Twelve Hours On A Grounded Plane : False Imprisonment?

A plaintiff in a civil cause of action must generally show three things to establish a strict liability offense. The first is that a defendant, which can be a person or a company, did something that was inherently dangerous and unreasonable under the circumstances. The plaintiff must then show that the inherently dangerous act caused something bad to happen to the plaintiff. Finally, the plaintiff must show they actually suffered harm as a result of their injury. If a plaintiff cannot show an actual harm, such as a physical injury, they may not be able to make their strict liability

Tort law enables citizens to seek reimbursement for loss and or suffering from conduct that would be deemed dangerous or unreasonable of others (3). Tort law is non criminal and is dealt with in our civil judicial system. The categories of Tort Law include intentional tort, negligence and strict liability.

Tort: A “Civil Wrong” Torts refer to a general classification covering civil causes of action

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.

Torts are civil laws that are broken and are rules for lawsuits. When these rules are broken they can result in injury and harm this is usually the basis for the claim. Torts are punishable by imprisonment but in most cases tort law is to provide relief for damages and to stop others from doing the same thing. The injured party can sue for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and medical expenses or present and future.

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.

10. The text book (at page 121) provides a business example of false imprisonment – explain

” Torts are civil wrongs not arising from contracts. Torts involve breaches of duty to particular persons causing loss or injury, while crimes are regarded as public wrong breaching duties to society as

These are the factual and the proximate cause of the events case scenario. Despite the fact that Candie Cardigan falling off the runway was the cause of Myra’s nose and facial injuries, she was the indirect and unforeseeable future cause for the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant is therefore not legally responsible for the damages of which the plaintiff claims as a negligent act. (Mitchell v. Gonzales, 1991).

[T]ort is best understood as a law for the redress of private wrongs. Taking seriously tort's structure, vocabulary and 'grammar', leads one to grasp that the point of this body of law is to articulate duties of conduct that individuals and entities owe to one another, and to empower those injured by breaches of these duties (i.e., by wrongs) to invoke the law to go after their wrongdoers. Tort law, in other words, is best theorized as a special kind of victims' rights law. As such, it promises to deliver various goods within our liberal-constitutional system of government apart from deterrence and compensation, even though it will sometimes deliver those as well. In particular, it reinforces and refines norms of responsible conduct, helps sustain a distinctively liberal notion of civil society, assures citizens that government is committed to attend to their complaints on a more or less individualized basis, and avoids excessive reliance on top-down regulation.6

Personal Injury: These types of cases are considered civil torts and cover all physical, financial, and emotional damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant’s negligence.

It is not enough to show that the defendant has caused harm, liability depends on the defendant having harmed the claimant “as a result to failing to show reasonable care.” Example of this can be seen in the case of Vaughan vMenlove (1837) 3 Bing 467. The defendant’s haystack caught fire due to poor ventilation. The defendant had been warned on numerous occasions that this would happen if he left the haystack.

Tort laws are laws that offer remedies to individuals harmed by the unreasonable actions of others. Tort claims usually involve state law and are based on the legal premise that individuals are liable for the consequences of their conduct if it results in injury to others (McCarthy & Cambron-McCabe, 1992). One of the major, most well-known tort categories is negligence, which is usually a situation when someone accidentally does wrong, which in turns causes injury to another person.

A tort is a civil wrong that occurs when a party breaches a legal duty owed to another party and as a result the non-breaching party seeks remedy in the form of damages. Negligence is an unintentional tort that occurs when a party fails to provide the proper standard of care that a reasonable person would have provided in a similar situation. A higher degree of negligence is gross negligence. Gross negligence occurs when a party’s action falls substantially below “reasonable care” and such action can be considered as intentional rather than

Negligence is the failure to exercise due care or diligence that a reasonable or prudent man would exercise in similar circumstances. The law of negligence falls under tort law where it involves harm that is caused by carelessness and not intentional harm (Katter, 2002). A tort is a civil wrong that is in the form of a breach of duty, which amounts to legal remedy that is awarded in damages. Tort law rests upon two principles that state that an act or omission by the defendant interferes with the rights of the plaintiff, which in turn causes damages (Trindade, 2007). Secondly, the interference caused by the defendant gives rise to a cause of action for damages that are as near as possible to the plaintiff’s loss. Therefore, negligence can be defined as doing something that a reasonable man would not have done in similar circumstances or failure to do what a reasonable man would have done which amounts to infliction of harm.