Tort Law Case Study Essay
Case 1 In the case at Gigantic State University, students that were a part of the SFT committed several careless acts. Within this particular case there was a definite crime that was committed because both Prudence’s physical and mental integrity was harmed. Not only could this case be classified according to the textbook as an intentional tort against persons but could be put into intentional tort against property. Torts against persons are intentional acts that harm an individual’s physical or mental integrity (Kubasek, pg. 111). A person who is legally injured may be able to use tort law to recover damages from someone who is legally responsible, or “liable,” for those injuries. According to the case, Prudence’s physical integrity was harmed
…show more content…
when Steve slapped the phone out of Prudence’s hand and pointed a life like squirt gun at her. Not only was physical integrity harmed but this can be claimed as assault. Assault occurs when one person places another in fear or apprehension of an immediate, offensive bodily contact (Kubasek, pg. 111). The students committed the crime of assault and battery; they threatened Pimply by force of hitting the phone out of her hand and holding her at gun point. As for Prudence’s mental integrity, it was harmed because work became too much of a remembrance of a horrible place that she couldn’t go back for a week unless she took tranquilizers prescribed by her doctor.
Furthermore, also applying to this case, is the intentional tort of trespassing which is defined by the textbook as the tort of trespass to realty.
This tort is classified as trespass to realty under four circumstances, one being when a person intentionally stays on the land of another when the owner tells him to depart (Kubasek, pg. 115). Analyzing the case it is clear that Chandler had asked the members to leave. However, the students did not obey which makes them have the possibility of being accused of trespass. Not only is a trespasser on someone’s personal property but, the trespasser is liable for damages she or he might cause as well (Kubasek, pg. 115). Since Steel and the other members used the properties book case and used it to break down Chandler’s door all of them are liable for the damages caused to both the door and the bookcase. Negligent torts involve failure to exercise reasonable care to protect another’s person or property (Kubasek, pg. 117). When comparing that definition to this case it is clear that negligence does not correspond with the elements of this case. In conclusion with the evidence involved it can be understood that Chandler had not control over this situation and had no way of knowing how to prevent this from
happening.
Case 2 Without a doubt, Steve with the intoxication and weather conditions should have never been climbing up the tower. So many solutions and precautions could’ve have taken place making MSC liable to be sued for negligence. Even with past claims about the towers pumping mechanism, MSC was still aware of the problem and yet nothing was done because only a few pigeons had been fried. There is no information whether MSC also failed to properly secure the property, because there is an implication based on the fact that Steve could climb the tower and it was covered in graffiti. After analyzing this case it is clear that the case has an ample amount of evidence for a proximate cause. Proximate clause refers to the extent to which a defendant may be held liable for the consequences of his actions (Kubasek, pg. 119). First, Even though Steve was assigned this task because of pledge duties and was aware of the bad weather conditions, he still went and climbed up the ladder making him fully held liable. Secondly, Steve was intoxicated with a 6 pack of beer therefore his mentality state was nowhere near right to climb up a water tower. All of this evidence can be applied to the assumption of risk which according to the textbook can be applied when the plaintiff willingly assumed as a risk the harm they suffered (Kubasek, pg. 124). Overall, this case has a high probability that Steve could predict the consequences of his actions. Steve who caused the accident is considered negligent because he failed to exercise the same degree of care that a reasonable person would have in the same situation. In this case the negligent act was assumption of risk however, it can be argued that comparative negligence vs. contributory negligence is the cause. Looking at the evidence from this case, the best defense would be contributory negligence. Contributory negligence applies in cases in which both the defendant and the plaintiff were negligent (Kubasek, pg. 123). This negligence would be used if MSTC was not aware of the short circuit and it was their neglect to repair it. According to the text, the defendant must prove that the plaintiffs conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm and the plaintiff’s failure was a contributing cause of the plaintiff’s injury to claim contributory negligence successfully (Kubasek, pg. 123). There was negligence on both Steve’s part and MSC’s behalf. Not only does contributory negligence apply to this case because of mentality state and lack of maintenance, but comparative negligence is partly Steve’s fault. This is due to MSTC knowing the danger of the water tower and failed to fix it, and Steve was aware of the dangers. In conclusion, Steve is not necessarily liable for his actions because of electrocution. By using the chain of causation which is a legal term used to describe a situation in which a person who seems to be entirely at fault for an event that is punishable I believe Steve’s family has the factual evidence to seek settlement from MSTC for a unexpected death.
Reference
Kubasek, Browne, Herron, Dhooge, & Barkacs. (2013). Dynamic Business Law: The Essentials. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. (2nd ed.)
when Steve slapped the phone out of Prudence’s hand and pointed a life like squirt gun at her. Not only was physical integrity harmed but this can be claimed as assault. Assault occurs when one person places another in fear or apprehension of an immediate, offensive bodily contact (Kubasek, pg. 111). The students committed the crime of assault and battery; they threatened Pimply by force of hitting the phone out of her hand and holding her at gun point. As for Prudence’s mental integrity, it was harmed because work became too much of a remembrance of a horrible place that she couldn’t go back for a week unless she took tranquilizers prescribed by her doctor.
Furthermore, also applying to this case, is the intentional tort of trespassing which is defined by the textbook as the tort of trespass to realty.
This tort is classified as trespass to realty under four circumstances, one being when a person intentionally stays on the land of another when the owner tells him to depart (Kubasek, pg. 115). Analyzing the case it is clear that Chandler had asked the members to leave. However, the students did not obey which makes them have the possibility of being accused of trespass. Not only is a trespasser on someone’s personal property but, the trespasser is liable for damages she or he might cause as well (Kubasek, pg. 115). Since Steel and the other members used the properties book case and used it to break down Chandler’s door all of them are liable for the damages caused to both the door and the bookcase. Negligent torts involve failure to exercise reasonable care to protect another’s person or property (Kubasek, pg. 117). When comparing that definition to this case it is clear that negligence does not correspond with the elements of this case. In conclusion with the evidence involved it can be understood that Chandler had not control over this situation and had no way of knowing how to prevent this from
happening.
Case 2 Without a doubt, Steve with the intoxication and weather conditions should have never been climbing up the tower. So many solutions and precautions could’ve have taken place making MSC liable to be sued for negligence. Even with past claims about the towers pumping mechanism, MSC was still aware of the problem and yet nothing was done because only a few pigeons had been fried. There is no information whether MSC also failed to properly secure the property, because there is an implication based on the fact that Steve could climb the tower and it was covered in graffiti. After analyzing this case it is clear that the case has an ample amount of evidence for a proximate cause. Proximate clause refers to the extent to which a defendant may be held liable for the consequences of his actions (Kubasek, pg. 119). First, Even though Steve was assigned this task because of pledge duties and was aware of the bad weather conditions, he still went and climbed up the ladder making him fully held liable. Secondly, Steve was intoxicated with a 6 pack of beer therefore his mentality state was nowhere near right to climb up a water tower. All of this evidence can be applied to the assumption of risk which according to the textbook can be applied when the plaintiff willingly assumed as a risk the harm they suffered (Kubasek, pg. 124). Overall, this case has a high probability that Steve could predict the consequences of his actions. Steve who caused the accident is considered negligent because he failed to exercise the same degree of care that a reasonable person would have in the same situation. In this case the negligent act was assumption of risk however, it can be argued that comparative negligence vs. contributory negligence is the cause. Looking at the evidence from this case, the best defense would be contributory negligence. Contributory negligence applies in cases in which both the defendant and the plaintiff were negligent (Kubasek, pg. 123). This negligence would be used if MSTC was not aware of the short circuit and it was their neglect to repair it. According to the text, the defendant must prove that the plaintiffs conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm and the plaintiff’s failure was a contributing cause of the plaintiff’s injury to claim contributory negligence successfully (Kubasek, pg. 123). There was negligence on both Steve’s part and MSC’s behalf. Not only does contributory negligence apply to this case because of mentality state and lack of maintenance, but comparative negligence is partly Steve’s fault. This is due to MSTC knowing the danger of the water tower and failed to fix it, and Steve was aware of the dangers. In conclusion, Steve is not necessarily liable for his actions because of electrocution. By using the chain of causation which is a legal term used to describe a situation in which a person who seems to be entirely at fault for an event that is punishable I believe Steve’s family has the factual evidence to seek settlement from MSTC for a unexpected death.
Reference
Kubasek, Browne, Herron, Dhooge, & Barkacs. (2013). Dynamic Business Law: The Essentials. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. (2nd ed.)