Tort Cases Caledonia

Running head: Tort Cases

Synopsis of Tort Case

Team E

Alexander Estrada

Ida Brewer

Cindy Breymeier

Annette Myers

BUS 415

University of Phoenix

The following scenario will give us the opportunity to determine which is the best approach to each of them, we will determine who is responsible an until what point that responsibility will be penalized in a court of law.

Scenario 1

The tort actions in this scenario are Malik falling and losing two front teeth(battery), Daniel being accused of giving his son beer (defamation of character), Malik threatening Daniel with a gun (assault), Daniel shooting Malik (battery), and Daniel slipping into a diabetic coma from the soda (res ipsa loquitur).

Potential plaintiffs in this case is Malik for being pushed by Daniel after an accident and in turn losing two of his front teeth. Daniel, for being accused of giving his son beer, and as a result losing his job; also for receiving a regular soda instead of diet and slipping into a diabetic coma. Again would be Daniel against Malik, although Malik was the one who was shot Daniel believed to be personally threatened by Malik's actions.

Potential defendants in this scenario would include Daniel not knowing that Malik would have such injuries. Daniel's boss for not knowing the full situation and firing Daniel. Malik for being shot at by Daniel. Last, the concession stand worker for giving the wrong soda because of all the commotion at the time.

In the battery case of Malik against Daniel, Malik did not purposely intend to harm Rueben or offend in any way. This was a mere accident that should not have led to physical violence. In the case of Daniel against the woman for defamation of character, she did not know the full story nor see him giving his son beer to accuse him publically of so resulting in his boss overhearing and immediately firing Daniel from his job. In the case of Daniel against the concession stand worker for res ipsa loquitur, Daniel asked for diet for medical reasons and because of negligence was given a regular soda, which caused his body to go into a diabetic coma. This could have been life threatening had Daniel began driving. In the last case of Malik against Daniel for battery, although Malik was the ending victim that was shot, Daniel responded to Malik's actions of assault and believed to be threatened resulting in his actions. This case could lead to a different judgment on both parties side.

Defenses for the Defendants are Daniel did not know that the railing would give way causing Malik to fall further. The woman for only smelling beer on the child. The concession stand worker did not know Daniel's medical background. Finally, Daniel did not know the gun pointed by Malik was not loaded.

Daniel will be rewarded for the lost wages from his terminated job; he should also receive a battery charge for pushing Malik. I do not think that he should be held responsible for the shooting of Malik because he did it in what appeared to be self-defense. Malik will be rewarded pain and suffering for the faulty railing as a result of being pushed and should also receive an assault charge. The concession stand worker should be responsible for any medical bills because of negligence.

Scenario 2

Anna is the first individual plaintiff. Anna can sue the restaurant due to their negligence and deliver her food with glass. This is going to be a case of Res Ipsa Loquitur because the case of glass in food is an obvious case of negligence. Anna have another case of negligence against the doctor that mixed up patients and wrongfully amputated Anna's leg the case of malpractice and for breach of contract. Doctor's duty was to verify patience information before any surgery to know which patient required what surgery and not to mix up the patients.

Anna has the right to go after the doctor for battery as she did not give her authorization to the doctor to amputate her leg; her consent was to perform surgery on her mouth due to injury from biting on the glass at the restaurant. We can describe this case as unwanted touching respond at superior the hospital can be named as a defendant in this case as not only the doctor is the only one responsible to check patience before; Anna have high possibilities to succeed in all of these cases.

Customers at the restaurant that were injured from burns, being trampled and smoke inhalation can successfully sue the restaurant for negligence and insecure installations as the restaurant do not have emergency exits; the inability to handle the situation by the restaurant managers and employees cause all the customers to panic and flee.

It was the duty of the wait staff to be cautious of their surroundings and the duty of the restaurant and their employees to manage the commotion and safe exit of the customers.

In Anna case her demand have a very solid base and

...