Tort Law

The plaintiff was a student of his class and the defendant evidence was that he was unaware of the firing of pellets but the if he had had been aware he would have without a doubt taken the actions to shut it down and stop the pellets being shot across the class room. If the defendant had taken actions to stop the students from doing these actions the chain of causations would have been avoided and the student wouldn’t have been struck in the eye by a paper pellet. A case related to this Johns v Minister of Education, Chinner and Beck (1981) 28 SASR 206 the defendant was being sued for negligence. The case was the defendant who had been teaching a class when she had become aware of two boys using catapults to fire ballpoint pens. The defendant told the students to throw the catapults in the bin and later in that lesson she was not aware that a student had retained a catapult and the plaintiff was struck in the eye when a ballpoint pen was discharged by a catapult. In this case the teacher cannot be found negligence because she had told all students to throw out the catapults and to her knowledge they had and so in comparison to the first case the teacher was not adequately supervising the class and had not stopped the students from shooting paper pellets across the

On Sunday 26 June 1994 9:30am, the Appellant attended a breakfast at the Respondent’s premises. She commenced drinking champagne and wine, which were both supplied by the Respondent and by her friends. At 12:30pm she purchased a bottle from the Respondent, and continued to drink more alcohol. At 2:20pm, the Appellant’s friend was leaving and the Appellant decided to stay longer with her new friends. At 3:00pm, the Appellant attempted to buy more alcohol, but the Respondent refused to supply it to her. By 5:30pm, due to her disruptive behaviour

The Bureau of Justice Statistics defines assault as “an unlawful physical attack or threat of attack” (BJS). It also categorizes assault under aggravated and simple. Aggravated is broken down into two categories “with injury” and “threatened with a weapon” (BJS). Simple assault is broken down

An assault is: An unlawful attempt, coupled with apparent ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another; or An intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

Anna was upset and yelling at Gilbert inside the residence. Shiela left the residence and Anna followed her onto the porch. Anna pushed Shiela almost off the porch so Judy pulled Anna away from Sheila to keep the situation from escalating. Anna left the residence and came back twice. Judy did not see any injuries to Anna until she came back the second time. Judy does not know how Anna received her injury. I checked Judy's hands for any signs of trauma to her hands or fists from striking something and did not observe any marks. Judy denies causing injury to

Black’s Law Dictionary defines assault as “the threat or use of force on another that causes that person to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.” This means that the tortfeasor does not have to make physical contact with the victim. The victim only needs to be placed under a reasonable amount of fear that the physical contact will occur. In fact if physical contact does occur, this tort is no longer considered an assault, it becomes a battery.

This particular scenario is cumulative but still has two issues that must be dealt with separately. The first is psychiatric injury suffered by the claimant . Also, it must be established whether Bricks R Us can apply negligent contribution as their defence against Ronnie's claims. The final issue concerns the stabbing and if Ronnie was rightfully imprisoned.

Fran lee (F) the leader of AFA suffer serious head injuries and had been taken to the hospital and is in a coma. At the time of the insure she was restrained by a police group. Policeman (P) that was in the police group states that she was hit by a rock and it also hit him in the helmet. The rock was thrown from a group of R33 demonstrators. Police group states he was one of the police that is trying to protector her from getting attacked by some R33 members who got very close to her. A well know lawyer (A) with Fran claims that Fran was injury by the policeman. Lawyer (A) said the police was using their batons with unreasonable force against her and other AFA members. TV news (N) camera was damage but said that they had filmed several police using their batons

((Assault refers to any intentional and unexcused threat of immediate harmful or offensive contact; words or acts that that create a reasonably believable threat are assaults.))

During a verbal altercation, Mrs. Bennett threw a hammer narrowly missing Mr. Darcy’s head. The issue is whether Mrs. Bennett possessed sufficient intent to establish a aggravated assault case. She claimed that she did not wish to harm Darcy. The author believes there is probably not enough to establish the element of intent to commit aggravated assault without any injury. In Commonwealth v. Matthew, the court held that intent may be inferred from the defendants conduct or words. The author argues that Mrs.Bennett never threatened to harm Darcy and walked away to wait for the cops. In Commonwealth v. Alexander, court that held that circumstantial evidence was not enough to prove intent to inflict serious injury. Mrs. Bennett’s claim that she

Or simply called, assault is the attempt to commit battery or do bodily harm. This is an act that is made to create fear of injury on a victim. You might be wondering if an actual physical contact is needed to find that a person is guilty of the crime – misdemeanor assault; the fact is, you don’t need to.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: 1. the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; 2. the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and 3. the conduct must be the cause 4. of severe emotional distress. This is exactly what happened din this case. Steve Steel not only knocked the phone out of Prudence’s hand but also broke down the door and threatened Prudence with force and made her scared for her life. I do believe that negligence is a part of this case. A person who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. Steve Steel did not show a proper care of duty with Prudence. I think that Steve Steel should also be responsible for all of the physical and mental damages since he did not show reasonable care. I think the tort liability in this case would be assault and battery. An assault involves three things that we see in this case. An assault occurs when an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or

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

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

The court system does not seem to base their judgment on legal elements and legal facts but a major consideration on public policy and interest. This can be seen in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital , where the ratio is that the patient would have died anyway in spite of the doctor’s examination. To impose a liability on the doctor would give rise to many claims, involving many unnecessary claims. However, doctors’ duty is to examine a patient and decide on the plan of treatment, where in this case, the doctor did not even examine the patient. The reluctance of the court to impose a liability on public bodies can also be seen in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police . The court was reluctant to impose a liability on the police force, even when the Taylor Report reported that the accident was caused by the negligence of the police force, as they let too many supporters in. There are enough facts in these two cases to impose a liability on the doctor and the police department respectively, however, the reluctant approach from the court towards public bodies have resulted in unsuccessful claims in these two cases.