Free Tort Law Division Essay Sample
|← Contract Law||The Employee-At-Will Doctrine →|
Buy Cheap Tort Law Division Essay
Tort law is a division of law that covers general wrongs. Under this form of law, if a person experiences a legal, economic or physical harm from the action or inaction of another person, the person who experiences the loss may be entitled to file a suit, and if the suit is valid ,he /she may be awarded damages to cover for the loss suffered (EGTL,2005).
In the scenario provided (scenario 3), the tort actions in the case are:
1) Lee should be sued on two counts for intentionally shooting and injuring the woman and hitting the boy with a stray bullet fired from the rifle Lee had taken from the hardware store.
2) Lee should also be sued for causing bodily harm to the man who collapsed due to a heart attack after Lee had shot the woman.
3) The store security guard should be sued for unintentionally causing bodily harm to Lee by stepping on and crushing his ribs.
4) Randy, the store’s clerk, and the store’s security guard should also be sued for inaction and negligence caused by locking Lee in for two hours at a time he needed medical attention.
Plaintiffs in the case
1) Lee for the bodily harm he suffered at the hand of the storekeeper and for medical negligence on the part of Randy, and the storekeeper for locking him in while he was in pain.
2) The boy and the woman injured by Lee’s bullet shots.
3 The man who collapsed with a heart attack.
Potential defendants in the suit
1) Lee for shooting and inflicting bodily harm on the boy and the woman, as well as for causing harm to the man who collapsed with a heart attack.
2) Randy and the storekeeper for locking Lee in for two hours at a time he needed medical attention
3) The Storekeeper for causing bodily harm to Lee by crushing his ribs.
Elements of the tort claim that constitute the plaintiff’s claim
In the suits, all the three elements of a tort action are satisfied
Lee, one of the defendants was under a legal duty not to fire bullets at innocent people and he failed the legal duty of not testing his rifle in a safe environment. Thirdly, Lee inflicted bodily harm on the three plaintiffs by shooting the woman, the boy and causing a heart attack to the third plaintiff, the man who accompanied the woman that Lee had shot.
The storekeeper did not exercise control not to inflict bodily on Lee while restraining him.
Randy as well as the storekeeper’s inactions, when Randy was in need of medical attention, also satisfy one element of a tort action.
Probable defenses in the case
1) Lee - it was unintentional shooting since he was test firing his new gun he was buying from the store.
2) The security guard - he accidentally crushed Lee’s ribs while trying to restrain him since he posed danger firing at innocent people.
3) The storekeeper and Randy can also defend themselves from negligence because they locked Lee to avert the danger of further shooting.
Possible resolution of the suit
From the facts presented in the case, it is likely that Lee will be held responsible for shooting and inflicting bodily harm on the three plaintiffs. He should also compensate the three plaintiffs for the loss they suffered.
The storekeeper should be held responsible for inflicting bodily harm on Lee and should, therefore, pay the damages to Lee for breaking his ribs
Randy and the storekeeper should also be held responsible for inaction and negligence for not acting for two hours when Lee needed medical attention. The legal reasons for this judgment are that the tort law serves four functions. The first tort law seeks to offer compensation to victims of injuries caused by the action or inaction of others. The second function is discouraging injurious careless and risky conduct in future. Tort law also seeks to shift the cost of injuries to the person who inflicted them and it seeks to vindicate the legal interests and rights that have been compromised by the defendants in a case (Lunney &Oliphant, 2005).
- The Employee-At-Will Doctrine
- International Law
- Contract Law
- The Impact of the Declaration of Independent