The Issue Of Tort Law

ASSAULT, BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ARE EXAMPLES OF ____ TORTS THAT INVOLVE INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON'S BODY.

There are many defendants in this case. First and foremost Dale, the loss prevention officer for Wal-Mart, is a defendant because he intentionally restrained Bob against his will and the restraint was unlawful. Dale also failed to follow company rules; Dale was supposed to watch a video that explained how to catch and deal with thieves but decided not to watch the video. The second defendant would be Dale’s supervisor. The supervisor recorded a pass on an exam that dale did not take. The exam Dale failed to write was based on the video that Dale did not watch. The third defendant would be Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart assumes liability because they could be at fault for not properly training staff. Bob would want to take action on

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

Tort reform refers to laws passed on a state-by-state basis that basically places limits or caps on the type or amount of damages that can be awarded in personal injury lawsuits. Personally, I definitely agree that tort reform should be passed into law for every state because sometimes the damages that are awarded in lawsuits are too excessive. Moreover, tort reform still allows for the plaintiff to recover damages just not at an excessive and unreasonable amount of damages.

With the prominence of the tort reform debate on state legislative floors across the country, many states have introduced and even passed bills that address reform issues within their respective states. Many reform proponents feel that changes in the civil justice system should

Two individuals, the Baker brothers have been long-term employees of Bin Inc. a company earning $240,000 per year and the only company providing food to a chain of guesthouse. The Bakers each make $55,000 per year. The contract between Bin Inc. and the guesthouses was established in 1981 and is currently being renewed every three years on September 30 taking effect January 1 of the following year. Bin Inc. and the guesthouses agreed to have four deliveries per day so that guests are adequately provide for. The Bakers are aware that net profit from Bin Inc. catering operation average $240,000 per year. They also know that late arrivals have caused tension between the guesthouses and Bin Inc. a scenario that are contrary to the agreements between the parties. They have started their own food company (Bakers Inc.) and did not rule out service to the guesthouses. Since starting the company, the Bakers have been absent from Bin Inc. on a number of occasions without pay and this has contributed to the deteriorated service of Bin Inc. to the guesthouses. In addition, seven guests at the guesthouses suffered food poisoning after consuming the food (no fault of their own) on July 18, 2012 and approached the guesthouses who then informed Bin Inc. The tainted food can be traced to the work of Farknn Baker. The Bakers have conceded that Bin Inc. had a recent City inspection on July 10 and was given 15 days to improve sanitary conditions at their kitchen or face closure. Bin

The unintentional tort case that we have chosen to analyze through the use of various legal elements of tort law, is the wrongful death lawsuit filed against Porsche by Meadow Rain Walker for the death of her father, Paul Walker. On November 30th, 2013, famed movie star Paul Walker and friend, Roger Rodas, passed away in an unfortunate solo-vehicle collision in South California. At the time of the crash they were travelling in a 2005 Porsche Carrera GT when the car swerved off of the road and came in contact with a power pole and several trees before fire engulfed the car. Both Walker and Rodas perished due to injuries received in the crash.

The scenario is a horrendous string of coincidences that resulted in a tragedy. However, every party carries some responsibility for the eventual double amputation. This paper examines each of the parties, their possible liability and how that is covered by negligence law.

Tort reform is the attempt to improve the tort law, which is a civil wrong that unreasonably causes another individual to suffer harm or loss resulting in legal liability for the individual who commits the unjust act. It has been occurring since the 1900s, where certain people, such as wealthy defendants and insurance companies, disliked the idea that people were receiving a limitless amount of money using the tort law. So, many interest groups, lobbyist groups, and PACs (political action committees) took control over reforming the tort law in attempt to achieve the goal of reducing the amount of money defendants would have to pay by putting caps on damages. In this way, large insurance companies and other corporations and groups have

Can you elect to recover your damages from the resort only, even though Tex and Rex were primarily responsible for your injuries?

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

There are six elements when committing a crime; corpus delicti, actus reus, mens rea, specific intent, general intent, and negligence. The first, Corpus delicti, is defined as "the body of crime” this is the material that substance a crime. The phrase corpus delicti means that before a person can be persecuted there must be concrete evidence that the crime was committed. The corpus delicti also helps to describe the evidence that proves that a crime has been committed.

Who is at fault? How much should I get? How long do I have to cerebrate about it? These are the three sizable questions when it comes to tort reform. This is one of the sultriest legal topics bypassing the country because not only does it affect the victim, it withal effects the incriminated and the rest of the taxpayers. First, if there is no tort reform the United States will perpetuate on its lawsuit blissful path causing insurance rates and costs to perpetuate to skyrocket. On the other hand, if there is an inordinate amount of reform, victims will be left behind and their rights lost. Lastly, I would relish to do more research on what precisely needs to be transmuted to make the legislation fair for all parties involved. In Conclusion,

“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

There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen. The 'neighbour principle' was established in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932).