Synopsis of Tort Cases
Myrtis Davis, Gloria Pettis, Yolanda Williams, Kareemot Olorunoje Business 415
Synopsis of Tort Cases
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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document