In week three we were provided with two scenarios and were asked to analyze the tort actions found in both. The first scenario involves fans and participants at a football game; including a father and son, and angry fan, stadium workers, and other spectators. Actions that transpire include the spilling of beer on one fan by another, a shove of one fan of anther, a fall, injury, yelling, and repercussions of the stated actions.
The second scenario we analyzed took place in a restaurant where another chain of events occur including a customer biting down on a piece of glass, waiters bumping into each other, smoke inhalation by customers, and injuries caused in one way or another by the described events.
In this paper we will identify the tort actions found in both scenarios, identify the potential plaintiffs, and identify the potential defendants and why they are each seen as a defendant. We will also examine the elements of the tort claims that constitute the plaintiff’s claim and the defenses that could be asserted by the defendants. We will also discuss how we believe the claims will be resolved by stating legal reasons for the answers. Plaintiffs and Defendants: Scenario 1
Each scenario describes a chain of events that one would not typically imagine could happen throughout the course of a usual day, but seems to be possible. In each of these instances, there are acts that would lead to charges being filed in a court of law. The different people involved would have to present their sides of the situation as plaintiff and defendant.
In the first scenario where Daniel and his son are trying to enjoy a day at a football game, there are different twists that lead to different people being the plaintiff and defendant and in separate instances ending up as both. To start, the quarterback is injured thus throwing an errant ball into the stands injuring a fan. The injured fan could file charges as the plaintiff. Instead of the player being the defendant, the league for which the player is involved in would actually be the defendant. This is because the player is acting as an employee of the league. A fan, who is angered by the call on the field, Malik, spills beer on Daniel’s son; which is not a crime but very unfortunate. As a result, Daniel pushes Malik, which is assault, which is considered a crime making Malik the plaintiff and Daniel the defendant. The misfortune of Malik busting his face is not the direct reaction from Daniel shoving him but because of a faulty railing. This is something that the stadium owner is responsible for the safety of its fans. While the railing was broken from Malik being shoved onto it, the railing was clearly not suitable for use in the stadium. From this instance, Malik would again be the plaintiff while the stadium owner and management would be the defendants.
After this mess had settled and Daniel was escorting his beer bathed son out of the seats to obtain beverages before leaving the stadium, a verbal tussle over the boy’s smelling like beer made a scene in which Daniel’s boss was present to witness. From this situation, Daniel’s boss fired him stating that he does not want someone who gives beer to children working for him which was not the case. Daniel would sue his boss for wrongful termination making Daniel the plaintiff and his boss the defendant (Cheeseman, H. R., 2010). After this misfortunate episode, Daniel is then handed two regular sodas instead of the diet ones that were order. After consumption of the beverage Daniel goes into a diabetic coma brought on by the sugar in the sodas. In this part of the puzzle, Daniel would then become the plaintiff again and the stadium would again be the defendant because the person who presented the wrong sodas was an employee acting on their behalf. Each of these examples would fall under Res Ispa Loquitur (Cheeseman, H. R., 2010). Plaintiffs and Defendants: Scenario 2
In the second...