Tort Law : Intentional Tort

While the trial is situated in Missouri, the incident that injured the plaintiff occurred in Peoria, Illinois, thus the state of Illinois’ standard applies in this case. The state of Illinois’ standard for contact sports is that the injury must be caused by willful and wanton misconduct on the part of the injuring party for the injuring party to be held liable in court. When examining the defendant’s appeal, the appellate also had to consider if the plaintiff, by the very nature of his participation in the game, had both consented to and understood the risk of actions like those that ultimately caused his injury. The main factors that the appellate court had to contemplate when deciding on the defendant’s appeal was if the defendant’s negligent actions were of a magnitude that exceeded the state of Illinois’ exemption for contact sports and also if the plaintiff, by his mere participation in the game had consented to actions matching those of the body-check that caused his

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).

High school sport injuries have become such a common incident. Precautions are not taken as

In today’s society, youth sports programs are heavily involved in the everyday lives of different families and communities within different cities. These programs help provide our youth with positive leadership skills along with physical and mental development. While these youth sports programs should be fun and challenging, certain liability risks can become present and may result in lawsuits against the organization that hosts these types of programs. Youth sports programs are becoming more and more competitive and the risk of injuries is growing, which are raising concerns of liability issues and more lawsuits being filed. This paper will examine a case involving a youth sports injury due to negligence and also help layout preventative guidelines to help my business avoid these same issues.

A controversial issue has been whether or not contact sports should be played in high school. People believe that contact sports should not be allowed to be played by the youth in high school. This issue is serious enough to have safety laws. For instance, a traumatic brain injury (TBI) law is the Zackery Lystedt Law. The Zachery Lystedt Law was the first law to protect the safety of young athletes when the get concussions. This law says that children must not participate in sorts related functions, such as practices and games, until they are medically cleared to do so. Various reasons include exceeded the joys and benefits of playing contact sports. Said reasons include long term injuries, intense amounts of money needed, thus more sponsors needed, and contact sports have a trend of causing drug abuse.

Young children having major physical injuries while participating in sports should be of more concern. In the article High School Football Comes With a Risk, by Jeffrey Perkel it states that, “...boys aged 10 to 14 we’re most likely to end up in the nation’s emergency departments with a traumatic brain injury…,” This shows how adolescents are unnecessarily hurting themselves because of these sports. Expectedly, during the 2005-2006 US high school football season an , estimate of 517, 726 injuries were submitted to the RIO. Even my own personal experiences with sports all ended in tragic faults. Swimming with

Thus, wilful and wanton or reckless conduct allows the court to gauge what is and is not permissible conduct under the circumstances. Second, as the court recognized in Nabozny, courts must strike a balance between "the free and vigorous participation in sports" and the protection of the individual from reckless or intentional conduct. (Nabozny, 31 Ill.App.3d at 215, 334 N.E.2d 258.) Third, the court believed that applying an ordinary negligence standard would allow virtually every participant in a contact sport, injured by another during a "warm-up" or practice, to bring an action based on the risks inherent in virtually every contact

The case study selected for week three centers on a liability and assumption of risk case study. In this case study, Brent Thomas and George Banks are facing liability charges after Ricky Watts sustained a serious injury during hockey practice (Essex, 2016). In this situation, Thomas is the school principal, and Banks is the hockey coach as well as the gym teacher (Essex, 2016). Ricky obtained injuries after improperly blocking the puck (Essex, 2016). This case study was selected because it highlights a situation that will likely be faced by all future school leaders. Sports are popular among students, and there is inherent risk in each sporting event. A school is open to liability if they do not ensure that proper protocols are met.

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.

Rule: Battery is the unconsented harmful or offensive touching with the intent to harm or offend. Leroy did intend to immobilize John when he grabbed him, but this was done in the defense of a third party.

Collegiate athletics is growing each day and the athletes are becoming faster, stronger, and quicker each day. As the competition on the field improves, the risk of injury also becomes more of a possibility. While strength and conditioning coaches have created athletes who are able to withstand more physical play and can rehab quicker from injury, they have also created monsters on the playing field and court. As collegiate athletics grows into a multibillion dollar industry, the players expect to have more benefits available to them, including workers’ compensation. We have seen a variety of situations arise recently were players are looking to secure their own safety when playing such physical games.

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.

I represent Mr. Stan Smith, with whom you have corresponded about the unfortunate incident that occurred on July 25, 1955. I understand that Ms. Griffin has sustained injuries as a result of this accident and I extend my sympathies. Under the law, however, the circumstances do not rise to the level of tortious liability.

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

In recent years, tort has been increasingly criticized on its suitability in performing its functions including deterrence, compensation and justice. Along with its inefficiency and the high litigating cost, it has been discussing whether tort should be replaced or eliminating some of the areas. Although tort is not a perfect system, I believe that there are needs of reform for certain areas such as compensation instead of abolishing the tort law. The aim of this essay is to explore the recent criticisms about tort law with further analysis in order to find out whether these criticisms are valid. Certain areas of reform will also be discussed so that to see how we are possible to improve the current tort law system.