Sherman’s v. Church of the Divine Light
Thesis statement: This case of the Shermans v. Church of the Divine Light. According the case, the Shermans claim that their minor child has been the victim of illegal detention and intentional infliction of emotional distress and among other torts. They seek to be compensated for all the damages that such detention have brought to their minor child as well as the medical and other expenses they incurred in getting him away from the church and “bringing him” from their intentional “brainwashing” of their minor child. I.Will Rob Jr. (technically, his parents will sue the church on his behalf) be able to get this case to trial? What are the defenses that the church may raise in defense to Rob Jr.'s causes of action? a)Yes, when the parents, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Sherman, Sr., hereinafter called the Parents, decide to sue the church on behalf of Rob Jr., there is a high likely hood that they could get the case to trial. For the fact that, their child was a minor and not capable of consent and was wrongfully detained by the church. Based on these facts, I think the suit has a good chance of succeeding. b)Some of the defenses, the church may raise in defense to Rob Jr.s cause of action could include: Consent: Consent can be either expressed or implied. Express consent exists when verbal or written contractual agreement occurs. In the case, Rob Jr. did not sign any document that he is aware of what is going to happen, but the fact that he was a member and knew exactly what to be expecting; in a way he implied consent to the Church. Contributory negligence is defense to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. It applies to cases where a plaintiff has, through his own negligence, contributed to the harm he suffered. Yes, Rob Jr. suffered Intentional affliction of emotional distress, but he had 6 months to get out and go to his parents especially...