Tort Scenario Paper
Crystal Cunningham, Robert Harrison, Billie Miller, Tyler Pierce, and Jennifer Sorensen University of Phoenix
May 30, 2011
What tort actions do see and the identity of potential plaintiffs? Intentional battery - (Plaintiff, Malik v. Ruben) Malik can file a claim against Ruben for pushing him. Ruben would be liable for any physical harm sustained due to the physical contact. Unintentional negligence- (Plaintiff, Malik v. Stadium) Malik can sue for the stadium railing collapsing when he was pushed into it. The stadium did breach its duty of care and should be liable for some of Malik’s damages because it gave way. Strict Liability- (Plaintiff, Stadium v. Railing Manufacture or installer) The Stadium could sue the manufacture for a defective railing or installer because the railing collapsed. Negligence-Defamation of Character (Plaintiff, Daniel versus Lady in line) Daniel sues the lady in line for falsely accusing him of giving his child beer. Negligence-Infliction of emotion distress (Plaintiff, Ruben & Daniel versus Malik) Ruben sues for harassment with an unloaded fire arm. This is outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly. Negligence, (Plaintiff, Daniel versus Stadium or Drink Manufacture), the sugary drink caused Daniel diabetic the stadium had a greater duty of care to provide a warning. What are the identities of each defendant and why do you feel that way? In the first scenario Malik would be a defendant is a suit against Daniel for shoving him, causing him to fall and knock out his two front teeth. Daniel could file suit against his boss for wrongful termination because he was not serving his son alcohol. Daniel’s wife could file suit against the stadium for serving her husband a regular drink instead of a diet drinks.
What are the elements of the tort claim that constitute the plaintiff’s claim? Daniel created unauthorized and harmful contact when he pushed Malik causing harm. For battery the victim does not have to see the contact. Element of slander is an untrue statement of fact made with someone hearing. The woman claimed Daniel gave beer to a minor resulting in Daniel being fired when his boss overheard. Negligence was committed when the concession worker gave Daniel regular soft drinks instead of diet. What defenses do you think defendants might assert? The player who injured the quarterback may say that injuries come with the game and that the quarterback knew the risks when he stepped on to the field. The same can be applied to the injured fan; certain risks come with seats near the field. The stadium owners may say that if Malik and Ruben weren’t fighting, the railing would have not fallen. Daniel had a gun pulled on him first which is his defense for shooting Malik. How, do you think this claim will be resolved? Daniel is liable for his assault on Malik due to intentional tort law on assault and possibly battery or unintentional tort for negligence. The initial shove caused Malik’s accident. The venue is responsible for Malik’s injuries under unintentional tort law for negligence. Daniel was served regular soft drinks in lieu of the diet drinks he ordered. The concessions employee and venue both bear responsibility under unintentional tort law for negligence. The unidentified woman who accused Daniel of serving Reuben alcohol is liable for defamation of character. Scenario Two
What tort actions do you see and the identity of potential plaintiffs? Negligence- (Plaintiff, Anna v. Restaurant)- Anna files a claim for the glass in her meal that damaged her mouth. Negligence Breached duty of care-(Plaintiff, Anna v. Doctor or Hospital) - Anna sues the doctor of hospital for removing her leg in error due to an identity mix up. Negligence- (Plaintiff, Customers vs. Restaurant) - Consumers sue for bodily injury due to the fire caused by the restaurant staff.
What are the identities...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document