Free Malicious Prosecution Essay Sample
|← The Murder Case of O.J. Simpson||Distributive Justice →|
Buy Cheap Malicious Prosecution Essay
According to research, an intentional tort describes a civil wrong that occurs due to an act committed intentionally particularly the tortfeasor. It is a tort that results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take the effective protection in meeting a duty owed. For instance, incase a person causes destruction or interferes with another person`s property intentionally, then such an act is an intentional tort (Okrent, 2009). This implies that the offender intends to bring about a specific consequence. For example, a friend my choose to spread wrong rumors that the other person is using his apartment as the main point for drug dealing, hence forcing the victim to resign from his work as requested by the manager. This is because of the damaged reputation that has taken place due to false rumors from a friend.
Research shows that the intentional interference with an individual is the crucial categories of intentional tort. These include assault, battery, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment. There are various forms of defense for malicious prosecution and these involve the consent and the self defense. For instance, in consent defense, a person may voluntarily agree to have a specific physical contact that an individual may not be able to argue that he or she committed an intentional tort unless the person1s contact were beyond the contact consented to. Furthermore, the defense for consent may also be applied in the trespass to property tort. This may be applied in situations where an individual gives out his or her property to use by someone else, and then the owner of the property sues the other person. The owner will automatically be unsuccessful unless the property was abused or not used according to the agreement made concerning the use of the property. According to self defense, a person may employ a reasonable force to protect him or herself against any physical attack or violence threat. Such forces may be permitted if only the case appears to cause immediate danger or harm to the person.
Malicious prosecution according to research is a common law of intentional tort. Malicious prosecution comprises intentional action leading to an action of the court caused and released in favor of the person of the intentional tort. Research reveals that malicious prosecution neither does nor need proof of real destructions. There can be recovery for the humiliation and mental suffering. In addition, compensatory damages involve the expense of defending the current criminal case, medical bills, and loss of business or job opportunity. In cases where the offender behaved out of hatred, punitive damages, therefore, becomes guaranteed. The main reason for the malicious prosecution tort is to offer a solution against an individual who has unjustifiably led the criminal justice system to look for him or her as a result of an accusation that the person committed. For instance, in case a worker commits a malicious prosecution, that the worker is individually liable for this tort.
Moreover, his or her manager will also be liable for malicious prosecution especially when the action of the worker gets done while within the surroundings of employment. In some cases especially in sports where a person gets hit maliciously by another person who in turn gets injured, such accidents may not be viewed as intentional because both persons behave and assume a risk in the sports game known for its extreme violence. However, it becomes a serious issue when one of the people chooses to stab another with a knife, thus, this action is outside the regulations of the game and thus the offender most likely will be responsible for battery. Research shows that, intentional torts may sometimes be significantly complex cases to prove thus most cases get completed outside of court.
Court cases on the intentional tort
Conley David used to work as a contractor for Brown Corporation of Waverly Inc., which deals with the function of machine for producing parts in a whole sale and supplies. Unfortunately, Conley got an accident while working on a machine press at his work place. The accident happened when the press quickly changed as Conley was putting steel sheets into the machine as part of his job duties. Later on, Conley and his family decided to file a compliant in the court of common pleas of Pike County against brown and the defendant (Vaughn, 1999). Noticeably, Hitachi Zosen clearing company was the manufacturer of the machine press, while Rexon was the dealers of certain control systems used in relation with the operation of the press. Therefore, through the amended complaint, Conley chose to seek for recovery against Brown for employer intentional tort.
In addition, he chose to seek recovery against the remaining defendants for goods liability. On the other hand, Conley’s wife sought for recovery for the loss of consortium. Therefore, Conley’s family demonstrated that the offender worked together in various ways that made them responsible for compensatory destructions (Koeing, 2001). According to the case, Brown failed to provide training to Conley on issues concerning safe operation of any particular press inclusive of the machine he was working during the time of his accident. Thus, this was a violation of the standards of the occupational safety and health administration by the manner in which places or uses the control system activation techniques. Furthermore, the company was a ware that the conditions of the working place were dangerous for the workers but failed to put in place the safety devices that were necessary for the safe function of the press. Thus, as a result of Brown`s ignorance or action and failure to act, Conley becomes involved in severe and debilitating injuries. As a result, the court decided to make recoveries basing on three factors inclusive of contribution, indemnification and assignment of the Conley’s intentional tort claim to nationwide.
Another court case concerning the intentional tort includes the intentional torts in medical cases. The case happened between Atgazis and the health administration corporation in lexis. This case occurred during the time when the application for leave to appeal in association to an intentional tort claim brought against ambulance officers. The victim`s case remains placed on the basis that a finding of reckless indifferences to the risk of injury would meet element of intention. Therefore, the court of appeal demonstrated that it was not necessary to express any suggestion on the question (Walston, 2011). As a result, the trial judge found that the evidence did not provide enough support in finding that the act of the ambulance officers was so plainly calculating that destruction to the victim was a natural and probable result.
Therefore, from the above court cases, malicious prosecution as an intentional appears as intentional if the defendant committed the act intentionally or was extremely aware that a physical consequence was to happen sooner or later. This becomes clear in the court case between Conley and the Brown Company where the manager of the company was aware of dangers the machines within the working areas of employees were able to make, but he ignored. There were no measures taken to mend such errors as well as no healthy and safety occupation measures put in place to avoid causing harm to workers. Thus, because of negligence by the manager, Conley one of the employees got injured hence leading to malicious prosecution or intentional tort.
In conclusion, in order for an intentional tort to be successful, the victim must demonstrate that the offender owed a duty of care to the victim. For instance, such care may be in terms of health services from a health care provider or a client of a product depending upon the producer for a product that is safe for consumption. Such issues may happen in cases where the doctor knowingly and with malice provides a wrong prescription of medication or the product producer was aware of the dangerous defect and failed to act by fixing the problem from the product. Thus, from such malicious acts, the victim gets injured or affected negatively through consumption of either the medicine or the product. The harm occurring would be that the patient who consumed the wrong prescription of medicine or an individual who consumed the wrong products suffered an identifiable injury with monetary value that required to be met or an accident that happened as a result harmful goods the accident had an expense in terms of money for which the plaintiff required to be compensated. Malicious prosecution according to research is a common law of intentional tort. Malicious prosecution as an intentional tort involves action dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. Therefore, it is recommended that people act in a way that does not cause harm to others intentionally to avoid issues that come with such actions. This is because malicious prosecution is a complex case to prove to the court and thus it is better if people keep off.