Home Examination - Case Study Example

Number: Lecturer: Tort Law Question Dayton is en d to some claims in this case. He can claim intentional liability on the infliction of emotional distress since Buster Ballplayer hit Dayton intentionally more so after the game had ended. If the injuries were inflicted accidentally during the game, other forms of claims would arise for example vicarious liability. In this case here was the intent to do the assault on Dayton, even if it could have happened during the game. In proving intentional claim, three elements must be proven by the plaintiff; the intent, a volitional act, and causation (Weaver et al. 53). The intention was clear in harming Dayton, which is enough to establish liability.

Also, Dayton can claim duty of care from the coach. The defendant can, on the other hand, defend himself on the principle of vicarious liability. The principle transfers the liability of the person causing injuries to the person responsible on the actions of the defendant under the law of agency on the principle of respondeat superior. There is no remedy for the defendant as he should not have injured Dayton even if he was to be paid. The damages will be clearly awarded to Dayton. Question 2 Lisa and David will sue Fred based on two theories of negligence; cause in fact and proximate cause.

Cause in fact postulates that the defendant’s negligent acts is the actual cause if the plaintiff’s injuries. Fred did not intend to cause any harm but his conduct of using a blunt knife which does not slice away the poisonous liver of the fish is the cause of the injuries. Lisa suffered from convulsions from the poisoning, leading to injuries. Proximate cause holds that the plaintiff must establish that the actions of the defendant were the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The direct correlation must be established between the defendant’s acts and the plaintiff’s injury.

These acts must not excessively be remote in terms of place and time. If it were not for the conduct of the defendant, there would not be injury on the plaintiff as a “cause in fact,” and the defendant’s acts were the cause in bringing about the injuries caused by the defendant (Weaver et al. 179). Therefore, there is nothing in law which can excuse the defendant from bearing the responsibility for his conduct. The case is based on negligence of the wrongdoer and to prove it, there are elements which must be determined; duty of care, breach of duty and causation.

Fred had a duty of care not to cause the harm, but he breached by not taking due diligence in preparing the delicacy which was the cause of injuries. There is a principle which can act as a defense for Fred; contributory negligence. It holds that if the plaintiff, in any way contributed to the injuries on himself/herself, then plaintiff is barred from recovering damages. Though, if it is determined that the defendant had the ‘last clear’ chance to avoid the occurrence of the accident, then, the defendant will have to take full responsibility to pay damages.

If the plaintiff had the last clear chance to avoid the same, then there are no damages to be awarded, acting as a complete defense for the defendant. Though, in many jurisdictions the law was reformed to allow partial defense and apportion loss to the parties involved (Weaver et al. 469). Considering the above scenario, it can be concluded in the dimensions discussed. On the first dimension, Fred should bear full responsibility for the injuries based on cause in fact and proximate cause. The other conclusion which can be made is the contributory negligence.

Being a unique delicacy; Lisa and David should have determined (inquired) if Fred had strictly followed the procedure of handling the fish before being set on the table as safe food. Secondly, they should know if Fred had duly trained and was certified to handle the kind of fish that he prepared. To Fred, contributory negligence shall act as a defense, but the court must apportion blame to the plaintiffs for not taking due diligence to avoid the injuries they suffered. Question 3 Product liability refers to the liability which a manufacturer must bear in case the product causes damage to the user.

They include the manufacturer of components, the assembler of parts, the wholesaler, and lastly the retailer. If a product contains inherent defects that can cause harm to the user or consumer, or who the product has been loaned to or given, then it has to be the subject of liability. The products are not only limited to tangible products, intangibles products like cooking gas, pets, real estate, and instructional writings such as navigational charts also are included. To qualify as a liability, claims must be based on negligence, strict liability or breach of warranty of fitness (Weaver et al. 683). Pauline is suing the ABC Company (manufacturer) and Happy-Go-Lucky Store on strict liability claiming that the blender had defects.

ABC countered her claims by pointing out that Pauline misused the blender hence causing the injuries as the blender complied with the industry standards of manufacture. Strict liability holds that an automatic responsibility for damages is due on the manufacturer if he/she/it is in breach or use of the equipment is inherently dangerous to the lives of others. In this case, Pauline did not follow the guidelines for use of the blender as provided for on the cautionary note. The blender was fully equipped with the cover than was sufficient for the role it was to play and with the right quantities of the contents to be blended.

The blender still had the required safety features labeled in the cautionary note. On the claim against Happy-Go-Lucky Store, the strict liability does not apply to it. All her claims, therefore, will be declined by the court. Works Cited Weaver, Russell L., et al. Torts: Cases, Problems, and Exercises. 3rd. New York: LexisNexis/Mathew Bender, 2009. Print.