No other actions have yet been brought. State family services agency 1. Standard of care Paul could allege that the State family services agency was negligent in two different ways: The question of whether the State family services agency acted negligently would depend upon an evaluation of what a reasonable agency in the same position would have done, which would be a mixed question of fact and law for the jury to decide. If it acted with reasonable care in making that assessment, then obviously it will not be held liable because it was not negligent at all.
Proximate cause If the agency failed to take reasonable care in the assessment and return of Paul, an issue of proximate cause arises. The possibility that Deirdre might not be able to look after Paul because of substance abuse was the very risk that the agency should have guarded against when considering whether to return Paul to Deirdre. The hospital did not harm Paul in some way that was completely different from the injuries he had sustained when falling from the balcony.
That should not relieve the agency of liability for those injuries. Qualified immunity State governments and their agencies enjoy a limited or qualified immunity from liability in negligence, a remnant of their former sovereign immunity. Most states hold state government agencies immune from liability for discretionary or policy decisions. The rationale underlying that immunity derives ultimately from the doctrine of separation of powers. Courts are reluctant to intervene in decisions that are made by governments for political, social or economic reasons.
If the policy had no rational basis, the court might yet intervene to review it, but if it is based on a consideration of economic and social factors, the courts of most states would hold the agency immune from liability.
Decisions about the al location of limited sums of tax dollars are the very stuff of government, and their wisdom cannot be challenged in a tort action. For example, in Riss v. The police department had not assumed a duty to the plaintiff by giving her the reasonable impression that it would respond to her call for help. Third Party defendants 1. Joint and several liability. If Paul makes no attempt to sue other defendants, the agency may make third party claims against other actors in an attempt to reduce its liability exposure.
For each third party claim by the agency, the key question will be whether the third party would have been liable to Paul if he had sued them directly. The following sections consider that key question as if were raised in a direct action by Paul against that person as defendant.
However, many states have a rule of complete parental immunity from liability in negligence, with the result that a child like Paul could not sue his mother for any harm that befell him as a result of her negligence. If this incident occurred in such a state, Paul would not be able to recover from Deirdre, so the agency would not be able to recover a contribution from her, either. Other states have modified the rule of complete parental immunity, retaining it for cases of negligent supervision but removing it in cases where the parent actively created the risk of injury to the child.
See, for example, Goller v. This case would pose some difficulties in a state adhering to such a rule, as it could fall on either side of the line — or both. The school has been standing empty while ABC attempts to find a buyer for the site. Although ABC placed fencing around the site, local residents reported that youths had broken into the site on a number of occasions. Last week a group of youths from a nearby young offenders institution, operated by Chigley Services Ltd CS under contract to the Home Office, broke into the disused school and set fire to it.
The youths had been clearing rubbish from a neighbouring stream and were supposed to have been under the supervision of Justin and Jason, both of whom are CS employees. However, Justin and Jason had gone for a cigarette break and left the youths unsupervised at the time the break-in occurred.
The fire caused damage to neighbouring property including a baker's shop owned by Mark. It is likely to be many weeks before the business can reopen and Mark stands to lose many thousands of pounds in lost profits. It later transpired that the fire would not have had time to spread to neighbouring property had the Fire Brigade acted more swiftly.
The Amber Valley Fire engine was unavailable at the time and another engine had to be dispatched from Leicester. The crew got lost on the way because they put the wrong address in the sat-nav satellite navigation device. Advise Mark in respect of any claims he may have if any. In this question, we are asked to advise Mark as to the possible claims he might have. March, Date submitted: April 23, Coursework ID: Introduction This question requires an examination of the tort of negligence, specifically in relation to establishing the necessary causative links to permit the recovery of damage.
A successful claim in the tort April 08, Coursework ID: Advise Murphy in respect of any claims he may have if any. In order to have a successful claim in a tort case, it must be clear that the defendant owes claimant a duty of care and there was a breach of the duty April 26, Coursework ID: The law on private nuisance, frequently presents a number of uncertainties with respect to its application in any given scenario February, Date submitted: April 15, Coursework ID: June 27, Coursework ID: This is not to disparage the value of and need for a test of liability in tortuous negligence, which any law of tort must propound if it is not to become a morass of single instances.
Thus, Amy must show the additional elements of falsity and malice in order to recover from DB. This statement may have been true but it is clear from the facts that at the time that DB published this, they did not know it to be true. In addition, Reporter presumed that Amy was a suspect because of what she was told by Officer Oren. However, Officer Oren did not say Amy was a suspect, what he said was that he would not be surprised if she were to become a suspect. There is a question of fact here as to whether or not Officer Oren, as a non-participant in the investigation, could be considered a reliable source.
A jury on this question could go either way. Truth as a Defense Truth is a defense to defamation. In addition to what the story said on its face, Here the story implied that Amy may have been responsible for the death of her son. This was proven to be false. The official autopsy report indicated that her son died of a rare heart condition and no foul play was involved. In addition to what the story said on its face, the story implied that Amy may have been responsible for the death of her son.
Essay Trainer Contact Law Firms. Enroll Ready to get started? You're just a few minutes from having your own BarGraders account. Libel Per Se Grader Comments: Public Plaintiff Grader Comments: Good use of facts. Some credit given for discussion, though not clearly set out as a defense. Suggested by the facts. Vicarious Liability Through the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable for the torts of its employees that are conducted within the scope of the employment.
Defamation A person may be liable under a theory of defamation for the publication of defamatory statements of or concerning the plaintiff. This means she must show that they printed the story either knowing that it contained false statements or with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity.
Amy will aruge that because the Reporter did not verify the information she received from Officer Oren, nor did she speak with either the coroner or Amy, that she acted with reckless disregard for the truth of the story. Defenses DB will attempt to assert the defense of 1st Amendment freedom of the press. However, the 1st Amendment does not protect defamatory statements and under the facts above, Amy should be successful in her cause of action against DB under a theory of defamation.
In addition, DB will try and assert that they are not liable because they retracted the story, however, retraction does not take away their liability. Group with discussion of causes of action Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress A plaintiff may recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress if the defendant intended or acted with extreme outrageousness to cause emotional distress and the plaintiff suffered emotional distress.
Here there are no facts to indicate that Reporter's conduct was so outrageous as to transcend all bounds of human decency. Thus, Amy will probably not recover under this theory. Use a heading to highlight this as a separate issue She also would not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress because she that theory of liability requires that she suffer physical harm and there are no facts indicating that any such harm was suffered.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress A plaintiff may recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress if the defendant intended or acted with extreme outrageousness to cause emotional distress and the plaintiff suffered emotional distress. She also would not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress because she that theory of liability requires that she suffer physical harm and there are no facts indicating that any such harm was suffered.
In addition to what the story said on its face,Here the story implied that Amy may have been responsible for the death of her son. Torts Amy, a prominent women's rights activist, is a resident of Yuba City, California. She was the mother of Benny, who was 18 years old. Benny lived at home with Amy, while attending Community College. Amy named herself as the insurance policy's beneficiary.
Two weeks after his 18th birthday, Benny died mysteriously of a heart attack. Reporter, who works for The Daily Breeze Yuba City's daily newspaper , discovered the existence of the insurance policy on Benny's life.
The selection of tort law essays below have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies. Please remember to reference drossel.tk if you wish to cite any of these essays in .
Question #1 Paul, aged three years, was badly injured when he fell from a third-floor balcony at the apartment block where he lived with his mother, Deirdre.
Tort Law is more commonly called personal injury law. It is intended to compensate you if someone's carelessness, recklessness or intentional misconduct injures or /5(8). Intentional Tort - This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from .
Tort usually refers to the causing of damage to property or to a person's reputation, or harm to a person's commercial interests. Wrongful act, other than a breach of contract, that injures another and for which the law permits a civil (noncriminal) action to be brought. May 31, · This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of .