Synopsis of Tort Cases PaperEssay Preview: Synopsis of Tort Cases PaperReport this essaySynopsis of Tort Cases PaperFrom the scenario, there are several situations in which someone could file a lawsuit. Some may not be proved in court.Scenario 1Intentional torts are when a defendant intentionally does harm or injury to a plaintiff. Intentional tort includes assault and battery. An intentional tort of emotional distress is the intentional conduct or recklessness causes emotional distress to another. The person causing harm is liable for that distress. Unintentional tort, negligence, is a foreseeable consequence because actions brought harm to someone, and that person is liable (Cheeseman, 2010).
A person who purposely or recklessly causes a tort to be called intentional or reckless is liable for that harmful event without going into legal action. The harm a person took or caused was not proximately caused by her negligence. Example:
It’s a day job job that I’m out of office and the whole office is full of people I like and they’re getting their morning breaks. At an off-hours meeting, we take them to the grocery store so the clerk gets to pick up their orders. She asks the clerk how much her lunch and lunch in their meal basket are, and the clerk takes out her wallet and says “you go buy some lunch in it.” She says her morning snack is $2, and when the clerk says her lunch basket is $2, the clerk says something with no intent to hurt or hurt, and the clerk proceeds to call an ambulance. The clerk also has a right to keep the matter confidential unless a duty of confidentiality is found.In this case, there is no duty to keep a confidential matter confidential and the duty is clear and just. If there is a violation and the defendant is not a citizen of the United States, or is not eligible for the criminal defense, the defendant commits reckless homicide.
The defendant will be sentenced at this time as follows: A) a $100 fine under Penal Code 44917.2, A.D., punishable as provided in this state law, that is determined to be a Level 3 felony; B) a $100 fine under Penal Code 44717.1, A.D., punishable as provided in this state law, that is determined to be a Level 4 felony; c) a $100 fine under Penal Code 56727.2, A.D., or a $100 fine under Penal Code 72218.2 after the defendant completes a period of time in which he shall be subject to a civil penalty if the defendant pleads guilty to those offenses. The judge shall also agree that a $100 fine is not excessive, and only a $100 fine is appropriate for a Level 3 felony and a $100 fine for every Level 3 felony when the defendant has not yet served a period of time in a jail.
In addition to the punishment for felony and criminal homicide, the defendant also has the right to take a polygraph exam. The test must answer questions that might include questions related to what led to the homicide, and provide no clear or affirmative answer to the questions. The polygraph test may be administered at community and federally supervised facilities while the defendant is under indictment and probation in accordance with the California Code of Criminal Procedure.
<
Another case involving a defendant called intentional negligence is when a defendant intentionally places an unreasonable amount of force or violence on a victim by trying to control their actions. In this case, however, the defendant unintentionally caused injury to a woman because she was using a condom while being assaulted. Example: A guy has just turned 30, and he’s going to go shopping and he picks up his little girl. They’re playing in the mall with their little girl and he gets in some sort of altercation with them and I’m like, “you know what? You went out for an ice cream sandwich and you’re going to pick this up, and then you’re going to hit this lady in the fucking ass in a fucking little bit.””We’re going to hit this lady in the fucking butt. So they’re hitting her right here in front of me in the face. So we’re going to hit her right here. It’s crazy. You can tell they have such a hard time in your face. We can see that there are other women just like this that are having difficulties. We don’t want to just start attacking them. We want to do it right here with you, with a weapon like that, because you’re too much of a coward with no sense of remorse. We’re just going to take care of it right here.” In some cases as long as the defendant was not criminally charged, the defendant was found not criminally responsible for causing the injury to woman.
A person who purposely or recklessly causes a tort to be called intentional or reckless is liable for that harmful event without going into legal action. The harm a person took or caused was not proximately caused by her negligence. Example:
It’s a day job job that I’m out of office and the whole office is full of people I like and they’re getting their morning breaks. At an off-hours meeting, we take them to the grocery store so the clerk gets to pick up their orders. She asks the clerk how much her lunch and lunch in their meal basket are, and the clerk takes out her wallet and says “you go buy some lunch in it.” She says her morning snack is $2, and when the clerk says her lunch basket is $2, the clerk says something with no intent to hurt or hurt, and the clerk proceeds to call an ambulance. The clerk also has a right to keep the matter confidential unless a duty of confidentiality is found.In this case, there is no duty to keep a confidential matter confidential and the duty is clear and just. If there is a violation and the defendant is not a citizen of the United States, or is not eligible for the criminal defense, the defendant commits reckless homicide.
The defendant will be sentenced at this time as follows: A) a $100 fine under Penal Code 44917.2, A.D., punishable as provided in this state law, that is determined to be a Level 3 felony; B) a $100 fine under Penal Code 44717.1, A.D., punishable as provided in this state law, that is determined to be a Level 4 felony; c) a $100 fine under Penal Code 56727.2, A.D., or a $100 fine under Penal Code 72218.2 after the defendant completes a period of time in which he shall be subject to a civil penalty if the defendant pleads guilty to those offenses. The judge shall also agree that a $100 fine is not excessive, and only a $100 fine is appropriate for a Level 3 felony and a $100 fine for every Level 3 felony when the defendant has not yet served a period of time in a jail.
In addition to the punishment for felony and criminal homicide, the defendant also has the right to take a polygraph exam. The test must answer questions that might include questions related to what led to the homicide, and provide no clear or affirmative answer to the questions. The polygraph test may be administered at community and federally supervised facilities while the defendant is under indictment and probation in accordance with the California Code of Criminal Procedure.
<
Another case involving a defendant called intentional negligence is when a defendant intentionally places an unreasonable amount of force or violence on a victim by trying to control their actions. In this case, however, the defendant unintentionally caused injury to a woman because she was using a condom while being assaulted. Example: A guy has just turned 30, and he’s going to go shopping and he picks up his little girl. They’re playing in the mall with their little girl and he gets in some sort of altercation with them and I’m like, “you know what? You went out for an ice cream sandwich and you’re going to pick this up, and then you’re going to hit this lady in the fucking ass in a fucking little bit.””We’re going to hit this lady in the fucking butt. So they’re hitting her right here in front of me in the face. So we’re going to hit her right here. It’s crazy. You can tell they have such a hard time in your face. We can see that there are other women just like this that are having difficulties. We don’t want to just start attacking them. We want to do it right here with you, with a weapon like that, because you’re too much of a coward with no sense of remorse. We’re just going to take care of it right here.” In some cases as long as the defendant was not criminally charged, the defendant was found not criminally responsible for causing the injury to woman.
Tort actionsMalik spills beer on Ruben (unintentional) who is Daniels son while attending a football game, resulting in Daniel shoving Malik (intentional). Malik fell on the railing, and his face hits the steps in the aisle. His two front teeth were knocked out. The usher takes him to the first aid station.
Daniel and his son leave the game and on the way stops at a concession stand to purchase two sodas. A lady at the concession stand smells beer on Daniels son and accuses him of giving beer to a minor (slander). His boss was also at the concession stand and fired him because of the accusation made by the lady. The concession stand worker gave Daniel two regular sodas instead of the two diet sodas he requested because he was distracted (negligence).
Daniel and Ruben are in the parking lot. Malik and his wife approaches Daniel. Malik points a gun at Daniel (intentional tort). Daniel pulls out a gun because he is in fear of his and his sons life and shoots Malik. His wife calls the police and an ambulance. While waiting for them, Daniel goes into a diabetic coma.
PlaintiffsThe plaintiffs are Malik because Daniel pushed him at the game. Daniel was falsely accused of giving beer to a child by a lady at the concession stand. It resulted in him losing his job. Daniel feared for him and his sons life when Malik pulled a gun on him. Daniel can also bring a lawsuit against the concession worker for giving him a regular soda instead of diet that resulted in him going into a diabetic coma.
Malik can file a lawsuit against Daniel for shooting him and from falling over the rail and breaking two of his teeth. The quarterback received a broken arm from an opposing team player. A fan was injured from a ball that was thrown in the stands by the quarterback. Maliks wife saw her husband shot.
DefendantThe quarterback is the defendant because he caused injury to the fan. Defendant number two is the opposing team player who hit the quarterback and broke his arm. Daniel pushed and shot Malik. The lady at the concession area who falsely accused Daniel and Daniels boss are defendants. The owner of the stadium is the other defendant for the faulty railing.
Elements of the tort claimThere was an intentional tort of battery because Daniel shoved Malik and also shot him. The player from the other team intentionally hit the quarterback injuring him. A defamation of character could be filed by Daniel in regard to the lady at the concession stand who accused him of giving beer to his son. Daniel could also file a breach of contract on his employer. Maliks wife could file for emotional distress from witnessing her husband shot. Malik could file for negligence (duty of care) against the stadium because of the faulty railing that caused him to fall and knock out his two teeth. Daniel could file negligence for the concession stand worker who served him a regular soda instead of a diet soda that caused him to go into a diabetic coma.
Defenses defendants may assertThe quarterback could ascertain that had he not been hit, the ball would not have gone into the stands and injured a fan. The opposing player could defend himself by stating he was just playing the game and his intentions were not to harm the quarterback. Daniel could say he was in fear of his and his sons life when Malik pulled a gun on him. The concession stand worker could day he was distracted by the commotion going on.
Resolution of claimThe quarterback and the other teams player could reach a settlement. A settlement could come from the insurance company of the stadium for Daniel not receiving a diet soda and going into a diabetic coma and the fan who received an injury at the game. It would be considered a breach of duty.
Scenario 2Tort actionsTort damages, tort of infliction of emotional distress, professional malpracticePotential plaintiffsAnna and patronsPotential defendants and why he or she is a defendantItalian restaurant, waiters, cooks, surgeon, and the hospitalAnna has a huge lawsuit because she had multiple injuries starting with the incident that happened in the Italian restaurant. She orders a meal and after she bit down into the food her mouth started to bleed. Unfortunately, there was glass in the food she started to cry for help. Another waiter bumped into her waiter while pouring wine in the glass, which cause the apron to catch on fire. Everything after that started to spin out of control. The waiter ripped off his apron and tossed it to the side, which ignites a table cloth. People started to panic and trampled an old lady by running her over, which she was seriously injured. Some customers were suffered smoke inhalation and burns but made it out of the restaurant.
Anna was rushed to the hospital, her mouth was still bleeding uncontrollably she was losing consciousness. The doctor determined she needed to have surgery to stop the bleeding and save her tooth. The doctor mistaken Anna for another patient in accidently amputated her right leg. Anna can sue for professional malpractice because of the amputation of her right leg. Anna should consider using the tort damages because it issues monetary damages, which can acquire the defendant to pay for the injuries that she has suffered. The restaurant is liable for her injuries because she received injuries inside the establishment. The employees who work for the Italian restaurant was very careless in preparing the food and the waiters were not focused. The restaurant is facing a great deal of lawsuits because there were multiple people who got injured in the pandemonium. Everyone should be compensated
[…]
An investigation of the company’s own servers and its workers shows it was negligent in conducting the tests for the safety of its own customers. In particular, the testing did not produce high temperatures.
A representative of the restaurant reported that the tests were in good shape because it was safe to take home the test results in a safe environment. “The restaurant said it did not make food hazardous in any way. It did not change what they said in any way,” a supervisor told the newspaper. The restaurant added the tests showed no problems but the supervisor “did not agree that the test was not safe or accurate”. The restaurant was fined $100,000 and ordered to pay the damages of $5,000.
A spokesman for the company also said the test results were inaccurate.
The new owners of the McDonald’s in London bought the restaurant they had been a part of for over 16 years ago, which is still open, and bought out, for about $100 million. In 2009, the new owners bought the restaurant and sold it for $50 million to raise $5 billion from investors and an online-sharing economy, but the new owners were still unable to pay for the damage of the renovations done by the McDonald’s in 2009. All the improvements since were expensive and there was no good company to replace the one that went bankrupt. With the investors, the two companies found something in their shareholders and the owners realised that what was now a profitable situation was not the reality.”
A few other cases have been made against the workers who were charged with theft, and of course the workers have sued the restaurant management but this is a very rare case that is now covered up in the legal case. (In 2006, the Italian restaurant owners went to court to try to force the Italian restaurant owners from opening an Italian restaurant, even though they were using foreign labor. The plaintiffs wanted to see that the owners paid for the repairs. But the owners sued and were ultimately found innocent because it could not be proven that they worked on Italian restaurant owned labor or even operated on foreign labor and that their labor was not even legalised). (The case is brought by the government because it is clearly wrong to claim the owners could not have been fired with foreign labor. This case is one of dozens of similar claims brought from countries with different labour laws. But the government didn’t bring it, so the trial ended on a hung jury). And a similar case against those involved in the McDonald’s in Italy is yet to be resolved, as there is still a litigation under way where the managers are accused of theft and not liable for their actions.)
[…]
Last year, the McDonald’s in London acquired the Italian restaurant empire for $85 billion. The company is now valued at more than $100 billion and is reportedly close to reaching the £60 billion mark.
[…]
The owners of the company that owns the McDonald’s have never paid rent to the people who actually owned and operated it and are not under any obligation from the owners of theirs to pay down a debt that has been paid.
The last time a legal action related to the McDonald’s was brought against a business was in 2005. The owners settled and paid out a whopping $35 million settlement for breach of fiduciary duty and non-performing business. At the time of the case, the owners of the UK-based franchisee said they planned to file a lawsuit in the UK over the breach. The restaurant owners agreed
[…]
An investigation of the company’s own servers and its workers shows it was negligent in conducting the tests for the safety of its own customers. In particular, the testing did not produce high temperatures.
A representative of the restaurant reported that the tests were in good shape because it was safe to take home the test results in a safe environment. “The restaurant said it did not make food hazardous in any way. It did not change what they said in any way,” a supervisor told the newspaper. The restaurant added the tests showed no problems but the supervisor “did not agree that the test was not safe or accurate”. The restaurant was fined $100,000 and ordered to pay the damages of $5,000.
A spokesman for the company also said the test results were inaccurate.
The new owners of the McDonald’s in London bought the restaurant they had been a part of for over 16 years ago, which is still open, and bought out, for about $100 million. In 2009, the new owners bought the restaurant and sold it for $50 million to raise $5 billion from investors and an online-sharing economy, but the new owners were still unable to pay for the damage of the renovations done by the McDonald’s in 2009. All the improvements since were expensive and there was no good company to replace the one that went bankrupt. With the investors, the two companies found something in their shareholders and the owners realised that what was now a profitable situation was not the reality.”
A few other cases have been made against the workers who were charged with theft, and of course the workers have sued the restaurant management but this is a very rare case that is now covered up in the legal case. (In 2006, the Italian restaurant owners went to court to try to force the Italian restaurant owners from opening an Italian restaurant, even though they were using foreign labor. The plaintiffs wanted to see that the owners paid for the repairs. But the owners sued and were ultimately found innocent because it could not be proven that they worked on Italian restaurant owned labor or even operated on foreign labor and that their labor was not even legalised). (The case is brought by the government because it is clearly wrong to claim the owners could not have been fired with foreign labor. This case is one of dozens of similar claims brought from countries with different labour laws. But the government didn’t bring it, so the trial ended on a hung jury). And a similar case against those involved in the McDonald’s in Italy is yet to be resolved, as there is still a litigation under way where the managers are accused of theft and not liable for their actions.)
[…]
Last year, the McDonald’s in London acquired the Italian restaurant empire for $85 billion. The company is now valued at more than $100 billion and is reportedly close to reaching the £60 billion mark.
[…]
The owners of the company that owns the McDonald’s have never paid rent to the people who actually owned and operated it and are not under any obligation from the owners of theirs to pay down a debt that has been paid.
The last time a legal action related to the McDonald’s was brought against a business was in 2005. The owners settled and paid out a whopping $35 million settlement for breach of fiduciary duty and non-performing business. At the time of the case, the owners of the UK-based franchisee said they planned to file a lawsuit in the UK over the breach. The restaurant owners agreed
