BUS 415 Week 3 Learning Team Assignment Synopsis of Tort Cases Paper
BUS 415 Week 3 Learning Team Assignment Synopsis of Tort Cases Paper
Popular in Course
Popular in Department
This 9 page Study Guide was uploaded by an elite notetaker on Saturday January 9, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to a course at Zuni Comprehensive Community Health Center taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 22 views.
Reviews for BUS 415 Week 3 Learning Team Assignment Synopsis of Tort Cases Paper
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 01/09/16
BUS/41 5 1 Synopsis of Tort Cases Paper Team A: BUS/415 Week 3 BUS/41 5 2 Torts and Liability Torts arise when negligent activity by one individual to another individual results in injury or liability from the action. The negligent party owes a duty of responsibility to provide recourse in the form of reimbursement through monies or other court appointed determinations as restitution for the negligent act. Tort cases are mostly negligent acts that involve suits heard in civil court. Tort cases are brought forth by private citizens, whereas criminal acts involve prosecution by the government. The tort acts demonstrated in this scenario involve bodily harm from negligent acts, defamation of character, and negligence for safety, medical malpractice, and broken promissory note. Scenario One Synopsis The scenario one contains several torts that involve damage, injury, and wrongful acts that involve potential civil lawsuits for strict liability. The scenario begins with a Daniel and his son Reuben attending a football game. The quarterback receives an injury from a player on the opposing team. The quarterback could file a lawsuit against the opposing team member for the injury as an act of bodily harm but the defendants defense states a circumstance that comes with the occupation of playing football. The quarterback can file a workman’s compensation claim against the owner of the football team for damages sustained while working because his occupation is playing football. The owner of the team would be responsible for any injuries incurred on the job therefore this is a workman’s comp case under strict liability. As a result of the accident on the field, the ball injured a fan in the stands. The fan could file a civil lawsuit for bodily harm from the injury. The owner of team can defend the action by stating that fans assume the risk when they purchase the ticket and the stadium is not liable for BUS/41 5 3 actions that involve circumstances from the game. The incident on the field with the accident upset a fan named Malik sitting next to Daniel and Reuben. Malik became angry at the referee and unintentionally spilled beer on Reuben. Malik did not cause any bodily harm to Reuben therefore strict liability does not apply but Daniel shoved Malik for spilling the beer on Reuben. Malik fell resulting in a sustained injury. The stadium would not be liable for the fall because Daniel committed assault and battery on Malik and does not involve any acts of the stadium. Daniel is responsible for bodily harm to Malik, which results in a strict liability of assault for a civil lawsuit. Daniel and Reuben preceded to the concession stands to purchase two diet drinks. Daniel was approached by a stranger who made an accusation that Daniel gave Reuben alcohol. The accusation from the stranger was overheard by Daniel’s boss resulting in a termination of Daniels job. The stranger holds a liability in the accusation against Daniel by causing defamation of character and false accusation. Damages could be sought in a civil lawsuit against the accuser for loss of income to Daniel from the accusation. As Daniel and Reuben were leaving, Malik approached Daniel with an unloaded gun threatening Daniel. Daniel was unaware the gun contained no bullets therefore the presumption of threat with bodily harm existed for Daniel. Daniel reacted in self defense by defending himself with a gun that he carried for protection. Although Malik had no intention of shooting Daniel there was an implied threat on life for Daniel. The liability resides with Malik’s actions and intents and Daniel was only acting in self defense. Inadvertently, the concession stand sold Daniel and sugar drink instead of diet drink and BUS/41 5 4 Daniel evidently is diabetic. The results of consuming the diet drink caused an induced diabetic coma. The concession stand did not intentionally set out cause harm. The concession liability does pertain to product liability but the concession did not intentionally sell the product to cause harm. Scenario Two Synopsis In scenario number two, Anna orders a meal in an Italian restaurant. When taking a bite of her food, she bites down on a piece of glass that hurts her mouth. Then as two waiters near Anna, one waiter bumps Anna into another carrying a flaming dish. The flaming dish catches Anna’s waiter’s apron on fire that also catches a tablecloth on fire. As the fires are going, people begin to run out of the doors. Only one or two people can leave at a time through the revolving door. During the chaos of fleeing people, they trample old lady and injure her badly. Others suffer from smoke inhalation, but everyone makes it out of the restaurant. After Anna goes to the hospital, the emergency room doctor informs her that she needs immediate surgery to stop the bleed and save her tooth. Although unconscious and ready for surgery, the surgeon mistakes Anna for another patient and accidently amputates her right leg. In this scenario, Anna is the first plaintiff. Anna can file a lawsuit against the restaurant for negligence because of the glass in the food (Larson, 2006). The restaurant is extremely negligent for preparing food with glass in it. Anna is also capable of suing for implied warranty of merchantability. Anna went to the restaurant hoping to enjoy a good meal, but instead, is Anna suffers an injury while eating the food. No one would expect to have to be weary of eating at a restaurant because glass or any other harmful material enlaced in it. BUS/41 5 5 Also in this scenario, Anna can file a lawsuit against the doctor for medical malpractice and breach of contract. The duty of the emergency doctor is the make a sound medical decision on the amputation of the patient’s leg. Anna was not the patient needing leg amputation, the doctor or the nurses were responsible for checking the rooms, patience identification tags as well as the paperwork that is always left outside the hospital room. Therefore, the hospital is also a defendant under respondeat superior. Respondeat superior is a common doctrine providing that an employer is liable for all actions of its employees when actions take place in place of employment (The Free Dictionary, 2010). Anna will be successful on all these claims. The people eating at the restaurant are also potential plaintiffs; each can sue the waiters and the restaurant for negligence. The waiter’s duty as well as the other employee’s duty is to be careful and to manage any chaos or commotion present in the restaurant (Larson, 2006). Respondeat superior also applies to this case. This tort element will not be successful if the people do not suffer from any injuries during the incident. The waiters can sue the restaurant if they suffer from any injuries during the commotion. The waiters can file claims to worker’s compensation because the incident occurred at the place of employment. Anna, the waiters, and the people eating inside the restaurant have better chances at winning their cases in court. Scenario Three Synopsis In this case SureCo has two lawsuits that it can pursue. The company can first sue Raul because of the signs that say “SureCo cheats its customers!” because that is corporate defamation. Raul falsely accuses SureCo validation to the customer’s honesty. Raul’s protest BUS/41 5 6 signs may cause SureCo potential clients and so it will most likely win the suit. SureCo also has a case against Franco. Franco made a guarantee to a customer without the company’s permission even knowing that the guarantee is false and premiums can go up. This can be seen as fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. SureCo trusted Franco to act in an ethical and legal way representing the company. He violated that trust; the company has a case against him. Franco also has a slander claim against his boss. The boss publicly announced the firing of Franco f stealing, whereas the firing is for fraud and lying to customers. People heard her and could testify to that fact. If the remark affects Franco he could take her to court and win. Raul also has two possible suits that he can pursue. One that he could pursue is against SureCo and Franco for fraud because of a broken promissory that his premiums would not go up and the premiums did go up. Franco left out a very important fact that could have influenced Raul’s decision. SureCo can try to defend itself by saying that Franco was not trained or allowed to say what he said, but Raul can argue apparent authority and most likely win. He can also win a case against the boss for hitting him in the eye with a staple shot from a staple gun. That is assault if he could have seen it coming or battery if he did not. The boss could take a stance of self defense but that will not likely work because there is security available to her. Securities role is to protect the property of SureCo so she cannot claim defense of property. Raul will most likely receive compensation in each case. Scenario Four Synopsis The torts within this scenario are assault, battery, false imprisonment, and negligence. The potential plaintiffs would be the husband of the woman shot and the woman if she survived, the boy who was shot from the stray bullet, and Lee. The potential defendants would be Lee for BUS/41 5 7 shooting the gun within the store intending to do harm to the shoppers. Randy would also be a potential defendant for not using duty of care and providing the bullets and the gun and then turning his back from the customer. The store would be a possible defendant because of the negligence committed by Randy while working his normal shift. The guard would also be a possible defendant for kicking Lee when he was already subdued and then locking Lee in a closet against his will until the authorities arrived. The elements of the tort actions that would provide the plaintiffs with a claim against Lee would be the use of the gun as assault from Lee against the woman shopper and the little boy. He could also be held responsible for the unknowing battery against the husband who suffered a heart attack after his wife was shot. The store and the guard would be held responsible for the false imprisonment because of the agency agreement between the store and the guard and the occurrence happened during the guards shift on work property. This would fall under the work related test of the intentional torts (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 340). Lee could defend his actions by saying that he was temporarily insane at the time of the shootings, but then he would need to undergo mental tests to prove this point. Both sides would then be able to bring in their own specialists to review the results. Randy and the guard could claim self defense for both themselves and the other store patrons for tackling Lee as well as putting him in a closet because of the length of time that it took for the police to arrive after the call. Randy, the guard, and the store would have a good reason for the actions taken against Lee and would most likely win their case. They have proof that the shootings occurred through possible witnesses as well as cameras from the store. Lee would have a tougher time proving the insanity plea because of the different ways that the results could be read. BUS/41 5 8 Conclusion: Team A analyzed the synopsis and different scenarios of the Tort Cases. The team has concluded a description of four scenarios and their torts. These scenarios had different types of ways entitling a person to receive a type of compensation from whomever responsible or liable for the injuries. In the reading of team B paper, the torts include examples of nuisance, strict liability, assault, battery, negligence, intentional torts, slander, medical malpractice, merchantability, defamation, worker’s compensation and emotional distress. One of the most prominent torts in common law is negligence. In a corporation, business or simply every day life there are many challenges that may cause an individual harm. Tort laws permit the opportunity to recover physically and mentally by filing suit against those responsible for putting one in harms way and help protect one from future risks. BUS/41 5 9 References The Free Dictionary. (2010). Responeat Superior. Retrieved November 29, 2010, from http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Respondeat+superior Larson, A. (2006). Negligence and Tort Law. Retrieved November 29, 2010, from http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/negligence.html Cheeseman, H. R. (2010). The legal environment of business and online commerce: Business ethics, ecommerce, regulatory, and international issues. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'