Patty Plaintiffs Really Bad Week Assignment_Solution

Assignment: Patty Plaintiff’s Really Bad Week Name Professor Course Date Tort Tort is a wrongful act other than breach of contract for which relief may be obtained in the form of damages or an injunction. In common law these civil wrongs can result in legal liability against the defendant or tortfeasor whose duty was to act or behave in a certain manor by the plaintiff who must prove the behavior demonstrated by the tortfeasor did not conform to the duty owed to the injured person. Torts are a civil action involving private parties thus the penalization for tortious acts do not include fines or incarceration but typically involve restoring the injured party monetarily and occasionally a court order can oblige the defendant to either do or not do something. There are three types of torts International, Negligence and Strict liability. An intentional tort is an act that is intentionally committed against another person with the aim of causing harm. There are several intentional torts that fall into this category, like assault, battery, conversion, fraud, false imprisonment, trespassing and invasion of privacy. Negligence occurs when a party fails to demonstrate the kind of care a prudent person would take in the same situation and an injury results from the action or inaction. There are five elements that must be proven in a negligence case the injury caused actual damages, the plaintiff’s injury is a result of the defendant’s actions or inactions (proximate cause), the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care and the defendant did not behave in a way that demonstrated care. Strict liability torts implies when a defendant places another person in danger, even in the absence of negligence, simply because he is in possession of a dangerous product, animal or weapon. The plaintiff does not need prove negligence. There are three major strict liability categories abnormally dangerous acts, animals (owned or possessed) and product liability. An abnormally dangerous is an act that carries a substantial risk to oneself and others' personal property and physical being. In a suspected case of abnormally dangerous act these things are considered whether it’s value to the community outweighs the risk involved, how likely that harm will result from activity, not commonly recognized act, location appreciation, how easily the risk can be mitigated even with all precautions and how likely the risky activity can cause harm to a person, chattel or property. It does not take all conditions for an act to be considered dangerous. One or more elements are enough. Product liability is the legal responsibility imposed on a business for the manufacturing or selling of defective goods. When a consumer is harmed by a product, that consumer can usually file a civil lawsuit in state court. There are three legal rules that can hold a business legally accountable for their inoperative product breach of warranty, negligence and strict liability. Breach of warrant is the seller's failure to fulfill the terms of a promise, claim, guarantee, or representation made about the product. Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care. Strict liability means that the business will be held liable if it’s defective product causes injury regardless of fault. This paper about Patty’s cases will involve all three of the torts in some aspect. Patty VS. Cash-Mart The possible tort claims Patty can make against Cash-Mart are international torts defamation, false imprisonment, and international infliction of emotional distress. Falsely accusing someone of stealing or shoplifting falls under defamation, particularly slander, which is a type of spoken defamation. These kind of defamation incidents can lead to the compensation of the person whose reputation was tainted or damaged since it causes humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, and maybe, even depression. There are even six steps the security guard should have taken that could have avoided this situation. The six procedures: 1. You must be able to see the alleged shoplifter going near the item within the premises of the store. 2. You must be able to see the alleged shoplifter selecting the item within the premises the store. 3. You must be able to see the alleged shoplifter getting the item, concealing it, and taking it out from the shelf. 4. You should be able to continuously observe the alleged shoplifter. 5. You must be able to see if he or she fails to pay for the item. 6. To confirm your suspicions, confront the alleged shoplifter outside the store. This preventive sector of retail security and loss were not taken into consideration and protocol was not followed leaving patty falsely accused when he had no real probable cause to believe she was shoplifting because firstly she never touched any of the laptops nor did she hold or conceal anything and lastly but most importantly she did not even leave the store or go pass point of payment to confirm the suspicion just the fact she was walking hasty. Also, the security guard publicly embarrassed her by insisting she stole in the front of who knows how many other customers and employees when he’s supposed to just ask her to come with him because he suspects she took something. Patty’s False Imprisonment claim is very much so relevant because it says they can detain a customer for questioning for a reasonable amount of time usually around twenty minutes in the managers office or security room. Patty was detained for over an hour, not questioned, threatened with possibility of police involvement and prison. This incident very likely caused Patty serve emotional destress under the Internal Infliction of Emotion Destress tort because it says it results from extreme and outrageous conduct that causes serious emotional harm which was the security guard’s reckless extreme and outrageous abuse of authority conduct while handling patty. She might never want to shop there again and it’s her favorite store and it altered her whole life the chain of events that took place after because she was hurry out of the store and he handled her very poorly from stopping her then being instant which usually comes along with a little aggression and then forcing her to detain through manipulative tactics. Patty has multiple factors from this incident that are in her favor in which she can have a civil case against Cash-Mart and win it all they have to do is rewind the camera and the proof will be in the pudding. Patty VS. Gerry Yes, Gerry was negligent when he hit the golf ball that injury Patty. Negligence is an unintentional tort wherein one party is injured as a result of the actions of another, it concerns harm that arises by accident. Both the proximate and factual cause apply to this case. The Proximate cause which says ‘It was foreseeable that conduct like the defendant’s might cause this type of harm’ is applicable because Gerry knew he lived near a business establishment where it was possible a person or thing (ex: car) could get hit and he still chose to act irresponsibly. The Factual cause which says ‘The defendant’s conduct actually caused the injury.’ is appertained because Gerry breaking in his new driver hitting it out his backyard caused Patty a head injury from the golf ball, its fact-based he was hitting a golf ball in the very same time frame that a golf ball hit Patty and there is no mention of a local golf course close enough to Cash-Mart to be a stray ball from there. It’s also not very likely someone else was playing golf in the neighborhood at that exact time. Patty VS. Barry Bossley and Company No, Patty does not have a right to privacy when using her company’s e-mail system because she signed an employee contract which contained the company’s policy which prohibited company e-mail for personal communication use. She either did not read the fine print of her contract when she started the job, or she could have suffered a bit of memory loss from the head injury she recently acquired but either way she can be held legally responsible because they have that paper with her signature that basically is proof of her acknowledgement of the rule. Yes, Patty can be legally fired from her job for making negative comments about her boss and her company on social media because she was slandering the company’s reputation and the defamatory content can reach a broad audience. One negative post about the company and its employees may receive dozens of 'likes' and comments which pops up on Yelp a search review engine and has the potential to be seen and rated by tens of thousands of users tarnishing the company’s integrity, standards and prestige. The conclusion of Patty’s three possible cases two (Cash-Mart and Gerry) are legitimate and very likely to be won whereas the incident with her job is not a case at all because she was in the wrong.