Introduction
A tort is a definite civil mistake rather than a breach of contract. This is identifiable before a court of law. Torts are compensated through damages. Observably, certain acts remain unlawful and might be prosecuted before a court of law. According to Statsky (2001), a tort differs from any criminal act because it entails legal disagreements between two or more personalities. Evidently, crime involves state prosecution of people who have breached certain legal provisions. The case presented in this scenario depicts a typical instance of tort. This paper discusses types of tort and possible risks among other provisions. Additionally, it indicates the disparities amongst them. Moreover, it highlights the potential tort risks depicted within the scenario.
Types of Tort in the Scenario and the Differences among Them
Generally, a tort incorporates injury inflicted knowingly or unintentionally by an individual or entity upon another. An analysis of the scenario presents different types of tort. For example, the first tort emanates from Tom and Fred. Apparently, these two do not cherish the idea of other entrepreneurs investing in the Sunny Market Place. When they invaded the J&M jewelry, Tom and Fred committed an “intentional harm to tangible property (Geest, 2009).” After breaking into the J&M jewelry business premises, Tom and Fred destructed notable jewelry cases. Additionally, they took some of this jewelry minus the owner’s permission. In this act, it can be deduced that Tom and Fred committed trespass to chattels. Basically, this is because they deny the J&M jewelry business owners the entitlement of property possession.
In another example, Tom and Fred are observed to commit the tort of trespass against chattels. This is basically due to their indulgence in property property theft. In addition, they are said to have vandalized and destroyed their business counterparts’ property on sale. Therefore, they remain liable for prosecution. Tom and Fred also commit the tort of conversion. Conversion is an operation that interferes with the usage rights applicable to all property owners (Koziol & Steininger, 2008). Because the conversion is a severe tort, the offenders might be legally bound to pay the entire value of the destroyed property to the two business owners. Judy and Julie committed intentional harm Tom and Fred. This is because they confronted Tom and Fred after learning of their invasion. Perhaps, it can be speculated that they had an intention of physically barring their attackers from escaping with the jewelry. It is important to understand these provisions in the context of justice.
Julie and Mary’s confrontation of their property invaders demonstrated an assault. In this confrontation, Julie commits an intentional harm when she slaps Tom. Perhaps, her motives to inflict pain and quench her anger on Tom make the act intentional. Therefore, she definitely falls at risk of being prosecuted. Julie’s action in the scenario largely portrays battery. For instance, Julie slaps Tom without his permission. On reaction to Julie’s outburst, Tom commits an intentional harm on Julie by pushing her to the extent that she suffers a fracture. In fact, Tom commits both an assault and a battery on Julie. As the events unwind in the scenario, Mary commits harm to intangible property interests (Statsky, 2001). She announces in the media for the public to evade the Deluxe Jewelry. Her commission of defamation and slander against Deluxe Jewelry is notable when she publicly announces the dishonesty of the proprietors of Deluxe Jewelry. In her actions, Mary also commits harm to Deluxe Jewelry’s economic interests. This emanates mainly through negligent misrepresentation and intrusion into contractual relationships of the Deluxe Jewelry.
Potential Tort Risks in the Scenario
There are considerable cases where potential tort risks can be identified in the provided scenario. This is demonstrated when Julie and Mary confronts Tom and Fred. Observably, Tom and Fred blame the Sunny Market Place’s management for having allowed Julie and Mary to establish a similar jewelry business within the complex. The tort risk here is that Tom and Fred claim that the management committed a tort of negligence. According to them, this occurred by permitting the J&M jewelry business to be established within the complex. Tom and Fred are observed to purport to trespasser tort (Geest, 2009). In their own perception, the management could not have allowed the entrance of Julie and Mary into the business premise. This is a critical provision in the entire contexts.
Concurrently, Tom and Fred allege that the management of the complex committed “Res ipsa loquitur.” According to their claims, the management of the complex was negligent when permitting Mary and Julie to establish their business within the complex (Koziol & Steininger, 2008). Observably, Julie’s reaction to the situation by slapping Tom creates another potential tort. This is because she is a victim of attempted harm and assault. This occurs despite the fact that her property was destroyed. Indeed, it is a potential tort risk because Tom might apply this against her in a legal court. Although initially innocent, she becomes guilty of assault as indicated earlier.
References
Geest, G. (2009). Encyclopedia of law and economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Koziol, H., & Steininger, B. (2008). European tort law 2007. Wien: Springer Verlag.
Statsky, W. P. (2001). Essentials of torts. Albany, NY: West/Thomson Learning.