Case Study 1
Crime may be defined as an act or omission prohibited or punished by law (Issues Online, 1). This involves the infringement of the criminal law which is a wrong against an individual or state. From the case conditions, a crime was committed by the members of Students for Fair Tuition (SFT) through the invasion of the Dunfee Hall and the attempted break down of the door to Dalton Chandler’s office who was the president of Gigantic State University (GSU). Another case of crime occurs when Steve Steel a radical leader of the SFT threatens to shoot at Chandler’s secretary with a squirt gun had she moved causing her to collapse through probable intense fear depicted in her sobbing. According to the law pointing a weapon to a defenseless and harmless person, in this case the squirt gun is prohibited and one can be convicted of crime.
By definition, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would be expected to do when guided by conditions of human conduct (WIKIPEDIA, 2). From the conditions in the case the president of GSU is negligent in the provision of standard Tuition fees. This is clearly shown by the action of the SFT in organizing a protest against the rising tuition costs at the University. If the president was a reasonable person he would have attended the problem in it’s early stages and not allow this to run out of proportion.
Law can be described as a set of commands of human conduct prescribed by human beings and for the obedience of human beings, and this to some extent is an expression of the morality of a particular people. Rights on the other hand are the things one is entitled to enjoy. In the law of torts, ‘harm’ is considered when there is physical invasion to a person there fore in the case there was no violation of this law as the secretary was not harmed by the action of the SFT leader in slapping off the phone from her hands. However, there was the infliction of fear in the secretary by the threats to shoot her if she moved which is considered an assault.
Since there was no case of physical invasion, the leader of the SFT and the members of his group cannot be held liable. This is because in the law of torts, ‘’harm’’ is taken as a physical invasion of a person or property and requires payment of damages for ‘’emotional’’ harm only if the harm is due to the physical invasion (Edward 1997, p.127-129) which was not the case in this case. This means that members of the SFT would only be held liable in tort liability only if the secretary was harmed physically.
In the case in GSU University, the possible tort liabilities can be discussed in brief as will follow. An assault is the creation of fear or apprehension of battery in one person by another (Edward 1997, p.129 -132). However, for an assault to be subject to legal action this has to be specific and close thus in accordance to the law of torts. Therefore in the case since the threats by SFT were merely verbal with possession of a toy weapon, there was no one liable in tort. Battery involves the infliction of violence to the person by another and involves physical contact which is an exception in this case as there was no case of this.
From the case it is clear that there was the infliction of emotional distress to the secretary evidenced by the inability of the secretary not report to work for a week after the incident occurred. Moreover, she could only reform and come back after heavy doses of tranquillizers prescribed by her doctor. False imprisonment is constituted when a person’s physical freedom is unlawfully restricted which is the case when the secretary is restricted from any movement by the SFT leader.
Case Study 2
From a simple definition, negligence involves doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. For the plaintiff to succeed in an action for negligence, he must prove that there existed a legal duty of care. Furthermore, he has to prove that there was a breach of that duty that caused harm to him. In the case in question, Steve Simple (the plaintiff) was owed a legal duty of care by the Minor State Teachers College (MSTC). It was in the duty of MSTC to ensure the safety of Steve which it failed, leading to a breach of the duty. Despite an earlier occurrence where pigeons were fried, MSTC did not take an obligation to repair the short circuit so as to provide safe working conditions for its employee. Due to the failure to meet the obligation, Steve is electrocuted in the course of his employment making MSTC liable in negligence. Therefore, the institution is prone to any legal action that can be taken by the plaintiff’s family in the view of settling damages.
Fault involves the taking of responsibilities for a wrong and this involves the liability of the defendant in reference to the plaintiff. In the case, the MSTC has to take responsibilities in the electrocution of Steve due to the breach of duty owed to him.
A defendant may behave negligently towards a plaintiff and yet still not be the cause of his injuries or misfortune. Therefore, causation is concerned with the problem of weather the defendants conduct caused the plaintiff’s damage. In this case, though the MSTC was negligent in carrying out its responsibilities of carrying out maintenance on the campus water tower it may be exempted from liability of causation.
The occurrence of a related event to a legal and recognized harm that can be held as its cause, will amount to proximate cause. In this case, though the main cause of the electrocution was due to lack of maintenance, the thunderstorm may have been the cause of the electrocution.
From the facts in the case, there is clear evidence of the assumption of risk by the plaintiff. It is used by a defendant as a defense to prevent a plaintiff from recovery against negligent tortfeasor only if he can prove that the plaintiff knowingly and willingly assumed the risks inherent to the dangerous activity he is about to undertake (WIKIPEDIA, 1). In the case, Stephen assumed the risk he was posing himself to by climbing to the water tower in a thunderstorm where he could easily be struck by lightening or the short circuit due to the water from the rain. From the facts in the case MSTC win its defense through the defense of assumption of risk.
Where the plaintiff shows lack of reasonable care for his own safety when undertaking certain obligations, this will amount in contributory negligence (WIKIPEDIA, 1). In such cases the court has the power to cancel the damages awarded to the plaintiff if he is found guilty of this. In the case before hand, Steve Simple is guilty of contributory negligence. From the facts at hand, we are seeing him climb the campus water tower despite the progression of the tremendous thunderstorm just after taking a six pack of Hudepohl beer. A reasonable man can not do what Steve did and therefore his electrocution; despite the MSTC liability, he is also guilty of contributory negligence.
Comparative negligence is a modification of the contributory negligence, where the court will have a right to reduce the amount of damages that can be awarded to a plaintiff if he is found guilty of contributory negligence. From the case, the plaintiff is guilty in the sense that he went to work despite the risky conditions of weather which could have had a contribution in the short circuiting due to the presence of rain water.
Works Cited
“Assumption of risk.” WIKIPEDIA: The Free Encyclopedia. 2009. Web.
“Chain of causation.” WIKIPEDIA: The Free Encyclopedia. 2009. Web.
“Negligence.” WIKIPEDIA: The Free Encyclopedia. 2009. Web.
Rothbard, Murray. “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution: The Logic of Action Two, Cheltenham.” Edward Elgar. (1997) pp. 127-132.