Wrongful Tort Law Against Three Plaintiff

In order to state a claim for IIED, a plaintiff must allege “intentional or reckless” conduct. Lasater, 194 Md. App. at 448. “To meet the ‘intentional or reckless’ criterion of the first element, the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant either desired to inflict severe emotional distress, knew that such distress was certain or substantially certain to result from his conduct, or acted recklessly in deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that the emotional distress will follow. Floor, 78 Md. App. at 175 (emphases in original); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A (““Intentional” when used in this context means “the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.”); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500 (“If he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct

An intentional tort is one that is intentional or deliberate in nature. Examples of subcategories of intentional torts are assault and battery, false imprisonment, and inflicting intentional mental distress. Assault and battery is often a result of corporal punishment in schools. This means that physical punishment has been used as a means to discipline the children in schools and is still legal in some states, but not Pennsylvania. In assault and battery, assault is the threat and battery is the impact that is made. False imprisonment is the physical containment of another person or intimidation (sometimes verbally) that confines another person. In schools, physical restraint should be reserved for only those times when an individual presents as a threat to others or themselves. Infliction of intentional mental distress occurs when a person causes another mental anguish in a manner that is considered extreme.

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.

1. Intentional torts are actions with the purpose or intention to injure another person or that person’s property. The person inflicting the harm is called a tortfeasor. Intentional torts require intent. The person who committed the tort must have intended to cause harm. The harm, however, does not require malice or ill will, just the

A. The Plaintiff must prove unreasonable force was used to make a prima facie showing of battery.

16. By the conduct alleged above, Defendant intended to hit the dart target but in her attempt penetrated the right arm of the plaintiff’s person, leaving him injured. The defendant carried out an act of battery.

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming that it was vicariously liable for his assault by Cerantonio. The defendant argued that since Cerantonio was engaging in unauthorised conduct, the defendant could not be liable. The matter in contention was whether the assault was conducted in the course of employment.

This case is basically guided by the law of torts. A tort basically means a civil wrong for which the person affected is entitled to claim money for loss or damages. This case is a mix of torts law and criminal law as criminal activity is also involved in the form of the attackers brutally attacking the respondent.

In order for Susie to sue Paul in the tort of Battery, she would have to prove that a direct positive act committed against her (Holmes v Mather) , made direct contact with her person (Hutchinson v Maughn) against her wishes/ without her consent (William v Holland) and Marion’s case, with the slightest application of force (Cole v Turner) , she does not have to prove anger as in modern tort anger is not necessary to establish Battery as in ( Rixon v Star) ,and without lawful justification (Fontin v Katapodis) , Here, Paul’s act of directly grabbing her hand, made contact with her body and the facts indicate that she felt intimidated, meaning she didn’t consent to it, and there is no justification for his action. Element satisfied.

Issue: whether a person who unintentionally hurt another person is liable for the harm through intentional harm.

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

Presented are four separate cases that have been argued and settled in a court of law. Each of these cases represent a different kind of tort, a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, which can be either intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another (Hill & Hill n.d.). The torts are as listed, intentional, criminal, negligence, and liability as presented in the four researched cases.

There was no defence for defendant because there was no any voluntary assumption and contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Plaintiff didn’t fully understood and took the risk by himself and not even he contributed himself to take that injury.

It is apparent that Steven was not paying enough attention when crossing the road on the night of the accident. Thus, Steven was, to a degree, also negligent as he did not adequately check that the road was clear. When deciding the degree of contributory negligence the courts must look at what reduction of damages pay-out is "just and equitable having regard 's to the claimant 's share in the responsibility for the damage". In order to reach a percentage of blameworthiness for each side, a broad comparison must be made of both the individual contributions from the pursuer and the defender, looking at both the causation of damage and the blameworthiness.