Synopsis of Torts Running Head: SYNOPSIS OF TORTS PAPER

Synopsis of Torts

Team C University of Phoenix BUS 415 - Business Law

Synopsis of Torts Introduction

Scenario1:

Scenario 2: Anna Anna is the primary character in this string of events. The tort claims that directly involve her include 2 personal injury torts due to negligence, one of which could be considered malpractice. In the lawsuit related to the glass in the food, Anna is the plaintiff and the restaurant (owner) is the defendant. The elements of the tort claim are the duty - food that is provided without sharp inedible objects; the breach is that there was a piece of glass in the food; the causation was negligence, likely due to inadequate controls around the food preparation process; the damages were a broken tooth and laceration of the mouth. The defense could relate back to a bad batch of sausage from the restaurant's supplier. In the lawsuit related to the inadvertent amputation of Anna's right leg, Anna is the plaintiff and the doctor is the defendant. The elements of the tort claim are the duty - meticulous attention to patient care, particularly when surgery is involved; the breach is that the right leg was amputated rather than fixing the laceration in the mouth; the causation is that the surgeon's lack of confirmation that they had the correct patient led to mistaking the mouth surgery patient for the prospective amputee; the damages were that the right leg is missing and the mouth was still bleeding. There may not be a reasonable defense for this one. The malpractice case is likely the most serious due to the inadvertent amputation. Anna can probably look forward to hundreds of thousands of dollars from the malpractice suit and

Synopsis of Torts thousands of dollars for the glass in her food. Considerations of actual damages could include out-of-pocket expenses, medical bills, and lost income. Punitive damages are also possible due to the extreme negligence on behalf of the surgeon that amputated her right leg. In the lawsuit related to the trampled old lady, the revolving door did not provide adequate area to get a crowd out of a restaurant quickly and safely, leading to injuries sustained during the trampling. The patrons of the restaurant suffered smoke inhalation and burns. The defense may assert that the fire protection system was up to code and everyone got out alive. Scenario 3: SureCo, Inc. The tort actions in this case would be intentional misrepresentation (fraud) or deceit. Franco deceived his clients out of money by guarantying them that their premiums would never go up. The second tort action in this case would be the client Raul suing SureCo, Inc., for deception and misrepresentation. The third tort action in this case would be breach of fiduciary duty by Franco to SureCo, Inc. The fourth tort action would be Franco filing a lawsuit of

defamation of character against SureCo, Inc. The last tort action in this case would be intentional battery to Raul causing permanent blindness to his eye. The identity of the plaintiffs would be the customers of SureCo, Inc., who had their policy increase by Franco. The second plaintiff would be the boss of SureCo, Inc. because Franco broke the breach of fiduciary duty to SureCo, Inc. The third plaintiff would be Franco to SureCo, Inc. because the boss defamed him in front of the other agents about stealing. Finally the last plaintiff would be Raul. In this case the defendants SureCo, Inc. because Franco was their agent. Because Franco was their agent at SureCo, Inc. is responsible for increasing their policy that guaranteed their

Synopsis of Torts

clients that their premium would never go up. The second defendant would be Franco because he committed breach of duty by deceiving the customers. The third defendant would be the boss because she defamed Franco to the other agents about getting terminated for stealing when in fact he did not steal anything. The last defendant would be the boss for intentional battery to Raul. The elements of tort claim in this case would be that Raul will claim intentional misrepresentation (fraud). SureCo, Inc. was misrepresenting because the company was giving false information to their customers. Franco knew he was telling a lie to his clients about the premium not going up. The customers had no reason not to believe their agent and for that damages were suffered by all the customers who were deceived by SureCo, Inc. because Franco was an employed at the insurance company. The element is also where the boss fired a staple gun in Rauls direction that caused permanent damage to the eye. The defense that the defendant SureCo, Inc. could have against the customers would be that they should have requested that their new increase would never go up again in writing by Franco. The defense with SureCo, Inc. with their agent Franco could be that he was threatened to increase the amount of insurance policies. The defense against Franco by the boss, the boss can say that it was a mere expression and not true about Franco. The defendant the boss of SureCo, Inc., could say she was defending herself and the company from Raul. I believe that the way the claim will resolved by SureCo, Inc. is by paying damages to their customers and canceling the wrong coverage contract that was set up by Franco. The claim with SureCo, Inc., and Franco will be that he pay for damages that he caused the company. The defamation claim will probably be resolved with both parties coming up with an agreement in

Synopsis of Torts

lowering the claim by SureCo, Inc., against Franco. The boss of SureCo, Inc. will probably pay a large sum of money to Raul for causing him permanent damage to the eye. Scenario4:

Synopsis of Torts

Conclusion

References