I. Statement of Facts: The facts are as follows. Torry La Pierre was walking down main street on August 10, 2017 and took a shortcut through an alley. La Pierre then came across these bikers with the words “Live Free or Die” on the back of their jackets. The bikers surrounded LaPierre and called her derogatory names referencing terrorism/ middle eastern ethnicity. LaPierre was wearing an identifiable religious scarf. Joseph Browning is said to be the leader of the bikers, he proceeded to corner LaPierre and scream in her face for approximately fifteen- minutes. La Pierre has become sick with ulcers, depressions, loss of weight and insomnia, her doctors consider her trauma severe. II. Statement of Issue: (a)Under California law, is Joseph Browning liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress for leading a group of bikers to …show more content…
Discussion: (a) Yes, Browning is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress as he met every element necessary. In Wilson v. Hynek, 207 Cal. App. 4th 999, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4 (2012), it states that the elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. Browning’s actions were examples of extreme and outrageous conduct with the intent of causing emotional distress as they directly called La Pierre names and followed her for blocks. The doctors have diagnosed LaPierre with severe trauma after the incident which meets the second element, and finally, La Pierre would not have suffered any trauma if it were not for Browning inflicting severe emotional distress towards her which means his conduct is the actual and proximate cause of her
when Sue Sylvester learned that Mr. shuester had killed Titan she was very upset at losing her companion Ms. Sylvester has come to our office to ask if she can sue Mr. Schuester over the death of her beloved Titan I am considering filing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Please review the attached case, Ammon v. Welty, 113 S.W.3d 185 (Ky. App. 2002), assume it states the current law on the topic, and write an analysis of whether Mr. Schuester’s conduct meets the “intent” element of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional
When Horford lunged for the knife, Brewer stabbed him once in the arm and once just under the ribcage. Horford fell against a lamppost, bleeding from his injuries. Brewer then took another swing with the knife and severed Horford’s left ear from his head. At the hospital, doctors were able to re-attach Horford’s ear with minimal scarring. QUESTION PRESENTED Does Harvey Brewer’s switchblade attack against Jack Horford constitute aggravated mayhem under section 205 of the California Penal Code?
Every human has rights to practice their religions. In this week’s reading, we read about the In Re Brown case. This case is about two felonies committed by the 20-year-old daughter Andrea, who shot her mother Mattie Brown, as she was only the eyewitness to the murder Andrea committed. She killed her own father by giving him a rat poison. Mattie brown was taken to the hospital.
He experienced mental trauma and distress as a result of the incident and sued for assault. That is why, Cullison brought a claim of assault against the Medleys and the trial court entered summary judgment. 2. Legal issues 2.1. Did Earnest commit an assault against the plaintiff?
Procedural History: Goetz, defendant, was indicted by a Grand Jury on January 25 1985, for criminal possession of a weapon in third degree, possession the gun during the shooting, two counts for fourth degree criminal possession of a weapon, and possession of two other weapons. The Grand Jury also indicted him for attempt to the following, murder, reckless endangerment, and assault. He was dismissed for the charges of attempted murder and those that came from the shooting. On March 27, 1985, a second Grand Jury indicted the defendant for four charges for attempted murder, four charges of assault in first degree, one for reckless endangerment, and one for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree on the grounds that new evidence became
DCA 1979): In the mentioned case, the court concluded that there is no bar to such an action when the conduct is so outrageous and extreme that it goes beyond the bounds of decency; Lay v. Roux Laboratories, Inc., 379 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980): In Lay v. Roux Laboratories, the court concluded that if ones conduct is outrageous and extreme in that it evidences a disregard for human life, then it is reasonable to say that there is a high probability that severe emotional distress will follow.
Also, the defendant interpretation of the Articles I, 15, was misinterpreted. Kinkel stated that the article was cruel and unusual. Judge Haselton pointed out that there might have been a chance of rehabilitation, but he was thinking of the people of Oregon when he passed down his verdict.
Russo had alleged that White had intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her when, after she dated him one time, he called her hundreds of times and hung-up the phone when she answered. She even alleged that he knew when she was inside the house or not. The court decides that “it was more than reasonable for her to feel that White was likely to escalate the matter to the point of violence”. Id. The court agrees with the plaintiff and assume, without deciding, that defendant 's conduct rose to the level of outrageousness required to support the cause of action even if the court held that there was no intentional infliction of emotional
Ms. Tesyev’s case is distinguishable from Placanica v. State because unlike the victim in that case, Chef Ablazey never claimed to be afraid or distressed. In fact, Chef Ablazey stated that he did not initially call the police because he is “used to dealing with people who don’t like him that much.” He also stated that he finally called the police because he could not afford to continue to have his car re-washed and re-waxed. Similarly, unlike the defendant in Kilby v. State, Ms. Tesyev was not attempting to contact Chef Ablazey at the restaurants, and Chef Ablazey stated that he saw Ms. Tesyev only once, while she was driving away. In this regard, Ms. Tesyev’s case more closely aligns with that of Moran v. State.
Jessie Veyas recklessly discharged the firearm because she didn’t take reasonable actions to prevent the hallucinations, that are caused by her PTSD episodes. Also she committed animal cruelty because the horse was not displaying behaviors that would require self-defense. III. Facts Jessie Veyas is a police officer,and military veteran.
This harassment forced Alex Billings to move to a different school. These actions make CJ Pearson guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress, due to the fact that Pearson had a motive. The platforms MyFace and texting gave him the opportunity. These actions lead to PTSD, making it necessary for Billings
The simple assault “conduct” by Kraus did cause “bodily injury” which is not considered too trivial. In New Jersey v. Bazin. examples of de minimis infractions are cited. New Jersey v. Bazin.
You Will Be The Judge Facts: The case involves a 12 year old child named Griffin Grimbly who told the teacher that he was beaten with a clothesline by his father Mr.Gimli. In court, the Mr.Gimli argued that he was devoted to Christian and was following the Biblical injunction on child rearing, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, as well as arguing that s 43 of the criminal code gives parents the right to use “reasonable force” in disciplining their children. Issue: Is Mr. Grimbly is guilty of or not guilty of assault ? Held: Mr.Grimbly is guilty of assault.
It It f It frustrates me what Dr. Anna Pou had to go through with the lawsuits of the Memorial Medical Center incident. As Healthcare professionals, being sued for making the rightful decision for the patient and the hospital is unjust. Healthcare professionals like Dr. Pou, have taken the Hippocratic oath, and one of the promises made within that oath is “first, do no harm”. Hospital’s should not be so quick to make such an important decision of pressing charges to their faculty; more trust should be placed in them. In addition, she made it clear her intentions were just to ‘‘help’’ patients ‘‘through their pain,’’ on national television.
She was emotionally very disturbed and socially withdrawn following the incident. In addition, she was also depressed with insomnia, poor appetite and had significant weight loss. She felt hopeless and worthless but not having suicidal ideation. Her decision for