Intentional Tort: Court Case Study

The textbook, “Business law today” (2014), clarifies that tort is a wrongful act that results in harm or injury to another and leads to civil liability. Tort law is designed to compensate those who have suffered a loss or injury due to another person 's wrongful act.

This is not a valid excuse to avoid liability the reason being that negligence or been carelessness should not be an excuse for an individual receiving damaged or being injured. All individuals are required to behave and act responsibly and reasonably. This entails exercising care in handling or interacting with others. The plaintiff has the right to demonstrate legally recognizable past, present and future economic, pain and suffering caused by the injuries. The defendant equally has the right to raise several rightful defences to

In 1976, Howard Bettel and some friends entered Ki Yim’s store. After the boys began acting outrageously, an employee asked them to leave. Instead of immediately leaving the property, the boys went to the front of the store and began throwing wooden matches on the sidewalk. One of the matches ignited and caused a small fire inside the store. The employee and the owner of the store put out the fire and Yim grabbed Bettel with both hands to restrain him. While grabbing Bettel, Yim’s forehead hit him in the face causing severe injuries to his nose.

One hard blow to the head, Zack Lystedt’s helmet bounced right off the turf. He laid there but, he soon got up to his feet and to the sideline. The next 15 minutes he was back in the game and playing like a star. During the last play of the game, the other team was about to score and win but he makes a head to head tackle to save the game. This was the second hit which changed his life. Zack faced second impact syndrome and was sent to a hospital in Seattle on the edge of death. He was in a coma for 3 months and could not talk for 9 months. Zack still has to be in a wheelchair (Tarshis). Concussions have occurred in football for decades and players like Zack still risk their lives when they step on the field. Many players ignore the injury

The Plaintiff, Jessica Kemper, was injured at a Toledo Mud Hens game when an intoxicated fan, Daniel Kolleng, hit Jessica Kemper with a small wooden bat. An employee of the Toledo Mud Hens served alcohol to Kolleng when he was already intoxicated. Jessica Kemper contends this motion is made upon the grounds that there are no genuine issues of material facts. Therefore, Jessica Kemper is entitled to judgment as matter of law on her claim. Jessica Kemper is seeking summary judgment in her favor on her claim that the Toledo Mud Hens acted negligently in violation of Ohio Revised Code 4399.18, The Ohio Dram Shop Act.

In the past, the NFL had denied any link between head trauma and football before a case had even been identified. Recently, the NFL admitted to the connection between CTE and football. The realization developed gradually, as these injuries had become more common throughout the years, causing more long-term issues in the players’ lives. According to The New York Times, Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the league, had claimed: “It’s quite obvious from the medical research that’s been done that concussions can lead to long-term problems” (Belson NP). Numerous lawsuits have been filed against the NFL due to no actions being taken in regards to the repetitive cases of head trauma. A total of 4,300 players of the league’s alumni is suing the NFL, claiming it concealed the connections between repetitive head trauma and CTE cases, while profiting billions of dollars on violence (Jenkins NP). Because of this, the NFL strived to develop safety advancements such as helmet testing and clinical for advanced imaging to better identify concussions. However, the association proclaimed that it aims to alter rules of the game instead of undergoing reinforcements (Beck NP). The NFL has had several attempts on refining safety issues but has failed to do so in several

Some months later, the plaintiff wore the mask while he worked behind the home plate during a game in Washington D.C. Towards the end of the game, he was struck in the mask with a foul ball. The impact of the ball gave him a concussion, and damaged a joint between the bones in his inner ear. As a result, he suffered from mild to moderate permanent hearing loss. Hickox and his wife sued Wilson, under a products liability theory. According to the plaintiff, the throat guard should have had a center wire and should have extended straight down

This civil action was heard by Justice Diane M. Lahaie of the Ontario Court of Justice. The appellant Mr. Maclsaac is appealing his conviction of one count of aggravated assault on the basis that he did not receive a fair trial due to the trials judge speculative reasoning involved in achieving her verdict. The incident in question stems from a collision between the appellant and the complainant in a “no-contact” Ottawa senior men’s hockey league. The incident occurred at the end stages of the game, where the complainant, and the appellant collided causing the complainant lacerations to the face, two missing front teeth, and a concussion.

but when you’ve been injured or discriminated against at work, you want an injury and discrimination attorney who knows the law, cares personally about your case, and is committed to getting justice.

Normally when people think about a concussion they don’t take it as serious as they probably should, and don’t realize how many different ways you can get one. Parents have a tendency to get so caught up in watching their kids play on those Friday nights that they don’t usually pay attention to their child’s health and well being. Normally when they hear the word concussion they think a few days of rest will be enough, which leads me to believe they don’t know the true definition of a concussion. Your probably asking what a concussion actually is.

Most times in self-defense, the accused puts across a countercharge against the accuser on one or more grounds. In such exceptional cases, the ‘pure comparative negligence rule’ is applied. Under this rule, the fault(s) of both the accuser are also taken into account in detail.

Your football example is appreciated. The dynamics that can be applied to Lucinda’s situation are engaging and vast. For example, imagine during discovery the defense discovered that Lucinda had a disease process that effected balance and coordination. Now, imagine Lucinda’s broken arm was not the result of a dare but rather learning to use crutches. To the uninitiated it may be easy to assume that Marilyn is not liable for the injury because the disease would convert the fall to a superseding cause. However, one must consider the egg shell skull rule which states the defendant must “take his plaintiff as he finds him.” What if attributable to her disease process she fell to her death while on

(A) After reviewing the case that was given to us, I do not believe we have enough valuable information to fully comprehend what had happen that night Sarah Smith got struck in the head with a hockey puck. But given what we do know, there is no way that Sarah’s estate can bring a claim against the Blue’s organization for hiring Kyle Albert. It was clearly an accident, there was no way Albert had intentionally deflected the puck into the stands to purposely hit Sarah. On the other hand, Sarah’s estate can bring a claim to the Blue’s organization for owning the hockey arena because it obviously wasn’t a safe area for fans to be in. After doing some research, there was one incident where a puck hit a fan in the head, causing the girl to die less than 48 hours later. Brittanie Cecil in 2002, age 13, “died less than 48

Tort of negligence is the failure to act as a reasonable person to exercise the standard of care required by the law and resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. To prove negligence, the claimant must show that the defendant causing the damage was not only the actual cause of damage. He also show that the proximate cause of the damage. Proximity is the legal relationship between the parties from which the law will attribute a duty of care. And to prove negligence the type of the damage that occurred must have been foreseeable. Foreseeability means whether a ‘reasonable person’ would have foreseen the damage in the situations. It is the leading test which is used to determine proximate cause. The important point is a duty of care may not be owed to a particular claimant, if a claimant was unforeseeable. Foreseeability and proximate cause will be discussed

A tort is a wrong committed by a person. There are three types of wrongs, which are intentional torts, unintentional torts and strict liability. According to the textbook, intentional torts is when someone’s reputation and privacy are violated. An assault is the threat of immediate harm or offensive contact or any action that arouses. Physical contact is unnecessary in order for it to be considered an assault. Battery is unauthorized and harmful physical contact with another person that causes injury. Physically contact is not always necessary in order to a situation to be considered battery. As long as the victim is injured, it is considered to be battery. Assault and battery usually occur together.