...twisted the man’s arm behind his back and restrained him with a neck hold. Mr. McPhillen refused the man’s request to release him, and firmly seated the man and threatened to punch him if he moved. The woman then informed Mr. McPhillen that the man was her husband. Issue / Questions presented: The questions presented are (1) which intentional torts were committed, and (2) what defenses are available to the tortfeasors? Short Answer: In this case, both the intoxicated man and Mr. McPhillen are in fact guilty of committing intentional torts. Both parties do have arguable defenses available. However, more information is needed regarding (1) events occurring prior to the Assault and Battery on the woman, and (2) the duration of the intoxicated man’s confinement. In order to determine which applicable statutes apply, and each party’s available defenses, we must first define each intentional tort committed. PA165-01 (Unit 3) 2 Intentional Torts Committed: 1A. The first intentional tort was the intoxicated man’s shouting obscenities at the woman, approaching her in a threatening manner, and finally grabbing her wrist. Regardless of her relationship to him, his actions are considered an Assault and Battery. All elements necessary to constitute this offense are present, as...
Words: 1191 - Pages: 5
...Introduction to Torts Victor M. Salas-Pellot PA165-01 – Unit 3 Professor Laurence Mraz Kaplan University February 19, 2013 FACTS: Leroy McPhillen was a regular patron of The Bottom’s Up Pub, an intoxicated man named John, began shouting obscenities at a woman seated at a table near Mr. McPhillen. As the woman ignored the man’s ranting, the man approached the woman in a threatening manner. Before the man reached the woman, Mr. McPhillen invited the man to join him at his table. The man refused and grabbed the woman’s wrist. Mr. McPhillen then carefully twisted the man’s arm behind his back and restrained him with a neck hold. Mr. McPhillen refused the man’s request to release him, and firmly seated the man and threatened to punch him if he moved. The woman then informed Mr. McPhillen that the man was her husband. ISSUE: The questions presented are which intentional torts were committed, and what defenses are available to the tortfeasors? Both John and Leroy are guilty of committing intentional torts. Both parties have debatable defenses. Though the fact remains that more information is needed regarding the events that occurred prior to the assault and battery to the woman, and the time of how long the intoxicated man was confined. Before determining...
Words: 1003 - Pages: 5
...neck hold. John ordered the man to release him, but Mr. McPhillen refused his request to release him. Mr. McPhillen then seated John firmly in a chair and ordered him to remain seated or he would punch him. It was after this that the woman informed Mr. McPhillen that John was her husband. ISSUE: (1) Which intentional torts were committed and (2) what are the defenses available to the tortfeasors? Short answer: John and Leroy are both guilty of committing intentional torts. However, both parties have arguable defenses. More information is needed in regards to the events that took place prior to the man assaulting the woman and the amount of time that John was confined by Mr. McPhliien. Prior to determining the appropriate statues and the defenses each party may present, each intentional tort committed must first be explained. Intentional Torts: The first intentional tort was committed by John when he began shouting at the woman, approaching her in an aggressive manner, and by grabbing her wrist. Regardless of his relationship to the woman, John committed Assault and Battery by grabbing the woman’s wrist. The three basic elements of this tort include...
Words: 1129 - Pages: 5
...B-Law outline #3 Aaron Stewart Tort law * Intentional torts * Assault, battery, False Imprisonment Intentional Inflicktion of Emotional Distress, trespass to land, trespass to Chattels( personal Property), Conversion * Defenses to Intentional Torts * Self Defense, Defense to all others, Defense of Property, Recovery of Personal Property, Necessity, Consent * Assault * Assault occurs when one person intentionally causes another person to suffer a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful of offensive bodily contact(Resonable-objective standard) * Elements of Assault (Manning v. Grimsley)(Wishnatsky v. Huey)(Howard v. Wilson) * Intent, Reasonable Apprehension, Imminent * Battery * Intentional Infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact * Elements of battery (England v. S&M Foods) * Intent, Harmful or offensive, Bodily contact * False Imprisonment * Intentional infliction of a confinement * Elements of False Imprisonment (K-Mart v. Perdue)(Bank v. Fritsch)( Pope v. Rostraver Shop and Save) * Intent, confinement * Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress * Intentional infliction, by extreme & outrageous conduct of service emotional Distress * Elements (Intent, Extreme & outrageous conduct, Severe Emotional Distress) * Transferred Intent Doctrine * The differnet person is the object of Intent if D had “intent” with respect to one...
Words: 461 - Pages: 2
...Trespass has been said to be one of the most ancient form of torts. It developed even before the presence of the police force, to provide protection against the physical interference to person, land or property. The statement has made specific reference to the tort of trespass to person, in regards to the extent of intention needed to determine that a trespass to person has occurred. As such this essay will examine the tort of trespass, with reference to both UK and Malaysian cases in order to make that determination. It will then conclude. As mentioned before trespass may take three forms. The focus here will be on the trespass to person. All three forms of torts, it should be noted, are actionable per se, meaning that the claimant may not...
Words: 2374 - Pages: 10
...committed any torts? If so, explain. Defamation was carried out in this scenario, it was a tort and it was intentional. In the defamation that is shown within, there are 4 total factors shown, defamation only has 4 factors. Wiretime unleashed to a third party a declaration in a defamatory way. There were a lot of specifics involved in the declaration making for this one organization to be pointed out by what was said. Harm was in fact done to the clients of BugUSA. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Janet) Has WIRETIME, Inc. committed any torts? If so, explain. There was in fact a interference of tort in this particular case with a relationship tort that was most current and contractual. Janet was prompted to get out of the agreement currently with BugUSA by WIRETIME. This particular agreement was understood by WIRETIME and they had actually seen the agreement. Losses definitely arose since Janet's now open spot needed a trainee, as well as the agreement being meddled with. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter) Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc., may have for Walter’s actions. BUGusa could face false imprisonment torte from Walter’s actions. False imprisonment is defined as “intentional infliction of a confinement upon another party”. It is understandable that Walter would detain Steve upon learning about his work for WIRETIME. Being that Steve was on the BUGusa premises and Walter has reasonable suspicion Steve is working for WRITETIME the initial imprisonment would...
Words: 550 - Pages: 3
...which is the apprehension, not fear, of such contact. Assault In common law, assault is an act which causes a person to apprehend immediate unlawful person violence. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability False imprisonment False imprisonment is a restraint of a person in a bounded area without justification or consent. False imprisonment is a common-law felony and a tort. It applies to private as well as governmental detention. When it comes to public police, the proving of false imprisonment is sufficient to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. Libel/Slander Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel. Conversion A conversion is a voluntary act by one person inconsistent with the ownership rights of another. Trespass Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land. Private Nuisance An activity or thing that interferes with the use of property by an individual (or a few individuals) by being irritating, offensive, or obstructive. Nuisances can include everything...
Words: 626 - Pages: 3
...Additional Comments about Employment Business Torts of: Assault Battery & False Imprisonment Assault And Battery Also known as “Trespass to the person”, this tort involves the intentional physical interference with another person. Even faking a punch, pointing a gun, threatening to hit someone with an object could be considered an assault and therefore a tort for which the victim could pursue an action in court (lawsuit). It is important to keep in mind that when we talk about a “business tort” of assault we are referring to a civil wrong, NOT a criminal wrong. However, the criminal law ALSO contains an assault as a criminal wrong (defined in the Criminal Code). This means that an individual could be sued for the tort of assault and battery at the same time an authorized government agency could charge the same person with a criminal assault. Consider the case of Mr. Todd Bertuzzi, a former Vancouver Canuck hockey player who was charged with assault as well as sued for the tort of assault at the same time. Reference: Bruce v. Coliseum Management Ltd. (1998), 165 D.L.R. (4th) 472 (BCCA). False Imprisonment False imprisonment can sometimes occur in the employment law setting. Effectively, this tort involves the intentional restraint of an individual against their will and without the lawful authority to do so. This could include holding someone in a back room of a store or physically restraining someone – scenarios that might occur in the retail or business environment...
Words: 465 - Pages: 2
...Buy Mart Shooting: In this scenario the tort actions presented will be listed in two separate cases. One case will be the claims against the Buy Mart employee by the customers that got shot. The second claim will be from the shooter against the two Buy Mart employees. Tort law involves violations of civil law, not usually criminal law. Three elements must be established in every tort action. The plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under legal duty to act in a particular fashion. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to his their behavior accordingly. Also, the plaintiff must prove that he suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendants breech. Tort actions are brought by private citizens. Tort remedies include money damages and injunctions forbidding particular conduct (2012). The Tort actions in case one will be the injured customers will want to sue Buy Mart (the agent), for the negligence of Stephen the employee that allowed Luke, the shooter to have both the gun and the ammo in his possession at the same time, thus, providing Luke with the opportunity to shot at the customers. The Tort actions available for case two would possibly be that Luke would sue Buy Mart (the agent), Stephen and the security guard for intentional Tort of false imprisonment and assault and battery. The assault and battery would be from the kicking in the closet and the false imprisonment would come from Luke’s request for medical...
Words: 470 - Pages: 2
...The tort of trespass against the person is the relevant issue here which consists of assault, battery ,false imprisonment and emotional suffering which can be identified in the first problem question. RULES: The Non-Fatal Offences against the Persons Act 1997 is the act which protects a person against the tort of trespass against a person. Battery is the direct application of physical contact upon the person of another without his or her consent, express or implied. It is contact which is outside of what is generally accepted in everyday life. Blackstone stated “The least touching of another’s person wilfully, or in anger ,is a battery ; for the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence and, therefore, totally prohibits...
Words: 1238 - Pages: 5
... Your first name: Your last name: Your email address: Required field -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Tort means: a. injury in Greek. b. a criminal offense. c. twisted or wrong. d. injury to a contract. status: correct (1.0) correct: c your answer: c feedback: Correct. From Latin and French. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Torts are defined by: a. common law courts. b. federal legislation. c. the U.S. Supreme Court. d. administrative agencies. status: correct (1.0) correct: a your answer: a feedback: Correct. They have no absolute meaning; the courts change what is a legal wrong over time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 The person who is accused of committing a tort is called: a. a criminal. b. a defendant. c. a negligentee. d. a tortfeasor. status: correct (1.0) correct: d your answer: d feedback: Correct. That is the person who commits a tort, intentional or not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Which of the following is not an element of a tort based on negligence? a. A duty of ordinary care was owed to the other party. b. There is a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the harm suffered. c....
Words: 1771 - Pages: 8
...Intentional Tort of Defense Introduction to Tort June 7, 2012 Facts On a Saturday night there were an incident between two males and a female in a bar called Bottom’s Up. A man name John had too much to drink and was intoxicated. He was shouting obscenities toward a lady name Jane that was sitting at a table next to another guy name Leroy, which he was a frequent customer. However, Jane ignored John and continued to drink her beer. When she ignored him than he approached her looking disturbed. Leroy asked John over to the bar for a drink, but John told him to mind his own business. John grabbed Jane’s wrist and when he did Leroy grabbed John’s wrist and put him in a neck hold. John was protesting Leroy to let go of him, but Leroy did not let go. Leroy placed John in a chair and told him not to make a move or he will punch him. After the incident happen Jane told Leroy that John was her husband. Issue 1) Why was Leroy taking upon his self to defend Jane, even though she was a complete stranger? 2) Why did Leroy even put his hands on John, especially if John didn’t touch him? 3) In what ways did assault, battery and false imprisonment come into play in this case? Rules In this case it is considered defense of persons in which is a legal justification for assault, battery and false imprisonment. Assault is someone that intentionally puts another in fear and battery is when someone using force against another person. False imprisonment is someone that is holding...
Words: 702 - Pages: 3
...Police for failing to take action in making arrests and for refusing to assist in making a magistrate’s complaint for the wrongs he claims to have suffered. II. Legal Issues Mr Muniyandy can sue the casino under (i) false imprisonment; (ii) battery and (iii) assault. He can also sue the Police under (iv) breach of duty and (v) negligence. III. Brief Answer Mr Muniyandy is likely to succeed under the tort of false imprisonment and battery. In the event that the identity of the staff that looked like ‘a hulk’ can be established, the grounds of assault can succeed too. However, he is unlikely to succeed in suing the Police for breach of statutory duty and negligence. IV. Causes of Action For issues (i) to (iii), Mr Muniyandy would have to sue the casino under vicarious liability. The casino is vicariously liable for the torts committed by its staff as (a) there is an employer-employee relationship; (b) the employee committed the tort and (c) the tort is committed in the course of employment. (i) False Imprisonment False imprisonment requires the act of the defendant to be direct , intentional and must totally restraint the plaintiff. To compel a person to remain in a given place is an imprisonment . In Williams v Jones , there was imprisonment if a person, with the intention of detaining another, locks the door of a room. Applying these authorities to this case, the staff directly caused Mr Muniyandy to be detained in the room. It was intentional as the staff...
Words: 1909 - Pages: 8
...Tort Law plays a major role in the world of health care. Torts, an act that is under the civil law category, describe wrongful actions executed against one without an established contract. There are three key zones that are incorporated within the Tort Law and they are as follows: infliction of mental distress, negligence, and intentional torts (Buchbinder and Shanks, 2012). Intentional torts are considered to be defamation of character, battery, invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, and assault. In order for these cases to be effective, one must prove that they were the victim of deliberate injury. A patient is considered to be a victim of defamation of character when there is evidence of written or oral false representation of them....
Words: 381 - Pages: 2
...WIRETIME, Inc., Advertisement Has WIRETIME, Inc., committed any torts? If so, explain. WIRETIME has carried out an intentional business associated tort generally known as Defamation. In this case all 4 factors of defamation are there. A defamatory declaration was made; it was displayed to a 3rd party, the declaration was very particular to one organization, and it put a negative frame of mind to BUGSusa Clients. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Janet) Has WIRETIME, Inc. committed any torts? If so, explain. n this case, WIRETIME has carried out a Tortuous Interference with Current Contractual Relationship Tort. WIRETIME had prompted Janet to break the present agreement with BUGSusa for their job. WIRETIME had unique understanding of and actually saw the agreement. They definitely interfered with the agreement and created losses because of training an alternative for Janet. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter) Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc., may have for Walter’s actions. The kind of liability to BUGSusa in this situation is known as Scope of employment. In this case, the security guard carried out the tort of False Imprisonment on Steve. Though Steve wasn't behaving appropriately, neither was Walter because of the thin line of restricted detention. Walter was behaving according to his responsibilities of job for the false imprisonment. It happened inside the compounds of the company, and was inspired...
Words: 306 - Pages: 2
