Synopsis of Tort Cases Paper
BUS/415 Business Law

Scenario 1: There are two tort actions found in the first scenario. The first tort action is Ruben for pushing Daniel and knocking out two of his teeth. The second tort action is owner of the ball field for poor maintenance and improper weight restriction limits on the railings of the stands. The potential plaintiffs in this case are the injured fan, Malik and Daniel. The stadium owners would be potential defendants in cases brought on by the fan injured from the football, by Malik for the faulty railing, and by Daniel for the diabetic coma (University of Phoenix, 2011). Daniel could be a potential defendant for assaulting Malik after spilling the beer on Daniel’s son. Daniel’s boss could be a potential defendant because he wrongfully fired Daniel. Daniel might be a potential defendant for shooting Malik, but being this was in self-defense (if Daniel did not know the gun was not loaded) the case would probably be decided in Daniel’s favor.

The elements of the tort claim that constitute the plaintiff’s claim

Daniel could say he was trying to protect his son Ruben’s pride for Malik spilling the beer on him. So he shoved Malik to let him know this type of behavior was not acceptable. Daniel defense against the woman he could sue her for defamation of character. The woman did not see the incident so to jump to conclusion was wrong. Daniel defense against the boss is wrongful termination. He was going on hearsay and no actual evidence of this occurring. Daniel defense against Malik and his wife is he was trying to protect his son from harm. Malik pulled a gun on Daniel so he had to choose to protect his son and himself.

This claim should be resolved by most likely be receiving the compensatory damages from the concession stand worker. If Malik does not stay alive, Daniel could only get or receive