FINAL EXAM PART III. TAKE HOME-OPEN BOOK POLICY ESSAY
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University Of Arizona *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
402A
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by ChiefBook8121
Sierra Nielsen
LAW 402A
13 December 2023
FINAL EXAM PART III. TAKE HOME-OPEN BOOK POLICY ESSAY
Case #1: Garratt v. Dailey
Issue
Whether the moving of a chair that causes another person to fall and be injured constitutes battery. The issue of whether the defendant’s actions were considered intent in court law was taken into consideration by the court. On July 16, 1951, a five-year-old boy named Brian Dailey (defendant) visited Ruth Garratt (plaintiff). The plaintiff
started to sit down in a chair when Brian
moved it. After falling, the plaintiff
suffered severe injuries, including a broken hip. Brian
was sued by Ruth
for battery. The defendant's
sister stated during the trial that Brian
meticulously pulled the chair out from under Ruth. However, the trial court accepted the defendant's
testimony
and rejected this version of events. The defendant
stated that he moved the chair so he could sit in it, but he was unable to put it back in time to prevent the plaintiff
from falling.
Rule
“An act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another person makes the actor liable to the other if: (1) the act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to the other or a third person; and (2) the
contact is not consented to by the other, or the other’s consent thereto is procured by fraud or duress; and (3) the contact is not otherwise privileged.” Intent, in the context of tort law, does not
require a specific desire to cause harm. Instead, if the defendant
knows that their actions are likely to have harmful consequences, then it can be assumed that they had malicious intentions. If a minor
knowingly causes harm or injury to another person, understanding with knowledge
to a substantial certainty
that her actions would do so, she may be held responsible for the tort of
Sierra Nielsen
LAW 402A
13 December 2023
battery. The exception to the rule is the defendant's actions were not intentional but rather resulted from negligence.
Analysis
The court analyzed whether a 5-year-old could be held liable for battery and the injury that resulted to the plaintiff. The court's analysis focused on the circumstances of Brian's
actions and whether he knew that his actions could cause someone harm. The rule that intent, in the context of tort law, does not require a specific desire to cause harm was critical in this case. When determining liability in cases where the defendant's actions were not directly intended to cause harm but where the awareness of the likely harmful consequences could establish intent, so when
Brian
moved the chair, he did it voluntarily. If Brian
intended to cause Ruth
to fall, he is liable. This may be established by demonstrating that Brian
had a strong sense
that Ruth
would attempt to sit where the chair had previously been. The plaintiff’s best argument is that as she walked into the backyard to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair, Brian deliberately pulled it out from under her. Therefore, the court would find that Brian had an understanding that his actions were likely to cause harm to Ruth. The best argument for the defendant is that he did not have a specific intent to cause harm and that the injury Ruth sustained was an unintended consequence of Brian’s actions. Conclusion
The defendant is not liable in this case. However, if
Brian knew with
certainty that the plaintiff would try to sit down where the chair had been when he moved it, battery would have been established. Since there is no evidence that the defendant knew that moving the chair would cause the plaintiff to be injured, there would be nothing wrong with the defendant moving the chair. The court found that the plaintiff has not established the theory of a battery with no
Sierra Nielsen
LAW 402A
13 December 2023
evidence of Brian moving the chair maliciously. However, if the court finds knowledge that Brian was aware of the consequences and had the necessary intent to cause harm to Ruth, the case could be retried. The court rightly acknowledged the complicated elements of intentional acts by finding that the defendant's understanding that an
injury would occur
can be used to establish intent. The decision represents a deliberate evolution of the law that recognizes the importance of taking into account foreseeable outcomes when intentional actions cause harm. In
Garratt v. Dailey, the court correctly takes the defendant's feelings of guilt into account by keeping the focus on their understanding of the substantial certainty of injury. This
approach recognizes the complexity of human behavior and intent, which improves the fairness and adaptability
of the legal system.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Sierra Nielsen
LAW 402A
13 December 2023
Case #2: Wagon Mound
Issue
The defendant in the Wagon Mound case threw oil from a ship recklessly, causing it to spill into the harbor where the plaintiff owned a dock. The plaintiff's dock suffered damages as a result of this. Following the oil leak, the plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence that caused damage to
the dock. The issue in this case is whether a
plaintiff can
receive compensation for damages under negligence if the plaintiff’s losses were not an obvious or immediate result of the defendant's negligence.
Rule
The common law rule for negligence is as follows: 1) The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; 2) The defendant breached their duty of care; 3) The damages were caused by the defendant's breach of duty;
and 4) The defendant's negligent act was the proximate/legal cause of
the plaintiff's injury/damages. The fourth rule consists of two parts: determining if a defendant is the actual
cause or the proximate
cause of the damages. According to the actual cause rule, which
was established by In Re Polemis, the damages must have been caused by the defendant's negligence. This indicates that a cause-and-effect "but for" test is needed. This test makes it possible to include any damages that occur along the "damage chain" as a component of the harm brought on by the negligent behavior. Based on the ruling in this case, the proximate cause rule states that the party causing the negligence may not be held accountable for all losses caused
by the act in question. This proves that the defendant is not
legally liable
for the damages at a certain stage in the damage chain. The general standard for this
is foreseeability,
which means that the defendant would be responsible if the result was foreseeable.
Sierra Nielsen
LAW 402A
13 December 2023
Analysis
The court analyzed
whether the defendant owed a duty of care. There was a duty of care in not discharging the oil recklessly, and therefore, this duty was breached. The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the oil spill damaging the dock below. The defendant should be held accountable for causing the damage to the dock, according to
the In Re Polemis direct cause test. The dock would not have been destroyed if the defendant had
disposed of the oil with care, proving that their negligence was the main cause of the damage. The court in this case, however, felt that this rule needed to be limited and created the
proximate cause/foreseeability rule. The court concluded
that the defendant shouldn't be held liable for the damage since a reasonable person would not have predicted the damage to the dock.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Wagon Mound constitutes an important legal precedent in the area of tort law,
defining the limits of foreseeability and
negligence. The court's ruling made it clear that responsibility for damages resulting from careless behavior depends on whether or not the damages were reasonably foreseeable at the time of the negligent action. The court's
decision in this case was fair. This shift in public policy would help achieve the objective of compensating victims of careless behavior through predictable consequences. Tort law provides another goal of
discouraging others from engaging in similar behaviors. In this case, the reckless dumping of oil from a ship is an action that the court would want to see prohibited. The court established an agreement by defining a more exact standard
for evaluating
liability based on foreseeability, acknowledging the need for legal principles to change in response to evolving situations. In determining responsibility for negligent acts, the decision correctly emphasized the significance
Sierra Nielsen
LAW 402A
13 December 2023
of foreseeability. In determining responsibility for negligent acts, the decision correctly emphasized the significance of foreseeability.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help