Synopsis of Tort Cases

Synopsis of Tort Cases

                                                           Team B

Brian Schenker, Yesid Andres Rodas, Alvaro Bidart

BUS/415 Business Law

January 31, 2012

Judge Gregory P. Holder

Synopsis of Tort Cases

Throughout business law course BUS/415, different scenarios were given.  Team B has made legal decisions based on the known information and the material learned in the previous chapters.  Tort laws provide remedial compensation for damages. Segments of tort laws include intentional torts against persons, negligence found under unintentional torts, special negligence doctrines for professionals and, strict liability and product liability for manufacturers (Cheeseman, 2010).  The next segment in evaluating tort cases will go into more detail. Four examples of tort cases are provided and Team B is set to explain the variables of each case.  For each example, Team B will provide tort actions, potential plaintiffs, potential defendants, and reasons for choosing those defendants.  Then provide the elements of the tort claim that constitute the plaintiff’s claim and any defense the defendants may emphasize.  Finally, Team B will provide an admission for legal reasons explaining how the claim will be resolved.     

Scenario 1

        This scenario presents multiple tort liability.  Malik is at a football game sitting next to Daniel and his son Rueben.  During the game, the quarterback drops back to throw a pass and the opposing player violently tackles the quarterback breaking his arm.  This is battery, but the quarterback assumes the risk in a contact sport.  Malik jumps up to yell at the referee and accidently spills his beer on Rueben.  This is battery without intent.  Daniel gets up and shoves Malik.  As Malik is falling he grabs onto the railing system which gives way allowing him to land on his face and lose two teeth in the process.  The tort in this instance would involve intentional tort.  Intentional tort requires that the defendant possessed the intent to do the act that caused the plaintiff’s injuries (Cheeseman, 2010).  Malik would be within legal rights to pursue a criminal wrong and file for battery.  Battery is unauthorized or offensive bodily contact. Daniel attacked Malik without warning and initiated the contact.  Malik could also file a claim against the stadium, the manufacturer of the railing, and contractor who installed the rail system.  The stadium, manufacturer, and the contractor could argue that the hand rail is not made to withstand such a force and that they passed code when originally inspected by the city.  

The defense on the behalf of the defendant is a counterclaim of battery upon his son and applies the doctrine of comparative negligence.  Malik spilled his beer on the defendant’s son, Ruben.  Daniel was coming to the aid of his son for fear that he was endangered by the reckless act of Malik throwing his beer.  There was no intent by Malik.  The judgment made will award damages to the plaintiff, Malik, based on battery resulting in bodily harm and damage.  The plaintiff will recover punitive and, pain and suffering damages.  Daniel will not receive any damages.