Synopsis_of_Tort_Cases

Synopsis of Tort Cases The tort law protects individuals from unauthorized touches, restraint and other contact made against one without warrant. Torts can be intentional, unintentional and strict liability that can result lawsuits for doing wrong to a person or an individual’s property. The damages of tort can be monetary and rewarded to someone for his or her injuries by a court of law. Intentional torts require a defendant to possess an intent act that will cause injury to a plaintiff. The unintentional tort claims liability for harm that is foreseeable consequence of his action can be called negligence. This paper will identify tort actions that were seen in each of the scenarios. It will identify the potential plaintiff’s and the defendants in each claim and discuss why each would be considered a defendant. The paper will discuss the elements of the tort claim that constitutes the plaintiffs claim and any defenses that defendants may assert. Last, for each scenario, opinion about how each claim may be resolved. Scenario One In scenario one there was many tort actions. These tort actions are as follows: 1. Quarterback being hit by opposing player, breaking his arm sends the ball into the stand hit a fan causing injury. 2. Malik an upset fan jumps up and spills his cold beer on Ruben, an age year old. 3. Daniel, who is the father of Ruben, shoves Malik for spilling the beer on his son. 4. Malik after being shoved by Daniel grabs the railing which he breaks and falls to the ground and his face hits the aisle steps knocking out his two front teeth. 5. A lady in line at the concession stands smells beer on Ruben and yells at Daniel 6. Daniel’s boss hears the lady and fires Daniel because of what she said 7. Daniel ordered two diet soft drinks and concession worker being distracted by the scene gave Daniel to regular soft drinks 8. Malik points and unloaded gun at Daniel 9. Daniel has a concealed weapon and shoots Malik Potential plaintiffs and defendants in this scenario: Plaintiff Defendant Fan quarterback Ruben Malik Malik Daniel Malik Owners of stadium Daniel Lady Daniel Daniel’s boss Daniel Concession worker Daniel Malik In these torts the intentional tort was out of rage and unintentional tort was negligence. The fan being injured by the quarterback may mean the owners of the stadium to provide protective measures for foul balls. When Daniel shoved Malik causing harm when he fail could also be something the owners of the stadium could be responsible for the safety and security of the fans. The lady in line at the concession stand should have requested all the facts before making a scene regarding a situation she knew nothing about. The case in which Daniel’s boss acting on words of slander needs review and additional information. Malik presented a tort of outrage when he waived the gun in Daniel face. Daniel not knowing the gun was not loaded caused a reaction of him getting his gun that was loaded and shot Malik causing harm' The one I believe to have the best defense would be Daniel if Malik would file a claim against him for shooting him. Malik case may not carry a large amount of malice because he too had a gun even though it was not loaded Daniel was not aware of that. Daniel should show some liability of his actions but the cost should be split between the two. I believe a lawsuit would also present that Daniel may have been anger from the accident with Malik spilling the cold beer on his son. If any or all claims have legal lawsuit filing, they all can be settled with the plaintiffs and defendants coming to a conclusion these acts may be a result of negligence and anger outrage. If each plaintiff collects all the information in his or her case he or she may be able to present a valid case against the defendant, but it must have all the evidence. The legal action in all cases will need to file a lawsuit against the defendant and give the defendant an opportunity to reply and this may make the difference to case and award damages as needed. Scenario Two Anna has the right as the injured party to bring a lawsuit against the restaurant for the glass that was in the food she ordered as well as a lawsuit against the hospital for malpractice and negligence against the physician. Anna argument is that the restaurant is negligent in that they served her meal with glass in it, and as a result suffered injuries. The torts action in the scenario is negligence in which the restaurant and the hospital did not exercise the amount of care for their customer and patient (Larson, 2010). Negligence as a tort in this case because it involves a harmful action was unintentional; however, the action in the restaurant was brought about by another’s party unreasonably unsafe action (What Is Tort Law, 2003-2009). The professional malpractice (medical), in the hospital makes this also a negligence tort; the physician performed an amputation that was the failure to use ordinary care through his or her actions (Larson, 2010). The potential plaintiff in this case scenario is Anna; she is seeking a legal remedy for her injuries received both in the Italian restaurant and against the surgeon who amputated her leg. The potential defendants are the restaurant and the physician; they are the parties to whom the complaint is directed (Plaintff, 2010). The element of the claim that helps Anna’s case is a negligent tort where it is unintentional; the actions violated the standard duty of care that has caused an unintended injury to Anna (The Elements of the Tort of Negligence, 2010). In this scenario, three of the four elements of a tort are the duty to protect; Anna had a legal right to expect not to have glass in her meal and the doctor had a duty to care for her by making sure that she received the right surgery (The Elements of the Tort of Negligence, 2010). The next tort of negligence is the breach of duty, this happens when an establishment and physician failed to exercise a reasonable standard care. The final negligent tort is the breach of duty; that led to Ann’s injuries (The Elements of the Tort of Negligence, 2010). The restaurant may argue that it was the chef’s negligence that lead to Anna’s is injured from having glass in her meal or they may even blame Anna herself for not checking her own food. The surgeon in this case may argue that no one gave him a chart or identified exactly who the patient was that was going to have a leg amputated. He or she may blame the nursing staff for not making sure that the patient was properly identified. I believe that the jury’s verdict will be in Anna’s favor. The restaurant and the surgeon will be legally held liable for Anna’s injuries. Both of their actions show negligent behavior, though their action may be unintentional; nevertheless they did not show reasonable and standard care for Anna. The restaurant was not careful to make sure that there was not any glass in their food and the surgeon did not perform a duty to protect and also a breach of duty Scenario Three In scenario three, several possibilities exist for tort actions, plaintiffs, and defendants. Raul and other customers that bought life insurance policies from Franco have a right to bring lawsuit claiming fraud against Franco. Raul has a right to file a gross negligence lawsuit claiming assault and battery against the boss at SureCo for causing him to become permanently blind in one eye. Franco committed fraud against his customers including Raul. He called his customers and sold them an increase to their life insurance policies promising yearly premiums would never increase. Franco promised something to his clients that he was not in control over and the premiums increased the following year. Franco had the duty to be honest to his clients and sell them policies based on terms the company set for the policies. Breach of duty took place when Franco misrepresented the product he was selling to his client’s, he lied to his clients to sell the product and secure his job. The clients were sold a policy under false terms, they were charged more money than originally promised therefore damages incurred are a dollar amount and possible loss of policy. There was actual cause in negligence as the policy was sold to the clients with the terms of the premium never increasing which was a selling tactic and not truthful. Franco may have felt pressured into selling the policies as his boss informed the office if the sales did not increase the employees maybe out of a job. For Franco’s defense, he may claim, emotional distress, or his negligence was unintentional. As an employee, Franco was working to save his job and may claim he was selling policies with the information he was given. I believe in this case Raul and other customers will win the case again Franco. Franco broke federal laws by selling policies without full disclosure. Out of anger and frustration, the boss approached picketers with a staple gun in hopes to scare the picketers and not thinking of what damage she may cause. The boss fired the staple gun toward Raul and hitting him in the eye. Raul is now blind because the boss breached her care of duty. As the boss, the duty of care is to remain calm and resolve the situation peacefully. Instead the boss acted out emotionally by threatening the picketers with physical violence causing permanent injury to Raul. Actual cause of negligence took place by the boss when she fired the staple gun into Raul’s direction. As a defense, the boss my claim she acted out of emotional distress or outrage. As the defendant, the boss may claim emotional distress however, part of her job as the boss is to handle confrontation and disturbances in a peaceful manner to protect her employees and customers. I believe Raul will win the case because a reasonable person would have acted differently Scenario Four In this scenario there are a few intentional tort actions. First Randy should not have placed the gun and ammunition on the counter together without considering any alternatives that could have happened or considered the safety of the other customers. The next intentional tort action would be Lee loading the gun and shooting at customers within the store. A third intentional tort action would be the act of the security guard. After Lee was knocked unconscious there was not need to kick him and break his ribs as Lee was already under control to be moved to the closet. This scenario is an example of a criminal act that means the potential plaintiffs in this case would be the state. The state would be representing the lady who got shot, the gentleman who had a heart attack and the boy who was injured. The defendant in the case would be Lee, who shot the rounds from the gun and cause intentional harm to the customers and the Buy-Mart sales clerk. All five elements can be found in the tort claim that constitutes the plaintiffs claims and would be that Buy-Marts clerk had the duty of care to protect the customers within the store. Lee also had a duty of care to not fire a gun at other individuals. Both the store clerk and Lee breached the care of duty as many individuals shopping Buy-Mart were injured. The fourth element is that Lee was the cause of the actual injuries and the fifth element was that Buy-Mart should have seen the dangers in selling bullets and guns in one transaction and should hold a policy that bullets cannot be purchased on the same day as purchasing a gun. The store should also require a gun license when purchasing a gun. Lee can also sue the security officer in this case as he was intentionally harmed by the security officer kicking him and breaking ribs after he was already down. The security guard, enraged with anger, assaulted Lee. The security guard and Randy could have locked him in the closet without the harming him any further. The claim may be resolved with a few different outcomes. The state will win the case for the harmed individuals and Buy-Mart will be required to compensate the lady for being injured, the gentleman for the negligent infliction of emotional distress, and the boy who was injured when the store clerk wrestled Lee. Lee will be imprisoned for his criminal actions and be required to pay fines and restitution for the injuries and damage that was caused. The security guard may be forced to pay for injuries that he inflicted on Lee during the assault and may also be imprisoned for his actions. The storekeeper’s privilege would protect the security guard and Randy for locking Lee in the closet until the police arrived. In conclusion, there were four different scenarios presented each with different tort actions. The plaintiffs in each case were different based on what kinds of tort actions were present in the cases. In one case the plaintiff was the injured party whereas in a criminal case as in scenario four the state would be the plaintiff representing the multiple individuals that were injured. The paper discussed the elements of the tort claim that constitutes the plaintiffs claims and any defenses that defendants may assert. Last, for each scenario, opinion regarding how each claim may be resolved was included. Reference Cheeseman, H. (2010). The Legal Environment of Business and E-Commerce. Retrieved from https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/content/eBookLibrary2/content/TOC.aspx'assetdataid=fb9bdcea-ca02-48cc-b883-c1cf12695559&assetmetaid=61859383-2c36-48f5-8ac2-4a24e5c61e14. Larson, A. (2010). Negligence and Tort Law. Retrieved July 31, 2010, from Expert Law: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/negligence.html Plaintff. (2010). Retrieved July 31, 2010, from Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff The Elements of the Tort of Negligence. (2010, June 21). Retrieved July 31, 2010, from Los Angeles Legal Services Blog: http://losangeleslegalservices.weebly.com/1/post/2010/06/the-elements-of-the-tort-of-negligence.html What Is Tort Law. (2003-2009). Retrieved July 31, 2010, from Personal Injury Lawyers: http://www.1personalinjurylawyers.com/injury_center/tort-law.html