Tort Scenarios

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

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

-Are the Mariners liable for Delinda Taylor, otherwise known as the plaintiff's injuries sustained by an errand warm up throw.

Where cases that are being fought for compensation through the act of negligence there are many defences that can be used that are suitable to both parties agreement. Common defences include “Volenti non fit injuria” which the voluntary assumption of risk by the defendant; contributory negligence and the illegality of the activity or act committed. “Volenti non fit injuria” is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict. Contributory negligence in common-law is another defence used in jurisdictions and is generally a defence to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. This principle is relevant to the determination of liability and is applicable when plaintiffs/claimants have, through their own negligence, contributed to the harm they suffered. The statement of players in sport unwilling to participate due to the risk of being taken to court for an injury they may have accidentally caused that might occur during a sport is expected; as injuries that happen while engaging in an activity of which you know there is risk involved is

The appeals court based it’s the case Nabozny v. Barnhill (1975), 31 Ill.App.3d 212, 334 N.E.2d 258 that a player is liable for injury in a tort action if his conduct is such that it is either deliberate,

McKichan v. St. Louis Hockey Club, L.P. was a personal injury case filed on March 17, 1998, in which the plaintiff claimed that the defendant club should be held vicariously liable for their employee’s actions that caused the plaintiff’s injury. The injury in question occurred in Peoria, Illinois during an IHL game on December 15, 1990 between the Peoria Rivermen and the Milwaukee Admirals. While the St. Louis Hockey Club technically wasn’t playing in the game, they can be held liable for the injury, as the Peoria Rivermen are a subsidiary of the club. During the third period of said game, the defendant, Stephen McKichan, a goalie for the Admirals, was both injured and rend unconscious by a body-check from a Peoria player. This body-check occurred after play was stopped due to the hockey puck floating out-of-bounds. Also, the defendant player ‘s body-check had occurred after the referee had blown his whistle twice to signal the play stoppage. After the injury, the defendant’s player received a game misconduct and a suspension. The player would also go on to settle with the plaintiff out of court.

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

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.

Plaintiff Gayle Payne (“Ms. Payne”) brought a class action complaint against Rob Manfred, the Commissioner of MLB (“Commissioner”), the office of the commissioner (“MLB”), and all 30 Major League Baseball member teams, alleging the defendants’ failure and inaction in providing reasonable safety measures to protect game-goers from risk of serious injury while attending games. On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Ms. Payne sought “class-wide injunctive or equitable relief in the form of changes to current MLB rules and practices with respect to protective netting in MLB ballparks” (Gail Payne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (MLB), 2015). She filed this negligence suit in hopes of remediating the possibility of frequent injuries at baseball stadiums.

Football, one of America’s favorite pastimes from peewee to professional, watching or running the field this sport is notorious. Yet, the multiple injuries players sustain are often glanced over because ‘the show must go on’. Up until 2015, the National Football League (NFL) did not offer any guaranteed assistance to hurt players. However, in the case of Michael Solomon vs. the NFL, Solomon is asking for more than the NFL bargained.

In the Pat Dunn V. Chris LePuck case I am in favor of the defendant, Chris LePuck. The plaintiff, Pat Dunn, an experienced hockey player, knowingly and voluntary entered the hockey game. By nature of the sport, hockey games require players to have contact with each other so Dunn had the responsibility to assume the risk when he entered the game. The plaintiff also failed to wear a helmet during the game making him negligent. In relation to self defense, the plaintiff intentionally tripped and punched the defendant without the defendants permissions making it reasonable for the defendant to protect himself and hit Dunn with the stick. In consideration of the law of comparative fault, the plaintiff’s injuries were the result of the legal fault of the plaintiff because the plaintiff is more than fifty percent legally at fault for the accident and damaged he faced. In proving that Chris LePuck is not liable for any damages or injuries Pat Dunn incurred, five similar court

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.

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

Notice the annual premium for the limited tort option? It’s $373 per year. And the annual premium for the full tort option? $410 per year. That’s a difference of only $37 per year. Per year! That’s a difference of only $3.08 per month, or $0.10 per day! Why would my client seriously limit his rights to save just $37 per year? His agent recommended he choose limited tort, but didn’t tell him what limited tort is, and didn’t tell him he was seriously limiting his rights. Absolutely ridiculous, and all too common.

In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police , there is also the issue regarding the cost of deterring beneficial activities. As the ‘Hillsborough disaster’ was broadcasted live, many