Synopsis of Tort Cases - Scenarios

Synopsis of Tort Cases

Each of the following scenarios involves different tort actions that will be further explained in the following readings. We have also identified the plaintiffs and the defendants involved in each of the situations that occur. The tort claim that constitutes the plaintiff's claim will also be identified and any defenses the defendants might assert will also be applied to the paper. We will also state legal reasons for the way the claims will be resolved.

Scenario 1: Football Game

This scenario has multiple incidents each requiring a file for compensatory damages, punitive damages, or both. The elements of assault have been met when Daniel shoved Malik are intent of volitional act (Daniel meant to push Malik) and causation (Malik hit his face on the aisle steps). Daniel can be charged with battery. This situation makes Malik the Plaintiff and Daniel the defendant. Elements of strict liability have also been met in because the stadium has a duty to ensure rails are safe, and this rail was not and gave way causing Malik to hit his face. Malik could sue the stadium because it was unsafe. This would make Malik the Plaintiff and the stadium the defendants. Accusing Daniel of giving beer to a child is defamation per se because it is untrue. Daniel and Ruben are able to file for compensatory damages and Daniel is able to file for defamation of character. "The tort of defamation of character requires a plaintiff to prove that (1) the defendant made an untrue statement of fact about the plaintiff and (2) the statement was intentionally or accidentally published to a third party" (Cheeseman, 2010, p.98). This damaged Daniels reputation with his job leading to termination, so Daniel can sue the Accuser. Daniel would be the plaintiff and the accuser would be the defendant. In this case, the lady in line made the assumption that Daniel had given Ruben alcohol therefore, making a slanderous statement. Next, the boss agreed with that statement resulting in Daniel's termination. However, the same claim applies to Daniel's former employer. In defense, the lady in line and Daniel's former boss can claim "opinion". This is a defense recognized in most jurisdictions. Therefore, if the person has made a statement of their opinion as opposed to an alleged fact, the statement may not be considered defamation. The concession worker giving Daniel sugary soft drinks instead of diet drinks causing Daniel to go into a coma is negligence because they have a duty to uphold the standard of care delivering the right drinks. Daniel would also be the plaintiff and the concession worker would be the defendant in this case. Malik assaulted Daniel by pointing a gun at him and causing him to feel unsafe. Battery was committed on Malik by Daniel because Daniel shot him. Thus, making Malik the defendant against Daniel, the plaintiff. Malik's wife can also claim compensatory damages since her husband was shot. Finally, Daniel can claim self-defense, as it was Malik who was putting Daniel and his son at risk with the unloaded weapon. Daniel can sue Malik for assault and battery, and the likely outcome from Daniel arguing self-defense is that Daniel will have his suit upheld in court, and he will win.

Scenario 2: Italian Restaurant

Anna can sue the Italian restaurant due to her injury. Anna would be the plaintiff and the restaurant would be the defendant. She can sue the restaurant because it was their negligence that resulted in glass placed in her food. Without the negligent behavior of the restaurant staff she would never have been placed at risk. "Res ipsa loquitur applies in cases where the following elements are met: (1) the defendant had exclusive control of the instrumentality or situation that caused the plaintiff 's injury and (2) the injury would not have ordinarily occurred but for someone's negligence" (Cheeseman, 2010, p.104). Anna getting cut by a piece of glass in her food, and the elderly lady who is trampled and injured by the crowd, as well as any other injuries caused by the fire are elements of strict liability because it is the restaurant's responsibility to make sure that the food and environment are safe for consumers. The injured patrons have a case against the restaurant for its unsafe environment. There were customers at the restaurant who sustained injuries as a result of the original situation. These injuries include burns, trampling, and smoke inhalation. These customers can sue the restaurant and the wait staff for negligence. It can be argued that the wait staff should be prepared to handle such an incident. Incidents of this nature fall within the responsibility of the establishment in which they occur. In the scenario, they were unable to handle the chaos that ensued from the incident. It can be argued that it is the responsibility of the restaurant staff to maintain order in just such a situation. In this case only those customers who were actually injured have a case. The case would be patrons (plaintiffs) vs. the restaurant (defendants). As for its defense the restaurant will likely argue that it was the customers who were at fault for running and causing their own injuries. In this case the restaurant is trying to show that the customers were negligent, rather than the restaurant and this claim is likely to fail. The surgeon amputating Anna's right leg is negligence because it is the doctor's duty of care to know what he is doing to the patient before