The State Of ConfusionThis essay The State Of Confusion is available for you on Essays24.com! Search Term Papers, College Essay Examples and Free Essays on Essays24.com - full papers database.
Autor: JamesOGreenup • August 15, 2011 • 1,732 Words (7 Pages) • 4,087 Views
Synopsis of Tort Cases
Properly identifying the plaintiffs and defendants is not always easy because torts can sometimes be complicated. In this paper, Learning Team D provided a synopsis of four scenarios that involve torts. Specifically, for each scenario, Learning Team D described the tort actions, identified potential plaintiffs, identified potential defendants, described the elements of the tort claims, defenses that the defendants may assert, and how the tort claims was resolved.
Scenario One Synopsis
In the first scenario, Daniel is finding himself as a plaintiff and defendant. Initially, the quarterback that threw the football at Malik in the stands caused the beer to spill on Daniel's son. Because the action that caused the initial tort is a probable event at a football game, the football stadium should have safety measures or warnings to protect spectators. Subsequently, another spectator asserts Daniel is giving an alcoholic beverage to a minor while at the concession stand causing the stadium worker to serve a regular soft drink rather than a diet soft drink. This assertion led Daniel's boss to assume wrongfully the allegation is true causing Daniel to be fired. As Daniel has been damaged as a result of the first tort, Daniel is a plaintiff, and the stadium is a possible defendant. This first tort can be resolved through the collection of consequential damages. Additionally, the unintentional tort of the wrong drink to be served to Daniel places the stadium as a possible defendant and Daniel as a plaintiff. After drinking the regular soft drink, Daniel went into a diabetic coma. This, too can be resolved through consequential damages.
Although Daniel has been described as the plaintiff for the above-mentioned torts, a few torts took place causing Daniel to be the defendant. Shortly after the first tort took place, Daniel could not control his emotions resulting in him assaulting Malik. The intentional tort of pushing Malik off the stands caused physical harm that Daniel can be held responsible for if Malik wants to collect for damages. As such, Malik is the plaintiff for this tort. Shortly before the diabetic coma, Malik confronted Daniel in the parking lot with a weapon because the aforementioned tort. Although Malik did not intend to use the weapon, Daniel believed his and his son safety was in danger and shot Malik. Malik is the plaintiff because he was shot although he did not use the confronting weapon; however, Malik may not be able to claim damages because he caused the foreseeable tort to occur.
Anna is the first plaintiff in this case. She can sue the restaurant for negligence in regard to the food with glass. According to Cheeseman 2010 and the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur, "This doctrine raises a presumption of negligence and switches the burden to the defendant to prove that he or she was not negligent" (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 104). The restaurant would be the defendant in the case. Possible defenses would be that someone else put the glass in the food. The restaurant would be liable for the mouth injury and the amputation of the leg as she would not have gone to the hospital if the glass were not in the food. Anna would be eligible for doctor's bills along with pain and suffering for the injuries.
Anna is a plaintiff in the suit for malpractice with the amputation of her leg. The doctor and hospital would be the defendants in this case for removing Anna's leg as she was mistaken for a different patient as she was waiting for the surgery on her mouth. The case would revolve around the settlement amount more than guilt. A defense in this case would be difficult. In this case, the doctor would be guilty of medical malpractice. Anna could collect from both the restaurant and doctor for the amputation.
The elderly lady and other people with an injury can sue the restaurant for a breach of a duty of care. The people in the restaurant have a reasonable expectation that he or she will be safe at the restaurant. The restaurant is the defendant in the case. The restaurant would need to prove that the restaurant was not responsible for the injuries to the patrons because of a breach of duty of care. The restaurant could make a defense that the restaurant was not responsible for the rush of people running for the door. The people with injuries would have a good case. The restaurant was at fault for the injury to Anna in the first place. This caused the commotion that brought about the fire. The breach of duty was the cause of the injury. All the patrons with an injury can receive a settlement.
Rual has a right to freedom of speech and legally has a right to march outside of his old place of business. When his boss chose to come outside and use a staple gun anywhere near Rual, she has intentionally taken that stable gun to inflict harm on Rual. The tort Rual can sue his boss for is assault and battery; assault that is intentional creation of harmful touching or harmful intentions without consent and pointing a staple gun at Rual is assault. Battery is intentional harmful touching or harmful intentions on another person without consent or privilege. When Rual's boss, in point of fact, fired the staple gun near him that is considered battery because his boss had the intent, in point of fact, on shooting that staple gun; battery is there for proved.
With all of the people involved there are many torts that can be a caser; one is intentional infliction of emotional distress on Franco against the company of SureCo and his boss. Because when the boss, in point of fact, made security walk Franco out of the building in front of all his coworkers until he was out of the building that was intentional and a tort. Another tort in Rual versus Franco and SureCo is the misrepresentation of facts because Franco promised his customers something he knew he, in point of fact, could not provide them. Because Franco was an employee of SureCom, he or she is also liable for those false promises. In the first case Franco is the plaintiff and SureCo is the defendant. In the second case the plaintiff is Rual and the customers,