witnessing his wife shot. Restatement of Torts states that a person whose extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is liable for the emotional distress (2010, Cheeseman). The defenses that could be asserted of the defendants are as stated. Randy assaulted Lee to prevent further harm to other customers. Randy and the guard locked Lee in the closet to restrain until the authorities arrive.
However, Lee was assaulted by the guard out of anger because at the time the guard kicked him and broke his ribs he was defenseless and unconscious. It is possible the woman and husband, boy or his or her survivors will receive compensation because all victims were innocent bystanders. Randy will face a suit for his failure of duty of care whereas he owed the customers the best safety possible, instead he was negligent and should also face termination. The guard may not face liability of his assault because he may present to the court that he believed that their lives remained endangered and no other recourse was available than to use force to secure Lee. Although Lee was assaulted excessively, he will probably be charged and prosecuted to the fullest of the law. The proper classification of a tort is necessary in order to determine what laws have been broken and to what extent. Actions are not definitive in the identification of a tort. There are complexities that will be further examined through prosecution.
Cheeseman, H. R. (2010). The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce: Business Ethics, E-Commerce, Regulatory, and International Issues (6th ed.). Upper River Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall. University of Phoenix Syllabus School of Business Bus/415 Version 9 Business Law. (2011). Synopsis of Tort Cases. Retrieved from University of Phoenix Syllabus School of Business Bus/415 Version 9 Business Law, BUS/415 Business Law website