I.R.A.C. on Torts PDF

Preview

Summary

Completed IRAC that covers Torts...

Description

I. Issue #1 Whether or not Victoria can sue Mike, Chris and Karl for the most common type of tort, negligence. R. Rule A tort is a wrongful action done by one party which causes injury or damage to another party. Torts are common law, which means its legal principles have developed from court cases rather than statutes. Negligence is a type of unintentional tort that involves a person causing injury to another person, by doing an action with less caution than a “reasonable person”. Negligence is considered unintentional because the person performing the action did not mean to harm another person, but the injury occurred because of his or her carelessness. In order to win a negligence case, four elements must be present. These include duty, breach of that duty, proximate cause, and injury to another. Duty means that the defendant owed a legal obligation to the plaintiff. Breach of that duty means if the defendant did not meet his duty to act “reasonably”. If the defendant did not act reasonably and an injury occurred, that means there was proximate cause of the injury. Proximate cause means that the plaintiff's injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant's lack of care. If all of these elements are present, one can claim negligence against a defendant. The reasonable person standard is key in a negligence case, and one will get in trouble with the law for not acting in a reasonable manner if another person is injured. A. Application To assess whether or not Victoria can sue Mike, Chris, and Karl for negligence, the action needs to have the four elements that make up negligence. First, the three guys must have owed a legal obligation to the plaintiff. Each one of them had the duty to take reasonable care in all of

their actions, especially regarding fire hazards, and not cause injury. In this situation, that was not the case. The three agreed that it was a good idea to throw gasoline covered scrap material into a fire surrounded by students. This scrap material included old shingles, tar buckets, nails, etc. It was unreasonable for them to think that putting scrap material in a fire was a good idea. Therefore, they breached that duty. There was direct causation in this situation because their careless actions regarding the fire caused direct injury to Victoria. This injury occurred specifically because of Mike, Chris, and Karl’s unreasonable behavior. There was also proximate cause in this situation, because injury from an exploded bonfire is a foreseeable event. The boys should have known that injury would occur if they lit gasoline covered metal with a rifle. Finally, Victoria suffered from an injury that will cause her to suffer for the rest of her life. All elements are met for Victoria’s argument for negligence. Even though there are ways to show these elements are all met, Mike, Chris, and Karl could argue that this situation was not negligence. They could blame Victoria for standing too close to a fire, therefore foregoing their duty of safety to her. If she was endangering herself for getting to close to the fire, they would not be held liable for her injury.

C. Conclusion For the following reasons, I conclude that Victoria should win in a negligence case against Mike, Chris, and Karl. She has reasons that prove that they are at fault for her injury, even if they did not mean to severely injure her. All of the elements are met for negligence, which would give her a strong case against Mike, Chris, and Karl. I. Issue #2 Whether or not Victoria can sue Donovan Roofing and Siding in reference to strict

liability and ultrahazardous activity. R. Rule Strict liability originated in order to protect people that suffered from an injury that was not the result from negligent behavior. There are many situations that occur that harm and injure others without anyone acting in a negligent way. Because negligence requires unreasonable actions, plaintiffs would not win a negligence case if they got injured and the defendant took careful actions. Therefore, strict liability was created and is now required by businesses in order to pay for injuries that result from an action with regards to their company. If one person engages in ultrahazardous activities and it causes injury, the business is liable for injuries whether or not they acted reasonably. A. Application Mike and Karl both work for Donovan Roofing and Siding, so they thought it would be a good idea to get rid of their scrap material at the bonfire and use their equipment to transfer it. Not only was Donovan Roofing and Siding equipment used, but he was also advertising his company at the event. In the end, it was nails imprinted with Donovan Roofing and Siding that exploded out of the firepit and injured Victoria’s hand. For this reason, burning the scrap metal should be seen as an ultrahazardous activity. On the other hand, Donovan Roofing and Siding could say that it was not their material itself, but the hunting rifle that caused the damage. The hunting rifle did not specifically belong to Donovan Roofing and siding. Therefore they could say that strict liability would not apply in this situation. C. Conclusion For the following reasons, I conclude that Victoria has the right to sue Donovan Roofing and Siding and should receive compensatory damages. This is because Mike is an employee of

Donovan Roofing and Siding, and while the gun was not a direct belonging of the company, the metals that ultimately damaged Victoria were. Also, shooting a rifle into a pile of gasoline metal should count as an ultrahazardous activity because it was the company's way of getting rid of their scrap materials. I. Issue # 3 Whether or not Victoria should get compensated for noneconomic damages due to her inability to further her career in writing and driving racecars. R. Rule Noneconomic damages are refer to injuries that can not be quickly healed, but instead are permanent injuries that will cause a long period or endless pain and suffering. If one can not work, becomes paralyzed, blinded, etc. they are subject to pain and suffering compensation. To calculate noneconomic damages, the plaintiffs actual damages (medical bills and lost wages) are multiplied by a number from 1-5, depending on the severity of the injury. States have enacted tort reform laws in order to place monetary limits on noneconomic damages. A. Application The injury that the bonfire explosion caused to Victoria’s hands were so severe that it would impair the ability for her to type for the rest of her life. Victoria’s future plans were to write for a business journal and drive a racecar, which were now no longer a possibility. The injury to Victoria will impact her for the rest of her life and destroyed her future career. However, one can argue that people that are amputees have been successful in the both of these careers, which may decrease the amount of money she receives. C. Conclusion For the following reasons, I conclude that Victoria is subject to pain and suffering

compensation. Her injury was severe enough to ruin her future and now she will suffer for the rest of her life. She deserves an award to make up for the future money she was going to make. Because she has to alter her entire career path, she will suffer immensely....