Tort/Crimes Assignment
Bethany Gardner
1. Martellio Bennetto
a. Claims Against:
i. Vs. Adam Pacman Bones
1. Rule: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
a. Rule Definition: An intentional infliction tort of emotional distress is when the defendant performs an intentional act that results in emotional distress and
b. Analysis: The defendant intentionally broke the electronic lift, out of anger, which caused the plaintiff to experience emotional distress.
c. Conclusion: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
b. Defenses:
i. Rule: Intentional Torts
1. Definition: The person committing the tort intentionally committed an act that they knew would result in specific consequences.
2. Analysis: Bones intended on damaging the the scaffolding …show more content…
Conclusion: Strict Product Liability
c. Defenses:
i. Rule: Negligence
1. Definition: When a reasonable person fails to do their duty to take a certain standard of care in their circumstances.
2. Analysis: The caution tape was not clearly evident along with the above threat.
6. Freaky Fireworks, Inc. (FFW)
a. Claims Against:
i. Vs. No one
b. Defenses: Negligence
i. Rule: contributory negligence
1. Definition: the complaining party’s own negligence caused her own injuries.
2. Analysis: Elizabeth Smart was speeding at 40 MPH in a 20 MPH zone. Her own speeding caused her to run slam on her breaks. ii. Privacy of contract
1. Definition: a relationship that is present
2. Analysis: Elizabeth Smart was aware that she was driving a truck full of fireworks and should have taken more precautions while driving their truck.
7. City of Eugene (owner of the Train)
a. Claims Against:
i. Vs. FFW
1. Rule: Negligence
a. Rule Definition: When a reasonable person fails to do their duty to take a certain standard of care in their circumstances.
b. Analysis: FFW employee should have taken care. She was driving a truck full of explosives. She was also driving double the stated speed …show more content…
Defenses:
i. Rule: Superseding cause
1. Definition: When an event damages the connection between wrongful acts and injury to another person.
2. Analysis: Even though the Train Engineer was smoking marijuana before his shift, the FFW truck crashed into their train. Therefore, they should not be found liable.
8. Train Engineer
a. Claims Against: none
i. Vs. Eugene Police Department
1. Rule: Fifth amendment right
a. Rule Definition: no one is to be required to incriminate themselves.
b. Analysis: The EPD arrested the Train Engineer at the scene where he admitted to smoking marijuana 15 minutes before.
c. Conclusion: Self incrimination
b. Defenses:
i. Rule: Fifth Amendment Right
1. Definition: no one is to be required to incriminate themselves.
2. Analysis: The Train Engineer was not read his Miranda rights by the police when arrested. ii. 9. 20 Injured citizens of Eugene, NM
a. Claims Against:
i. Vs. City Of Eugene
1. Rule: Negligence
a. Rule Definition: When a reasonable person fails to do their duty to take a certain standard of care in their circumstances.
b. Analysis:
c. Conclusion:
b. Defenses: none
10. EPD (defendant)
a. Defenses:
i. Vs. Adam Pacman Bones
1. Rule: Fourth
Bethany Gardner
1. Martellio Bennetto
a. Claims Against:
i. Vs. Adam Pacman Bones
1. Rule: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
a. Rule Definition: An intentional infliction tort of emotional distress is when the defendant performs an intentional act that results in emotional distress and
b. Analysis: The defendant intentionally broke the electronic lift, out of anger, which caused the plaintiff to experience emotional distress.
c. Conclusion: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
b. Defenses:
i. Rule: Intentional Torts
1. Definition: The person committing the tort intentionally committed an act that they knew would result in specific consequences.
2. Analysis: Bones intended on damaging the the scaffolding …show more content…
Conclusion: Strict Product Liability
c. Defenses:
i. Rule: Negligence
1. Definition: When a reasonable person fails to do their duty to take a certain standard of care in their circumstances.
2. Analysis: The caution tape was not clearly evident along with the above threat.
6. Freaky Fireworks, Inc. (FFW)
a. Claims Against:
i. Vs. No one
b. Defenses: Negligence
i. Rule: contributory negligence
1. Definition: the complaining party’s own negligence caused her own injuries.
2. Analysis: Elizabeth Smart was speeding at 40 MPH in a 20 MPH zone. Her own speeding caused her to run slam on her breaks. ii. Privacy of contract
1. Definition: a relationship that is present
2. Analysis: Elizabeth Smart was aware that she was driving a truck full of fireworks and should have taken more precautions while driving their truck.
7. City of Eugene (owner of the Train)
a. Claims Against:
i. Vs. FFW
1. Rule: Negligence
a. Rule Definition: When a reasonable person fails to do their duty to take a certain standard of care in their circumstances.
b. Analysis: FFW employee should have taken care. She was driving a truck full of explosives. She was also driving double the stated speed …show more content…
Defenses:
i. Rule: Superseding cause
1. Definition: When an event damages the connection between wrongful acts and injury to another person.
2. Analysis: Even though the Train Engineer was smoking marijuana before his shift, the FFW truck crashed into their train. Therefore, they should not be found liable.
8. Train Engineer
a. Claims Against: none
i. Vs. Eugene Police Department
1. Rule: Fifth amendment right
a. Rule Definition: no one is to be required to incriminate themselves.
b. Analysis: The EPD arrested the Train Engineer at the scene where he admitted to smoking marijuana 15 minutes before.
c. Conclusion: Self incrimination
b. Defenses:
i. Rule: Fifth Amendment Right
1. Definition: no one is to be required to incriminate themselves.
2. Analysis: The Train Engineer was not read his Miranda rights by the police when arrested. ii. 9. 20 Injured citizens of Eugene, NM
a. Claims Against:
i. Vs. City Of Eugene
1. Rule: Negligence
a. Rule Definition: When a reasonable person fails to do their duty to take a certain standard of care in their circumstances.
b. Analysis:
c. Conclusion:
b. Defenses: none
10. EPD (defendant)
a. Defenses:
i. Vs. Adam Pacman Bones
1. Rule: Fourth