Patty Plaintiff Tort Law Claims Tort law allows an injured party to sue another party for damages for committing a civilbreach. The law also determines whether the defendant should be legally responsible for injuriessustained by the suing party and the compensation entitled to the injured party (Mulheron, 2016).This paper looks at the application of this […]
To start, you canPatty Plaintiff Tort Law Claims
Tort law allows an injured party to sue another party for damages for committing a civil
breach. The law also determines whether the defendant should be legally responsible for injuries
sustained by the suing party and the compensation entitled to the injured party (Mulheron, 2016).
This paper looks at the application of this law in various cases involving Patty Plaintiff.
Patty Plaintiff Against Cash Mart
In the case of Patty Plaintiff and Cash Mart, the plaintiff has strong legal grounds to sue
Cash Mart for slander. Slander is a spoken statement that is defamatory (Mulheron, 2016). It has
four elements that the plaintiff needs to prove in order to successfully sue for damages. The first
one is to prove that the defendant made a defamatory or false statement about the plaintiff
(Mulheron, 2016). This indeed happened because the security guard accused Patty Plaintiff of
shop lifting. This statement was both false and defamatory because it harmed the personal and
professional reputation of the plaintiff. We are sure that the statement was false because after one
hour detention, the store’s manager apologized to Patty Plaintiff and let her go.
The second element in slander case requires the plaintiff to prove that the statement made
was not privileged (Mulheron, 2016). A statement is privileged if it is made by a person who has
legal protections to make any statement, including those that may be considered defamatory. An
example is a statement made in a legislative body. Clearly, the accusations by the security guard
was unprivileged because it was not made in a legislative body or in court.
The third element for slander requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted
negligently when making the statement (Mulheron, 2016). In this case the security guard did not
PATTY PLAINTIFF TORT LAW CLAIMS 3
make any effort to investigate whether Patty Plaintiff had shoplifted or not. He made the
statement without making any attempt to collect evidence which would have provided grounds
for making such statement. Thus, Patty Plaintiff can prove all the elements of slander in the case
against Cash Mart.
Patty Plaintiff Against Gerry Golfer
Patty Plaintiff has strong grounds to sue Gerry Golfer for negligence. Negligence case
occurs when a person acts in a careless manner which results in another person suffering injuries
(Goldberg et al., 2016). For a negligence case to be successful, the plaintiff needs to prove four
elements. The first element is duty of care. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant owes
them a legal duty of care (Goldberg et al., 2016). This duty of care requires the defendant to act
in a reasonably careful manner so that their actions do not cause injuries to other parties
(Goldberg et al., 2016). Gerry Golfer, knowing that his backyard was near a parking lot of a
supermarket which is frequented with many people, had duty of care to users of the car park to
hit his golf balls carefully lest they cause injuries to customers using the car park.
The second negligence element is breach of duty of care. Breach of duty of care occurs
when a person acts in a manner that a reasonably prudent person would not act like under similar
circumstances (Goldberg et al., 2016). By hitting hard his golf ball despite knowing that it could
reach the supermarket’s car park and cause injuries to innocent users of the car park, Gerry
Golfer breached duty of care to the plaintiff.
The third negligence element is causation. This element requires proof that the
defendant’s breach of duty is actually the one that caused the injuries of the plaintiff (Goldberg et
PATTY PLAINTIFF TORT LAW CLAIMS 4
al., 2016). This can again be proven because the plaintiff was knocked into unconsciousness by
the golf ball and needed five days to recover.
Lastly, the plaintiff needs to prove that they incurred damages that they need to be
compensated for. In this case, the plaintiff had to get medical care after being knocked to
unconsciousness by the golf ball. In addition, the plaintiff also lose five days of work. Thus, the
plaintiff incurred significant damages as a result of Gerry Golfer’s breach of duty of care.
Patty Plaintiff Against Acme Corporation Over Invasion of Privacy
Patty Plaintiff has no legal rights to sue Acme Corporation, her employer, over invasion
of privacy for reading her personal emails sent to her mother. The main element in this case is
company policy (Mulheron, 2016). Acme Corporation has a written policy that prohibits
employees from using the company’s email to make personal communication. Patty Plaintiff was
aware of this policy but still went ahead to make personal communication using the company’s
email. Barry Bossley, her boss, was therefore right to reprimand her for her actions.
Patty Plaintiff Against Acme Corporation Over Wrongful Dismissal
Patty Plaintiff has no legal grounds to sue Acme Corporation for firing her for making
negative comments about the company and her boss on social media. The main element in this
case is protected concerted activity. This element allows employees to make negative comments
about their employer on social media as long as it is part of efforts to improve their working
conditions or increase their pay (Drouin et al., 2015). Patty Plaintiff’s negative comments against
the company and the boss were, however, not part of concerted activity to better conditions of
employees. The comments were personal. They, therefore, do not qualify to be treated as part of
protected concerted activity.
PATTY PLAINTIFF TORT LAW CLAIMS 5
References
Drouin, M., O’Connor, K. W., Schmidt, G. B., & Miller, D. A. (2015). Facebook fired: Legal
perspectives and young adults’ opinions on the use of social media in hiring and firing
decisions. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 123-128.
Goldberg, J. C., Sebok, A. J., & Zipursky, B. C. (2016). Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress.
Aspen Publishers.
Mulheron, R. (2016). Principles of tort law. Cambridge University Press.
Select your paper details and see how much our professional writing services will cost.
Our custom human-written papers from top essay writers are always free from plagiarism.
Your data and payment info stay secured every time you get our help from an essay writer.
Your money is safe with us. If your plans change, you can get it sent back to your card.
We offer more than just hand-crafted papers customized for you. Here are more of our greatest perks.