Synopsis of Tort Cases - the Plaintiff

Scenario 1

Malik, the plaintiff, can file a battery tort claim against Daniel, the defendant. Daniel shoved Malik, causing him to fall (University of Phoenix, 2010). Battery is the unauthorized and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person (Cheeseman, 2010). Daniel is liable for the injuries Malik suffered because it is foreseeable Malik would incur injuries after Daniel shoved him. However, Daniel may assert the injuries were extensive because of the faulty railing and unforeseeable. Malik will win his case, and Daniel will probably become incarcerated. Malik, the plaintiff, can file a tort claim against the stadium, the defendant, for breach of duty of care. The railing should have held Malik's weight and not have broken. A reasonable person can foresee someone could grab it or fall against it. The stadium is partially responsible for Malik's injuries.

Daniel, the plaintiff, can file an intentional defamation of character through slander tort claim against the lady, the defendant. Publicly, the woman falsely accused Daniel of giving beer to a minor (University of Phoenix, 2010). Daniel lost his reputation through slander and lost his job as Daniel's boss heard the woman and watched the audience's repulsive stares because of these false accusations (University of Phoenix, 2010). Daniel can reveal the lady intentionally made a false accusation of fact about him to the public (Cheeseman, 2010). The lady used slander to defame verbally Daniel's character as a parent allowing an 8-year-old son to drink alcohol. The woman may say the beer smell on Ruben is evidence proving Daniel is providing the child with alcohol. Daniel will win the case because the woman's public false allegations of Daniel resulted in defaming his character through slander.

Daniel, the plaintiff, can file a wrongful termination lawsuit against his company, the defendant. Daniel lost his job because his boss relied on the lady's false accusations of Daniel (University of Phoenix). The company may assert its immunity to liability for the boss's actions. However, the doctrine of respondeat superior deems the company liable for its employees' torts when they act within the scope of its authority. Daniel can recover damages entitling him to lost salary because of the termination of his job resulting from the woman's false allegations (Cheeseman, 2010).

Daniel, the plaintiff, can file an unintentional tort claim against the stadium, the defendant, for actual cause negligence, in which the concession worker, the defendant, committing the negligent act is not liable unless Daniel can prove actual cause (Cheeseman, 2010). The distracted concession worker was negligent by giving Daniel, a diabetic, sugary instead of diet drinks (University of Phoenix). However, the concession worker was unaware of Daniel's medical condition. Hence, it is unforeseeable that the sugary drink would cause a diabetic shock. Through contributory negligence, Daniel could also be found partially liable for not recognizing his soft drink was not sugar free. Daniel is partially liable for his own injury and cannot recover damages from the stadium because of the negligent concession worker (Cheeseman, 2010).

Daniel, the plaintiff, can file an intentional assault tort claim against Malik, the defendant, for pointing a gun at Daniel (University of Phoenix, 2010). Assault is a threat posing immediate harm or offensive contact (Cheeseman, 2010). Malik's actions aroused Daniel's reasonable apprehension of immediate harm. Malik pointed an unloaded gun at Daniel, but Daniel was unaware the gun had no bullets. Malik may assert he did not intend to harm but scare Daniel and not realize the imminent danger. Daniel can win this case because he genuinely believed his life was in danger because he was unaware the gun had no bullets.

Malik, the plaintiff, can file a battery tort claim against Daniel, the defendant, for shooting him. Malik cannot claim punitive damages because Daniel's actions mirrored imminent danger from Malik. Daniel protected himself when Malik pointed the gun at him (University of Phoenix, 2010). Daniel can assert he was unaware the gun had no bullets and protected himself. Therefore, Daniel's claims are valid because he was unaware the gun Malik pointed at him was empty. Daniel will win the case because of self defense.

Scenario 2

Anna, the plaintiff, can file a negligent tort claim of res ipsa loquitur against the restaurant, the defendant, because the restaurant has exclusive control of the situation causing Anna's injury. The injury would not have occurred ordinarily except for the restaurant's negligence (Cheeseman, 2010). Unless the restaurant proves Anna put the glass in her food, she will win her case.

Anna, the plaintiff, can file a tort claim of res ipsa loquitur against the surgeon, the defendant, for professional malpractice, specifically medical malpractice and breach of contract (Cheeseman, 2010). The surgeon erroneously assumes Anna requires amputation of her right leg (University of Phoenix, 2010). Physicians owe a duty of ordinary care, known as the reasonable professional standard, at the time of providing services. The surgeon breached his duty of care to Anna and becomes liable for Anna's amputation because of his negligence, the direct cause. The surgeon had a duty to know Anna was not the patient to have her leg amputated (University of Phoenix, 2010). Anna could also sue the surgeon for battery (Cheeseman, 2010). Anna consented to surgery for mouth bleeding not leg amputation, resulting in intentional, unwelcome touching by the surgeon. Anna can claim compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory damages restore Anna's loss because of the surgeon's wrongful conduct. Punitive damages punish the surgeon for his gross negligence of amputating Anna's leg and serve as an example and deterrent to similar misconduct (Cheeseman, 2010).

Anna, the old lady, and restaurant patrons are the plaintiffs suffering from burns and smoke inhalation can file a lawsuit against the waiters and the restaurant, the defendants, for gross negligence. The waiters have a reasonable duty to care and be mindful but both waiters bump into each other or objects. The staff had a duty to manage the commotion when everyone fled the premises. Respondeat superior is applicable whereby the employees' negligent actions hold the restaurant accountable and liable for the waiters' conduct resulting in harm endured by the patrons (Cheeseman, 2010). Anna, the old lady, and the injured restaurant patrons can prove the restaurant, through its staff, owed but breached a duty of care to everyone in the restaurant. Physical injuries Anna endured from biting on the glass and injuring her mouth, the