Exam (elaborations) Assignment__Patty_Plaintiff___s_Really_Bad_Week (1)

Time to time, people could be faced with unfortunate situations and they might find it challenging to determine if these happenings could have any legal claims. This is the same dilemma that Patty Plaintiffs is facing after having a really unlucky week. Patty’s problems start when she is wrongly accused of shoplifting in her favorite store where she had gone to get a laptop. As she lives the store, she is accidentally hit by a golf ball and in addition to missing her appointment, she had to take five days to recover from her head injuries. Patty’s problems do not end there, but on returning to work, she is accused of violation of the company’s policies because she had used the company’s email to send her mother an email. This violation leads to Patty getting reprimanded and she ends up using social media in her home computer posting disparaging comments about her boss. This would in the next day cost Patty her job. This paper analyzes the various potential legal claims that Patty could make against each of the parties leading to her unfortunate events if any. Possible Tort Claims against Cash Mart Tort is described to be wrongful infringement of rights that could then lead to legal claims [Ken142]. In the provided scenario, Patty can use several types of intentional tort claims against the store. One of these torts is false imprisonment or false arrest. Patty is forcefully held in a room within the store waiting for over one hour, but is finally let free without any proof that she had shoplifted. Another tort is the defamation that describes intentional making of false statements about an individual, which could injure their reputation. Wrongfully accusing Patty without any evidence injured her reputation. For instance, what would have happened if Patty’s neighbor, friend, or colleague were there when she was being accused of shoplifting? This could PATTY PLAINTIFF’S REALLY BAD WEEK 3 lead to emotional distress and the other tort that applies here is intentional infliction of emotional distress caused upon Patty by the guard’s conduct. Further, another tort that applies here is the duty of care tort which describes a legal obligation requiring individuals to adhere to standards of reasonable care when engaging in actions that could cause harm to others [Ken142]. Therefore, based on this analysis, Cash Mart has a case to answer for wrongly accusing Patty a frequent customer at the store for shoplifting without reasonable cause. Based on the facts in the scenario and associated torts as analyzed above, if she files legal claims against Cash Mart, Patty has higher probability of being compensated. Assessment of Gerry’s Negligence when He Injured Patty with the Golf Ball Negligence legal claims occur when once person suffers harm or loss due to negligence of another person. In such a case, the victim has a right to sue for compensation due to the damages or harm caused (National Paralegal College, 2018). Going by the facts presented in the scenario, it is evident that Gerry was negligent which resulted to causing physical injuries on Patty with the golf ball. Gerry understands the size of his backyard and must have obviously known that by breaking out, the golf ball would go beyond his backyard. Nevertheless, he seemed not to be concerned of what would happen if the ball went beyond his backyard. This results to causing physical harm on the Plaintiff who is not able to report to work for several days due to the injuries caused. Therefore, the major element of negligence that is to be applied here is harm that requires a plaintiff to sue for negligence and suffering harm caused by the defendant (National Paralegal College, 2018). Although Gerry did not know the golf ball would hit someone, he ought to have been cautious and the laws of negligence enable plaintiffs to sue defendants due to harm caused be it through reckless behavior or accidental.