HWK 5 4050
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
California Polytechnic State University, Pomona *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
4050
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by ElderScience11534
What are the fundamental purposes of tort law? Who is it meant to
protect?
The fundamental purpose of tort law is to provide relief and compensation to parties that
may be injured as a result of damages that may be inflicted upon them. Tort law protects the
rights and interests of people and entities from being breached because of the negligent or
wrongful actions of others. It also imposes liability on parties responsible for the damages
and prevents others from committing harmful acts. Tort law encompasses many civil
matters, including trespass, assault, battery, negligence, defamation, etc. It exists to provide
remedies to the parties so that the parties that have been harmed can be compensated for
losses in attempt to restore injured parties to the position they were in before the injury.
Short Answer Question:
What is a trespass?
Trespass is a tort that involves the intrusion or obstruction of one party on another party’s
residence or property, which is unauthorized and unlawful. A trespasser can be held liable
for damages, and the act of trespass may be the result of an accident, negligence, or
intention.
What is an assault?
Assault is a tort that involves the intentional harm or offense by one party to another party
without the consent of the party being harmed or offended. An assailant may be found liable
for damages caused. The assault does not have to involve physical contact. A threat or an
attempt to harm is considered assault.
How is self-defense a defense to certain torts?
Self-defense is a defense to certain torts involving the use of force, such as torts involving
assault, battery, and possibly a claim in trespass. Self-defense allows a party that is under
imminent threat of injury or harm the ability to defend and protect themselves in preventing
further harm. A person that has acted in self-defense is not liable for the damages sustained
by the party that was considered as the aggressor, if the damages were not excessive or
disproportionate.
Hypothetical:
Ruth carelessly parks her car on a steep hill, leaving her car in neutral
and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolls down the hill,
knocking down an electric power pole. The sparks from the live electric
power line ignite a grass fire. The fire spreads until it reaches a barn
about a mile away. The barn has dynamite stored inside. The dynamite
explodes, causing part of burning roof to strike and injure Jim a passing
motorist in a convertible. While rushing Jim to the hospital, Jack, an
intoxicated ambulance driver, collides with a car driven by thieves fleeing
the scene of the robbery.
Discuss whether Jim can recover from Ruth for his injuries under a claim
of negligence. Be sure to discuss each element of the cause of action of
negligence and any affirmative defenses Ruth might raise.
Ruth’s actions are a consequence of negligence, which is an unintentional tort. Ruth did not
mean to hurt anyone, but her action of not engaging the parking brake was likely to result in
an accident or injury. In this case, the sequence of events that led to the injury had just been
triggered by various other accidents, but the root cause was the first act. While accidental,
the original act leading to them was committed by Ruth. Ruth should have known or did
know that not engaging the parking brake on an incline would mean that the free movement
of her vehicle was likely. Jim would not have been injured in this situation if it was not for
the actions of Ruth. Ruth’s negligence has been demonstrated, and she could be proven
liable for Jim’s damages. However, this is only if this chain of causation can be established
and proven. Jim may also have difficulty showing proximity in this case. Ruth may also
have a defense in assumption of risk, as by Jim driving his vehicle, he has taken on the
assumption of risk that damages or accidents may occur. Additionally, comparative
negligence may apply, as James was driving too fast and not wearing a seatbelt.
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