Unit 1 Tort Law

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.

The issue in this case as it relates to the Kentucky tort of negligence is governed by rules or principles established by the courts. The elements of negligence are a duty the defendant owes to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, a causal connection between the breach and the plaintiff's injury, and actual injury. In the absence of any one of these elements, no cause of action for negligence will lie.

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.

Repyneck recalls in 2011 she was going through a divorce from her husband Michael Ziegler. Repyneck was having financial problem and she was advised to seek a bankruptcy lawyer. Repyneck was scheduled for a hearing in Hellertown on Wednesday and her divorce attorney recommended David Tidd from Hellertown. She called Tidd, she thought it was either Sunday or Monday, and he told her to bring a payment to retain him to his office on Tuesday and he would make the hearing on Wednesday go away. After she went to his office, Tidd told her she wouldn’t have to appear in court on Wednesday, that he would take care of it.

The Plaintiff, Keller, sued the defendant, DeLong. DeLong was driving Kellers car at Tyngsboro, Massachusetts at approximately 11:40p.m. on April 14, 1963, DeLong collided with a utility pole at the side of the highway. The Trial Court ruled that the sole cause of the accident was the fact that the defendant dozed off to sleep and did not awaken in time to avoid collision with the pole. The driver showed no sign he was going to fall asleep. Defendant, Carl DeLong, suddenly and unexpectedly dozed at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Defendant, DeLong, was not found negligent. Vacated; reversed, affirming trial court’s judgment.

In regards to the Mrs. McCarty’s sliding door, it was equipped with a lock and an additional safety chain. The safety chain was fastened but the lock was not used. This case had evidence of negligence but none of strict liability. There were reasonable precautions in place.

providing private remedy for injury to one party caused by the tortious conduct of another

2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great

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.

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

Taylor suffered serious emotional distress, part of which was fear for his and Mya’s life which led them to fleeing their home state of Massachusetts as a result of Murray’s continuous intimidations during four months. The issue in this case is whether Taylor has a claim against Murray for the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. Under Massachusetts law, the court will likely conclude that Taylor has a claim against Murray for his conduct toward Taylor because (1) Murray intentionally inflicted emotional distress to Taylor; (2) Murray’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) Murray’s conduct directly caused Taylor’s emotional distress; and (4) Taylor’s emotional distress was severe. See Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140, 144-45 (Mass. 1976); Quinn v. Walsh, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 696, 706-07 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000); Cady v. Marcella, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 340-41, (Mass. App. Ct. 2000).

. The husband of the plaintiff file a petition to the court that his wife[plaintiff] is mentally ill and needs to have a court order directing the admission of her to the mental health hospital. The petition initiated by plaintiff’s husband is the order of the Wayne County probate court, and it is also appropriately certified by Doctors Wolodzko, who after appearing in her house and introducing himself as a doctor , and have a conversation with her in person that day and another day in telephone, determine that she is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and Smyk. The court gave the order and the Plaintiff was taken by ambulance from her home to a private psychiatric

The purpose of tort law is to provide compensation to victims when they have experienced harm or loss. Making the person “whole” and

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

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