Helen Happy's Pursue Court Action

1779 Words Mar 1st, 2016 8 Pages
In case #1, Helen Happy could pursue court action, because of the situation she was in during her encounter with Zeb Zuggins. In Business Law in Canada, written by Richard A. Yates, Teresa Bereznicki-Korol, and Trevor Clarke, a tort is committed when, “one person causes injury to another, harming his or her person, property or reputation (p.99). For Helen Happy, who has suffered both physical and psychological injuries, the tort law can help her obtain compensation and punish the defendant, Zeb Zuggins for his wrongful behaviour. As the plaintiff, who suffered a number of losses after the incident, she could argue trespass to person, specifically battery, after Zeb pushed her to the passenger’s seat, punched her, and threw her out of the car. In order to prove battery in a court room, the action must be unwanted, intentional and involve physical contact. Furthermore, in this case, it can be argued that Ike Inkster’s carelessness provided Zeb with the opportunity to escape the van because Ike’s co-worker was left with an unrestrained inmate, while Ike left to check upon the accident in front of them. Since Ike and Melvin were working during business hours, the tort occurred while they were on shift, and Helen Happy could hold the Alberta Correctional Services potentially liable for the incident that happened on January 26th, 2013. According to (Yates et al. 2013), in Business Law in Canada, a business can be vicariously liable for the actions of an employee during employment…

More about Helen Happy's Pursue Court Action

Open Document