TheLaw of Torts
TheLaw of Torts
The cases of Paula, Roger, Usain, Sebastian and Tanni
Inthe case of Roger and Paula, Roger goes against the law bythreatening Paula. This might seem unintentional but is indeed anintentional tort. He trespasses Paula’s will by grabbing her in anunlawful manner which might suggest an act of sexual harassment.Paula rightfully defends herself by pushing Roger away. The actionsof Paula towards Roger are unintentional. Any injury that might haveresulted due to the defensive action that Paula applied when shethrew the drink at Roger’s face and hit him at the back of the headwould not be termed as an assault of any manner (Findlaw, 2013). Suchcould be as a result of unconscious defensive response whileattempting to protect herself from any harm that might have beencaused by Rogers. Rogers, on the other hand, assaults Paula by hisactions towards her. Such falls under intentional torts. He intendsto do what is wrong, and this can be seen in his persuasive andrepeated moves even after experiencing rebellion from Paula. The factthat Roger proceeds to grab Paula by the throat and pushing her tothe ground then pinning her against the ground tightly using his legsindicates that his actions were intentional. Duncan and Turner (2012)suggest that persistence to do harm is a clear evidence of anintentional tort. On the contrary, the harm that Paula causes onRoger would be termed as unintentional tort since what she did wasnot out of her will but was due to self-defense. Rogers can also beconvicted of battery as he employs a physical action which couldresult to harm on the other party. Legally Paula would successfullysue Rogers for an intentional tort which includes sexual harassment(Gerven et al., 2000) as evident in the narration of events.
Inthe case of Sebastian, Tanni, and Usain, the incidence where Usainthreatens the other two parties can be argued as an intentional tort.Usain made the joke intentionally, but it turns out to be the startof a series of disasters which put Tanni`s life in a worse healthstate. In another perspective, Usain might argue that his initialaction did not intend to cause any harm as it was a joke. This couldbe supported by the fact that Sebastian noticed the joke and laughed.However, the fact that the same “joke” caused harm to Tanni andwould be termed as an intentional infliction of emotional distress(Abraham, 2012) leading to lose of conscious. Sebastian and Usainalso broke the law of tort by taking an unconscious person into aroom and locking her up. In such a case, it would have been ethicallyappropriate for the two to consider Tanni’s medical condition andtake her to the nearest health facility or perform first aidprocedures that would have brought her back to a conscious state. Theaction they took puts Tanni in a medical risk, and such is termed asnegligence (Dam, 2006). The same action can also be termed as anintentional tort because the two did the action deliberately(Markesininis et al., 2012). The two offenders would, therefore, beliable to the payment of any health condition that would haveresulted due to the premeditated and harmful action that they took.Proscer (1971) suggests that the defendant is accountable for anyloss, damage or harm which results from an intentional tort. Theanxiety attacks and claustrophobia which occurred due to thedefensive efforts of Tanni after being trapped in the cubicle weretherefore as a result of the intentional behavior of Sebastian andUsain. In this case, two types of torts are evident. Tanni wouldaccuse Usain of intentional tort which led to fainting due toemotional distress, and she would also blame both Sebastian and Usainof neglect and intentional tort by taking to a cubicle and lockingher up when she was in a medically vulnerable state. The two aretherefore liable for any cost incurred in the treatment of theanxiety attacks and claustrophobia.
Inthe third case, although put as a joke, Usain’s action of digging ahole and covering it up with twigs on the course way which he waspretty sure would be used for the race is an intentional tort. Hisaction causes harm to both Paula and Roger. The two, therefore, havethe right to claim compensation for the injury caused by Usain’saction. Usain, on the other hand, is liable to covering the medicalcosts incurred in the treatment of the fractured legs of both Paulaand Roger.
The Cases of Mohd, Sarah, and Dr. Olive
Inthe case of Mohd and Sarah, the two are responsible for the mistakesthey make. The actions of the two depict negligence as expressed inthe law of tort. Negligence is described as the condition whoseliability arises when one individual breaches a duty of care owned bythe other person (Duncan & Turner, 2012). Negligence involvesone’s failure to do what they are subjected to do thus leading toharm on another individual (Proscer, 1971). Such failure includesignoring traffic rules assuggsted by Leschinsky (2012), thusresulting in an accident as seen in the case of Sarah and Mohd. As apedestrian, Mohd was supposed to check for the presence of anapproaching vehicle before crossing the road, but he failed to dothat hence negligent tort. Mohd is therefore partly accountable forthe injuries that he faced as a result of the accident. On the otherhand, Sarah also committed a negligent tort by failure to concentrateon the road while driving. Under Rule 160 of the U.K’s HighwayCodes, the fourth rule states that the driver should always be awareof other road users including motorcyclists, cyclists, andpedestrians (gov.uk, 2014). Sarah breached this law by beinginattentive, using a phone while driving and driving at a high speedwhile doing the same. Her actions are therefore forms of negligenttorts, and places make her entirely responsible for the accident. Sheis, therefore, liable to prosecution and should also contributetowards Mohd’s medical bill. In this case, it is rightful for Mohdto request for compensation from Sarah for the resultant medicalcondition and the medical charges incurred for the treatment of thebroken pelvis. In a different perspective, the fact that both Mohdand Sarah were involved in a negligent tort would cancel out anypayments. If Mohd were not listening to music while crossing theroad, he would have noted the speeding car and escape the accident.
Inthe case of Mohd and Dr. Olive, Dr. Olive is depicted as a rescuer.This case, therefore, illustrates what is put in the English Law ofTorts as the Duty of Care. Dr. Olive responded to Mohd’s situationquickly and informed the patient what he intended to do. The actionwas rightful for Dr. Olive as such is a consent put by word of mouth.The doctor would therefore not be blamed for the outcome of thesurgery as he tried to do what was right for him with the intentionof rectifying the injury on Mohd’s pelvis. His action of using amedical procedure that he was not conversant with was, however,questionable. His decision to use the procedure which most surgeonswould not have attempted to use is a breach of duty (Boister, 2012).He would however not be liable for the damages as his intention wasthat of a rescuer. The damages caused due to the medical procedure,however, leads to the injury of Mohd’s neck as a result of the lossof sensitivity of his leg due to nerve damage. Such is linked to thebreach of duty by the doctor. The primary remedy against Mohd’stortious loss would, therefore, be compensation in damages for hisiPod and money. The money would be used to cover Mohd’s medicalbills as suggested by the English law. As a result of negligencewhich led to harm, Sarah would lose her driving license due tocarelessness on the road.
Abraham,K. S. (2012). Theforms and functions of tort law: An analytical primer on cases andconcepts.Westbury, NY: Foundation Press.
Boister,N. (2012). Anintroduction to transnational criminal law.Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Dam,C. C. (2006). Europeantort law.New York: Oxford University Press.
Duncan,M. J., & Turner, R. (2012). Torts:A contemporary approach.St. Paul, MN: West.
FindLaw.(2013). Assault, Battery and Intentional Torts – FindLaw. RetrievedMay 19, 2016, fromhttp://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/assault-battery-intentional-torts.html
Gerven,W. V., Lever, J., & Larouche, P. (2000). Commonlaw of Europe casebooks: Tort law.Oxford: Hart Pub.
Gov.uk.(2014). The Highway Code. Retrieved May 19, 2016, fromhttps://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/highway-code
Leschinsky,D. (2012). Advancedtorts.Ottawa: University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section.
Markesinis,B., Unberath, H., (2012). TheGerman law of torts: A comparative treatise.Oxford: Hart Pub.
Prosser,W. L. (1971). Handbookof the law of torts.St. Paul: West Pub