The Law of Tort and its Implications

In the first scenario, the tort of personal injury was committed by Sean because Sean punched Jason in the face after Jason made a statement which annoyed him. Sean was emotionally upset by Jason’s statement which resulted in him punching Jason directly in the face. In a civil case, Jason can prove the intent postulated by Sean; it was to cause injury and physical contact which was offensive to Jason. When they had an argument about who should purchase the last iPod, Sean hits Jason with an intention to hurt and scare him. On the other hand, the tort of property was committed by Jason because he hit Jason with a computer box on the back. After he was punched in the face by Sean, Jason in turn hits Sean on the back with a computer box. In a civil case, Dana can sue him for using her property as a weapon to hit Sean. The tort of personal injury was also committed by Dana because she handcuffed Sean and Jason and locked them up. Sean in particularly traumatized since after the incident he was unable to check into any electronics store altogether.

 Dana does not have a defense to her own causes of action which could prevent liability in certain circumstances. In a civil case, her actions which involved the handcuffing of both Sean and Jason and in turn locking them up were illegal. She falsely imprisoned them without their consent until the following day. Sean and Jason are victims of false imprisonment, emotional distress and harm.

 Fraudulent misrepresentation is an intentional misrepresentation of material fact, relied upon by a plaintiff which then results in damages. Here, Dana has a valid cause of action against Smooth because he (Smooth) claimed the car had only a mileage of 12,000miles which was very important as part of the deal. Secondly, the plaintiff must prove the intent to deceive. Dana has a valid cause to take a legal action against Smooth used cars since he told her that the car had a mileage of 12,000 miles only to realize later that it had already registered a mileage of 120,000 miles before it was put for sale. Thirdly, there must be reasonable reliance by the victim of the statement. Dana has no cause of action against Smooth because she entered into the contract of buying the car after relying on the information from Smooth. Smooth cars can defend it-self by stating that the contract was agreed upon by both the parties and signed without objection. The fourth element involves proving that the misrepresentation caused damages. Dana has a valid cause of action against Smooth used cars, in the sense that, the deception caused her to be financially unstable which was as a result of the statement postulated by Smooth used cars.   

  Negligence is an unintentional violation of a legal duty to use the required standard of care. Negligence has several elements which include the element of proof. The law does not impose legal duty to use certain standard of care. This element is based on the argument on whether there was an unintentional act in the first place; the law imposes the duty with certain standard of care, when there is a violation of the required standard of care as well as when the negligence of the defendant causes the plaintiff’s damages. I think I was negligent since I left the professor to later suffer medical complications as a result of drowning. Had I saved him, he would not have suffered that much.

 The defenses of negligence include: comparative negligence. It requires that the recovery of the plaintiff be reduced by the percentage of fault which the jury attributes to the plaintiff. It is generally a prerequisite to only partial forms of defenses. Second, is contributory negligence which allows the defendant to completely avoid liability after it is found out that the plaintiff was all along negligent in causing the damages. The third defense is the assumption of risk which allows the defendant to avoid liability in cases whereby the plaintiff voluntarily encountered a known risk. The fourth defense is the official immunity which allows government employees to escape liability for damages resulting from policy decisions when it is found out that there was never any form malice by the official who made the decision.

 Jones best defense against defamation is absolute privilege because when Stella Samson knew that Jones was highly intoxicated, she would not have boarded his vehicle. By the fact that she boarded his vehicle means Jones was sober.

 The constitutional rights of criminals protect them against unreasonable search and seizure. It requires that a court to find the specific probable cause for the legal arrest made as well as those against definite searches and seizures of property. The right to remain silent is the second right of a criminal. It prevents the federal government from torturing suspects into confessions. Thirdly, is the protection against double-jeopardy which is basically the Fifth Amendment right which forbids two trials of a criminal defendant for the same offense committed. The right to notice of charges requires that the criminal be informed of their exact charge. This right prepares the defenses to the crime. The right of confrontation is the Sixth Amendment. The sixth right is the right to speedy trial by jury. Lastly, is the right to counsel. It is the right to assess attorney’s representation. Dan cannot be charged with robbery because he did not take the car by force neither did he threaten to use force. He can neither be charged with burglary since he did not use the car with the intent to commit a crime inside. He cannot also be charged with larceny since he did not permanently take the car. However, he can be charged with embezzlement by using the car without the consent of the owner. Miranda’s conviction was reversed on the basic test for admissibility to determine whether or not the confession was voluntary. I think Miranda’s warning assesses the voluntary nature of the admission in the context of the totality of the facts in the case against criminals.