Intentional Torts And False Punishment

This memorandum assesses the merits of Anne Peters’ in West Palm Beach, Florida, for possible claims against Don and Betty Detman for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for violation of Florida’s Spite Fence statute.

Details of incident: Defendant and his friend went to the same store where he was arrested previously for shoplifting. He threw a beverage to the security’s face and slapped him. Defendant got really angry when he saw the security. Defendant thinks he was responsible for his arrest in the past because the security caught him for shoplifting. As the defendant is

Art and Bill were leaving work one afternoon when they were approached by Charlie, who was

1.) Does Farmer have any claim(s) for damages against Pilot based on intentional tort? Discuss. Issue: The issue here is whether Farmer could prevail in court by filing a claim for damages against Pilot, based on the provisions of intentional tort law, and the five original intentional torts of 1.) Assault, 2.) Battery, 3.) Trespass to Land, 4.) Trespass to Chattel, and 5.) False Imprisonment.

Kirk Bloodsworth was 22 when he spent eight years in prison, two of those on death row. He was wrongfully convicted. A 9-year old girl was raped and killed on July 25, 1984. Two boys had seen her walking with a man before she suddenly disappeared. The boys described the man to the police and the police came to the conclusion that the murderer was Bloodsworth. He repeatedly claimed he was innocent but he was found guilty and sentenced to death on March, 1985. After 8 years he finally proved he was innocent through DNA testing. He was released from prison on June 1993. He was paid 300,000 dollars (“Correcting”). The US should not institute the death penalty everywhere in the country because it would put us at risk of executing innocent people, costs us millions of dollars in administering the penalty and there is a better way to help the families of murder victims.

The action is an intentional tort. This means doing a civil wrong and validating a legal duty to another party.

An intentional tort is a person deliberately causing harm or loss to another person. Examples are trespassing, causing a nuisance and defaming are intentional torts.

A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.

An intentional tort is one that is intentional or deliberate in nature. Examples of subcategories of intentional torts are assault and battery, false imprisonment, and inflicting intentional mental distress. Assault and battery is often a result of corporal punishment in schools. This means that physical punishment has been used as a means to discipline the children in schools and is still legal in some states, but not Pennsylvania. In assault and battery, assault is the threat and battery is the impact that is made. False imprisonment is the physical containment of another person or intimidation (sometimes verbally) that confines another person. In schools, physical restraint should be reserved for only those times when an individual presents as a threat to others or themselves. Infliction of intentional mental distress occurs when a person causes another mental anguish in a manner that is considered extreme.

Over the past decade, the increase in participation from recreational sporting activities to organized has increased significantly (Taniguchi, 2003). With more individuals taking part, the amount of injuries has escalated and the amount of negligent lawsuits soon followed. The courts have had to acclimate themselves and look at sporting injuries through the lens of tort law (Harvard Law Review, 2008). The landmark case in the state of California, Knight v. Jewett, the state supreme court upheld the original ruling that participants who knowingly cause injury to another contestant outside of the normal rules of conduct while participating in a sporting activity, are liable or negligent, changed the course how courts would rule in tort cases (Harvard Law Review, 2008). Hence, tort law is now a leading point of discussion in athletic and physical education departments in our local school districts (Taniguchi, 2003). Included in the discussion is intentional tort, when a player injuries another participant purposely (Wolohan, 2013). For intentional tort to be ruled on, three essentials must be present: 1.an injury must have occurred, 2. the cause of injury is due to a negligent act, 3. the act that caused the injury must be intentional (Wolohan, 2013). Thus, the merging of recreational activities, extreme sports, and physical education programs, intentional tort law will be looked at in the school setting.

“Given modern medical knowledge, legal claims for wrongful life are inevitable. The common law must therefore now provide a satisfactory response and this it could easily achieve”. Discuss this statement critically.

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

False imprisonment is a tort of strict liability due to the fact that there is no requirement as to that the imprisonment be carried in bad faith., Kirby J stated, this is because the focus of this civil wrong is on the vindication of liberty and reparation to the victim, rather than upon the presence of absence of moral wrongdoing on part of the defendant. The defendant might have believed that their actions were of interest, but this is not a defence. False imprisonment is a significant tort that is taken at the highest level of court as it provides a remedy for victims who have been unlawfully detained because it had deprived their personal liberty. Gray J stated that, the torts of false imprisonment is committed when one person directly subjects another to total deprivation of freedom of movement without lawful justification. The onus of proof is that the defendant must prove that the defendant personally, or through the conduct of the persons for whom the defendant is responsible directly participated in the plaintiff’s false imprisonment. It provides a remedy for an individual whose personal liberty has been unlawfully restrained, especially in respects to the government and their power. Providing a remedy for breaches of civil liberties is the most important element as it prevents government and law enforcement agencies to abuse their power. False imprisonment provides many boundaries as it arises social, ethical and doctrine issues. There may be circumstances in

Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.

“The essential purpose and most basic principle of tort law is that the plaintiff must be placed in the position he or she would have been in absent the defendant’s fault or negligence.” It is impossible to fully restore the plaintiff, as he will never be fully restored. However, compensation is the best way to put the plaintiff back into his original position. Even though most resources of the tort system are spent on dealing with claims, it is a very slow process as it is so complex because it involves many parties. It is often time consuming and expensive to file a claim, making it very cost-ineffective. The increased involvement of insurance companies has made it even more time consuming, with the introduction of their own