Essay On Week 3- Legal, Political, Ethics Dim Of Business

Essay on Week 3- Legal, Political, Ethics Dim of Business
1. What is the most "jealously" protected kind of speech, according to the court in this case? (3
points) Free speech 2. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) Supreme Court 3.
Briefly – state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5
points) The plaintiff and several other bridal photographs were published in a newspaper. The radio
show decided to have an "Ugliest Bride" contest and made some derogatory comments about the
plaintiff and her appearance. The radio show allowed the public to call and make comments about
her as well. In addition, they release her full name and other personal information, which was heard
by her and her co–workers. The plaintiff proceeded to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
LEXIS 13888. b. the name of the court which decided the case (3 points) New York Supreme Court
c. the year of the decision (2 points) 1998 d. the facts of the case (5 points) Champion Paper
Company, Inc. filed a case against Burns Brothers Contractors, Inc. and one of Champion's former
employees for interfering with bids/contracts, confiscating confidential information, and interfering
with business affairs. Burns was not happy about bidding on multiple contracts and only receiving
one contract. Burns recruited Anderson from Champion to work for him and he took confidential
files from Champion to help Burns secure bids and contracts. e. the issue of the case (5 points) "The
instant action sought damages and injunctive relief by alleging, inter alia, that defendants had
maliciously conspired to interfere with plaintiff's contracts and had misappropriated confidential
information." f. the "decision" of the case (5 points) The case was dismissed. g. for what principle of
law was the Esposito case used (cited for) in the case? (5 points) The Esposito case was used or
cited in this case due to having the same issues with trying to determine whether there is sufficient
evidence available and if the complaint would survive a motion to pursuant to CLPR 3211 (a). h.
following the directions in the library, download a Word–Doc copy of the case, and include your
name in the "note" section of the download. Attach a copy of the document with your assignment
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Legal Office Memo
Siegel & Associates 1133 Westwood Blvd. West Palm Beach, Florida MEMORANDUM TO:
Senior Partner FROM: John J. Doe DATE: October 1, 2010 RE: Peters v. Detman This
memorandum assesses the merits of Anne Peters' in West Palm Beach, Florida, for possible claims
against Don and Betty Detman for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for violation of
Florida's Spite Fence statute. FACTS Anne Peters owns the property at 915 Sea Crest Drive in West
Palm Beach, Florida. Peters, who is seventy–three years old and was widowed fifteen years ago, has
lived at this address for most of her life. About six months ago, Don and Betty Detman, both forty–
eight years old, bought the property at 905 Sea Crest Drive, next door to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Any such owner or occupant injured in the comfort or enjoyment of this estate thereby may have an
action of tort for damages under chapter two hundred and forty–three. 2. The outcome of this issue
is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe
Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was
intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that
emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all
bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community;
(3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.
DISCUSSION Under Florida Statute chapter 49, § 21 Spite Fence, Ann Peters will likely have cause
of action for nuisance because the height of the neighbors fence is twice the height required by
statute and it deprives her of the comfort and enjoyment of her property. Also under Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 46 Ann peters will likely have cause of action for Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress

The Case Of Draker V. Schreiber
Draker v. Schreiber
For my argumentation paper, I have chosen to address the issue of libel as it relates to the case of
Draker v. Schreiber. Libel is defined as a published false statement that is damaging to a person 's
reputation. Draker v. Schreiber was taken up by the Texas state court, on September 1st, 2006. I
agree with the court 's decision to not charge the young boys for defamation and intentional
emotional distress. Throughout this paper, I will support three arguments, first why the students
should have been held responsible for defamation and libel per se, second why the students were not
responsible for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and lastly, why I believe the parents were
not in question of negligence or ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The student 's motion for summary judgment was granted by the court and dismissed Drakers claims
against the students for defamation and libel per se. The students and their families then had to file
another motion for summary judgment regarding Draker's remaining claim for intentional infliction
of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Once this happened, Draker filed her third
amended petition alleging the students only for intentional infliction of emotional distress and
negligence and gross negligence as to the parents. Eric Goldman states, "the intentional infliction of
emotional distress claim was dismissed because under TX law the cause of action is a gap–filler, and
there was no gap given that the defamation doctrine putatively governs these facts." Along with her
third amended petition, Draker filed a motion for continuance. This motion would give her more
time to look into the facts of her remaining claims. This motion was denied by the trial court. Along
with the denial of Drakers motion, the court granted the Schreibers ' and the Todds ' motion for
summary judgment. Draker argues that the trial court made three mistakes. These mistakes, as listed
in the case are (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the students on her claim of intentional
infliction of emotional distress; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of the parents on her claims
of negligence and gross negligence; and (3) denying her motion for continuance and

Tort Essay
TORTS ESSAY 1 Art and Bill were leaving work one afternoon when they were approached by
Charlie, who was wearing a mask and carrying a gun. Charlie, who suspected Art of having an affair
with Charlie's wife, approached to within ten feet of Art and Bill, aimed the gun at Art and said,
AArt, I am going to kill you.@ Art quickly grabbed Bill and pulled Bill in front of him, using Bill as
a shield. Charlie fired the gun; the bullet going over the shoulder of Bill and hitting Art in the arm.
Charlie then dropped the gun onto the ground and turned to run away. Art, using his uninjured arm,
picked up the gun and shot at Charlie as he ran away, hitting him in the leg. Bill was horrified at the
prospect of almost being shot, and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Here, Art was facing a stranger pointing a gun at him from ten feet away who said he was going to
kill Art. A reasonable person in Art's position would have also suffered an apprehension of
immediate contact (being shot). Therefore, an assault can be established. Since there do not appear
to be any applicable defenses, Art would be entitled to recover from Charlie for assault. B. Battery.
A battery is a volitional act by the defendant which intentionally causes the plaintiff to suffer a
harmful or offensive contact. 1. Volitional act. Charlie volitionally fired the gun at Art, causing the
bullet to strike Art. 2. Intent. Again, it would seem clear that, by firing the gun at Art, Charlie
intended to cause Art to suffer a harmful touching. 3. Offensive contact. This element was clearly
met when Art was struck in the arm by the bullet. Therefore, since there do not appear to be any
defenses Charlie could raise, Art would be entitled to recover from Charlie for battery. II. Bill v.
Charlie A. Assault. Defined above. Bill's assault claim against Charlie would be virtually identical to
Art's claim, with the following difference. 1. Transferred Intent. Charlie's intentional actions were
directed at Art, not Bill. However, under the doctrine of transferred intent when a defendant acts
intentionally toward one person but a tort

Sherman V. Church of Divine Light (Causes of Action)
Mark A. Puno PA310 – Tort Law Prof. Laurence Mraz 22 May 2011 Unit 1 Assignment CAUSES
OF ACTION What are the possible causes of action that one can take against the church? In the case
of the fifteen–year–old Rob Jr., the Church of Devine Light was at fault will be held responsible for
the actions of Tom Marsden, an employee of the church, under strict liability. Rob's parents, Rob Sr.
and Bunny, could file charges against Tom Marsden and the Church of Devine Light for negligence,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment. Tom Marsden intentional misled
Rob Jr. and brainwashed him into staying with the church. Mr. Marsden also threatened and
assaulted Rob Jr. by telling him "If you leave, you will be thrown ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
There are also situations in which the obvious result of the alleged wrongdoing would be mental
distress due to embarrassment or damage to one's reputation through libel, and therefore damages
can be awarded to the distressed party. However, there are limits: in general, breach of contract
judgments cannot include damages for mental anguish due to the loss of a deal or employment. Then
there is the case of the shop that failed to deliver the bridal gown in time for the wedding–mental
anguish flows naturally (along with the bride's tears) from such a breach. Unjust Enrichment:
Benefiting from the action or property of another without legal

Louis V Dermot And Ryland
Louis v Dermot & Ryland – The Torts of Trespass to the Person (i) Assault Louis would have a
claim for assault against Dermot and Ryland on numerous occasions. Their actions satisfy the
requirements of assault: intention with a reasonable apprehension of immediate and direct
application of unlawful force, without lawful justification. Furthermore, LJ Goff confirms the
definition of assault in Collins v Wilcock as 'an act which causes another person to apprehend the
infliction of immediate, unlawful force in his person'. Dermot's threatening texts to Louis: 'You have
messed with the wrong person...you'll be sorry', '...I'm coming for you', 'You won't get out alive'. In
addition to the knife and clenched fist emojis, pleases the apprehension ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Also, s 2(b), states 'which he knows or ought to, amounts to harassment' and Dermot and Ryland
knew very well what they were doing. Additionally, a reasonable person would agree there is
sufficient seriousness contained in the threats, and at a level that is 'oppressive and unacceptable'.
The PfHA has also been used to respond to public victimisation, as was the case of CG v Facebook
Ireland and Joseph McCloskey. Dermot posting on Louis' Facebook that he 'sleeps with animals'
would certainly meet the criteria of public victimisation. A possible remedy for Louis may be to
seek an injunction from the court to prevent Dermot from posting such defamatory statements. The
principal purpose of the Act is to 'prevent and protect, rather than compensate', however, Louis is
still likely to claim for damages under the PfHA because there is now a statutory exception (s 3(2))
to Baroness Hale's judgement in Majrowski v Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust, the 'law does not
generally award damages for anxiety or injury to feelings unless these are so severe as to amount to
a recognised psychiatric illness'. Louis did, post–traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) because of
harassment, and may be awarded damages for financial loss for missing six months of work. (iii)
False Imprisonment Louis would also have a claim for false imprisonment against Dermot and
Ryland. They chased him and Simon to a dead end where a locked gate restricted their escape

Questions On The And The Floor Of The Elevator
I. Introduction
Lillian Hummel is the daughter of Eleanor Mingle. Just after 9 a.m. on August 6, 2014, Hummel
saw her mother into the elevator on the twelfth floor of their apartment building. After a brief stop
on the ninth floor, the elevator plummeted into the ground floor killing Mingle. Hummel then
brought claim for negligent infliction of emotion distress ("NIED") against Elite Elevator Company
("Elite"), which maintained the elevator. To recover for NIED, a party must [1] be closely related to
the injury victim, [2] be present at the scene of the injury–producing event at the time it occurs, [3]
be aware that it is causing injury to the victim and [4] as a result suffer emotional distress beyond
that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness. Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 645 (1989).
This memorandum will address only the first three elements of the four elements set forth in Thing.
Hummel will likely be able to establish that she was closely related to the victim, present at the
scene, and aware that the incident contemporaneously injured her mother because she was
reasonably certain that Mingle was on the elevator at the time of the crash.
II. Question Presented
Was Hummel [1] closely related to her mother; [2] present at the time her mother was killed in the
elevator crash; [3] aware of her mother's location an instant before the event and that her mother was
being injured during the crash?
III. Brief Answer
A court will likely rule that Hummel

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
MEMORANDUM
RE: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress Relevant Facts
George worked for the Charlotte Bobcats based in Charlotte, NC. George has a contract that
guarantees his employment with the Bobcats for a period of 5 years. Jerry, who is George's boss,
wants to get rid of him NOW. Jerry resolves to using tactics to make conditions with the Bobcats
uncomfortable for George to entice him to quit. George eventually quits after Jerry turned off his air
conditioner in mid–July and convinced others to not speak to George. Jerry also tapped George's
phone and played his personal conversations over the loud speaker. George sues Jerry for Intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Issue Presented
Under North ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In our case, the plaintiff wouldn't be granted compensation for the intentional infliction of emotional
distress because he didn't prove that the behavior of the defendant caused him severe emotional
distress.
Conclusion
In conclusion, under NC law, George is not entitled to compensation for intentional infliction of
emotional

Player Vs. Midwest University: A Case Study
Is the premium placed on winning, driving coaches to cross the line? Sadly, hundreds of athletes are
physically and verbally abused by their coach. In the case of the "player versus Midwest University,
the cause of action against the head coach, athletic director and the university can be severely
damage the coach's career and the university. The player has several options and should seek legal
counsel.
What exactly is a cause of action? Cause of actions, are "legal grounds upon which to sue, includes
contract disputes, employment discrimination and torts" (Sharp, Moorman, Clasuseen, 2014). In this
case, the primary cause of action would be torts, which include battery, assault, negligence,
intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, slander, invasion of privacy (Legal
dictionary, 2017). Coach is verbally abuses his players on and off the court. Compounded his
behavior further, he has been physically abusing ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Negligent supervision, "questions whether a manager acted reasonably in guiding and overseeing an
employee's actions. The degree and type of supervision considered reasonable is always related to
the particular circumstances" (Sharp, Moorman, Clasuseen, 2014). The athletic director has heard
the abuse and has seen Beam push and slap players on several occasions during practice. By not
disciplining Beam, the athletic director was negligent and the probability of the player winning in
court is extremely high. In addition to negligent supervision, the athletic director could potentially
face negligent retention. Negligent retention is "whether a manager acted reasonably in retaining an
employee's services. The issue arises when a manger receives negative feedback about an employee
or has direct knowledge of an employee's misdeeds yet does nothing to discipline or discharge that
employee" (Sharp, Moorman, Clasuseen,

Sample Legal Memo
M E M O R A N D U M To: Legal Director From: Redacted Date: November 11, 2008 Re: Spiros v.
Landis
______________________________________________________________________________
Question Presented Can plaintiff Ron Arnett state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional
distress (NIED) under Pennsylvania law given that Arnett was located twenty feet from the accident
that injured Sarah Nolan, saw Ricky Landis running toward the pool and realized immediately after
the impact what had happened, but viewed the impact while underwater; and though they share an
emotional bond, Arnett and Nolan are not biologically or legally related? Brief Answer Probably
not. In Pennsylvania, a claim for NIED by a plaintiff who ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Defendant Ricky Landis began sprinting toward the pool in the direction of Nolan, whose head was
submerged. Arnett, then swimming laps twenty feet from Nolan, saw Landis out of the corner of his
eye before re–submerging his face. Landis performed a cannonball into the pool, landing on Nolan
as she came up for air. Struck by Landis's 250–pound body, Nolan was forced underwater and
rendered unconscious. Arnett, watching Sarah from underwater through his goggles, observed a
sudden cloud of water and a tangle of scrambling arms and legs. A beat later, realizing Nolan had
been struck, Arnett yelled "Sarah!" and swam toward her. A lifeguard pulled Nolan out of the water
and unsuccessfully attempted CPR. Moments later, an ambulance arrived with a defibrillator and
restarted Nolan's heart, as Arnett looked on. Discussion I. Arnett will likely fail to state a claim for
NIED. To state a claim for NIED, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he was located near the scene of the
accident; (2) he sensorily and contemporaneously observed the accident; and (3) he and the victim
are closely related. Sinn v. Burd, 404 A.2d 672, at 685 (Pa. 1979). There can be little dispute that
Arnett was near the scene of the accident. However, whether Arnett sensorily and
contemporaneously observed the incident and whether Nolan and Arnett are closely related are in
question. This memorandum will address all three

Is Leo Liable For Assault Towards Ellen?
Issue No. 1: Is Leo liable for assault towards Ellen? Issue No. 2: Is Leo job responsible for actions?
Issue No. 3: Does Ellen have an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action? Issue
No. 4: Is Leo liable for negligence? Rule No 1: An act intended to create a reasonable apprehension
of imminent harm that is either harmful or offensive". Rule No. 2: The employee required the
employee to work under the direction and control of the employer; the employer had inherent
authority to control the employee; and the employee's actions are within the scope of employment.
Rule No. 3: Outrageous conduct by the defendant; the defendant's intention of causing or reckless
disregard of probability of causing emotional distress; the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
She tried to escape but wasn't fast enough to escape his grasp. Here, Ellen perceived and reasonably
believed that she about to be touched in a harmful manner. Leo created fear in Ellen, and thus, this
element is clearly met. Moreover, the following element whether Leo cause of imminent harm to
Ellen. Leo threatened to touch Ellen in a harmful manner, it reasonably appeared to her that Leo was
about to carry out his threat. Ellen thought her life was in danger. She did not consent to Leo's
conduct, as matter of fact, his conduct was unwelcome. It is likely that Ellen satisfy this element.
Lastly, the final element of an assault was whether Leo's touching was either harmful or offensive or
both. Leo conduct presented both a physical threat and/or offensive behavior caused Ellen to be
taken to the ER. Ellen was harmed and Leo's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Ellen's
harm. Thus, this element has been satisfied. Analysis No. 2: Since Leo and Ellen are employed by
the same company which makes them co–workers there is a Respondeat superior which forms a
relationship under the theory of vicarious liability. The employer had control over the employees
during work hours and the employer benefits from the actions of the employees. Here, Leo and
Ellen were on lunch hour in the company cafeteria when she was harmed and offensively touched
by Leo. It is reasonably foreseeable in that Leo tortious act was committed

Civil Law On Natural And Artificial Persons
Introduction
Tort is described as that branch of the civil law relating to obligations imposed by the operation of
law on natural and artificial persons. Tort enables the person to whom the obligation is owed to
pursue a remedy on his own behalf where breach of a relevant norm of conduct infringes his
interests to a degree recognised by the law as such an infringement. The law of torts can be broadly
divided into two classes – one group dealing with harm caused negligently and the other dealing
with harm caused intentionally.
The focus of this essay is limited, though not exclusively, to intentional torts which are then
narrowed down to trespass to the person. Trespass to the person requires direct interference with a
person's body or liberty. There are three main forms of trespass to the person, namely battery, assault
and false imprisonment. There are also two other forms of actions – Intentional Affliction of
Emotional Distress (hereafter I.A.E.D) and the statutory causes of action for harassment provided
for in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. These different causes of action shall be explored
and analysed during the course of this paper.
I would discuss the potential liabilities of the parties involved.
Sharon
Sharon who "repeatedly caressed" the shoulder of her work colleague Simon could be potentially
liable for battery. Battery is defined as an intentional act by the defendant which directly causes a
physical interference or force on the body of the

Hustler Vs Falwell Case Study
I. Hustler v. Falwell II. 485 U.S. 46 (1988) III. Facts: In Hustler v. Falwell a dispute arose when
Hustler Magazine, a a magazine that circulates nationwide featured a parody of an advertisement for
Campari Liqueur. The inside front cover of the magazine presented interviews with celebrities who
described their "first time." One of the parodies belonged to Jerry Falwell, a nationally acclaimed
minister who was featured as describing his "first time" with his mother when they were both
intoxicated from drinking Campari Liqueur. While the interviews with the celebrities contained a
double sexual reference, it was evident in the end that the ads were referring to the first time the
celebrities had tried Campari Liqueur. However, after the magazine was accessible to the public,
Jerry Falwell sued Hustler Magazine and its publisher for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. At trial court the judge dismissed the invasion of privacy claim and
then sent the case to the jury where they ruled Hustler Magazine on the claim of intentional
infliction of emotional distress and awarded Jerry Falwell $150,000. The case was then taken to the
Supreme Court level on appeal by the petitioner, Jerry Falwell. IV. Issues: (1) Does the First
Amendment's freedom of speech prohibit public figures from recovering damages for intentional
infliction of emotional distress? V. Decision and Action: (1) No. Reversed. VI. Reasoning: Per

Legal Memorandum on Intentional Infliction of Emotional...
Memorandum of Law
Statement of Assignment: You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of
whether our client can gain relief from intentional infliction of emotional distress occurring from
witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to
being driven at a high rate of speed through a school zone. Pursuant to your request, this memo
includes an analysis of the relevant state and federal law.
Issue: Under Kentucky tort law, does intentional infliction of emotional distress occur when a
person suffers severe insomnia and anxiety as a result of witnessing a friend¡¦s child
being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
She noticed that the car involved was local Bob Barton¡¦s who had had several
complaints and speeding tickets against his behavior. After recognizing the car, Ida then noticed that
two children playing on the seesaw were injured, one of whom is her best friend,
Karen¡¦s son, Tim. Upon realizing this she became extremely upset and has since
suffered from severe insomnia and extreme anxiety. Her doctor prescribed medication for her nerves
and to help her sleep, and he recently referred her to a psychologist.
Analysis:
The issue in this case as it relates to the Kentucky tort of negligence is governed by rules or
principles established by the courts. The elements of negligence are a duty the defendant owes to the
plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, a causal connection between the breach and the
plaintiff's injury, and actual injury. In the absence of any one of these elements, no cause of action
for negligence will lie.
The relevant case law for this situation comes from several cases from Kentucky: 761 S.W.2d 625,
597 S.W.2d 141, 147 S.W. 742, 112 S.W. 600, and 77 S.W. 361 among others. However, those are
the only cases that will be discussed. They are substantially relevant to our situation and provide a
clear picture as to the route we should take in regards to Ms. Carry.<p>,,± Wilhoite v. Cobb,
761 S.W.2d 625 (Ky. Ct. App.

Did Alexis Do Anything Wrong Essay
1. Did Alexis do anything wrong?
Yes, Alexis did something wrong when she used the internet (PC) of private college that she is not
belong to it "without paying". In other words she stole and violated property rights of the private
college internet access.
Also, she lied to the librarian when she told him that she is a student of this collage which is non
ethical attitude
2. Who benefited from Alexis's course of action? For sure Alexis benefited from her action and her
family too, since she got her scholarship.
3. Who was hurt by Alexis's course of action?
– She harms the private college because it serves a student (Alexis) without taking money as other
students.
– Also, it affects the college students because it is not fair for them who are paying for their college
in order to be able to get internet service as well as studying. Also, Alexis might take the place of
other college students who might wait for using the PC's of their college.
4. Did Alexis have an unfair advantage over her high school classmates?
Yes, because her classmates, mainly who have the same situation "poorness ", will not have the
same opportunity to achieve what she can achieve, and get a ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
And this happened as a result of many reasons such as, the different situations of different people
(ex. richness and poorness). Another reason is each society has its own rules of conduct (morality)
so we cannot decide rather than people what is the right thing to do. So, it supports ethical
relativism. For example, slavery was commonly accepted by the majority in certain societies, then
some would say that slavery was ethically OK where it was the cultural habit (norm).But on the
other hand, lots societies believe that slavery is ethically wrong. Moreover, an action can be wrong
in some situation but totally right in others. For example, lying is generally wrong, but lying to make
up between people is

Thing V La Chusa 48 Ca. 3d 646 Summary
Due to Fortman not being aware of the injury that caused her brother's death as it occurred, she is
not able to collect any form of damages despite being present and watching helplessly as the injury
that killed her brother was occurring.
Rule: According to Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644, 667, 771 P.2d 814 (1989), Fortman must
have been able to link the cause of injury towards her brother, to the equipment that was
malfunctioning, instead of merely witnessing it.
Explain Case Law: Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644, 667, 771 P.2d 814 (1989) defined what must
be present for a victim of emotional distress to recover damages, the following elements are; (1) the
plaintiff must be related to the injury victim, (2) the plaintiff must also be present at the scene of the
injury–producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim,
(3) as a result suffers serious emotional distress, a reaction beyond that which would be anticipated
in a disinterested witness and which is not an abnormal response to the circumstances. A similar
case, Golstein v. Superior ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.3d 16, 20–21 (1977) two parents were able to recover emotional distress
damages while being bystanders and witnessing injuries to a close relative caused by a defective
product. This case also seems to be on point as it mimics the facts that are found in Fortman v.
Förvaltningsbolaget Insulan AB, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS. The two parents witnessed their daughter
and son launch out the car due to the lock of the door failing, the daughter lost her life and their son
suffered severe injuries. Courts held that the plaintiffs claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress were viable due to the strict liability of the product. Fortman was present during the injury
much like the parents in this scenario were, both suffered a loss due to product liability, however
Fortman was still unware of the cause of

Health Alternatives Aids Task Force
In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of
these four situations: "1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a
physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a "zone of danger" and at risk of an immediate physical injury;
or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative." Doe v. Phila.
Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first
element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship.
Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner's
accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Because Nordlund does not satisfy one out of the three elements a bystander needs to establish to
recover, the probability of her having a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim would be
low. In order to establish a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, there must be
negligence on the defendant's part that results in plaintiff's harm. You have asked me to assume that
there is negligence and only focus on harm. The Court found in Armstrong v. Paoli Memorial Hosp.
physical harm does not have to actually be physical but must accompany emotional distress. 633
A.2d 605, 609 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993). Examples of this harm include long continued headaches,
shaking, hyperventilation, severe depression, and nightmares. Id. (quoting Cirvellaro v. Pa. Power
and Light, 491 A.2d 207, 210 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985). In Nordlund's case, she did not see her sister get
hit because of her degenerative eye disease, but she did hear the accident as it was occurring and as
a result became severely depressed. R. 4. Her depression led to her indefinite leave from work, her
nightmares, her diminished appetite, her uncontrollable shaking, and her hyperventilation. Id. Based
on Armstrong, Nordlund could claim that she suffered harm from hearing Sumner get struck by Ms.
Robert's car. Now that harm has been established, it has to be determined whether Nordlund, as a
bystander, sustained injuries that are reasonably foreseeable to recover under a negligent

Respondent: A Case Study
Respondent, a nationally known minister and commentator filed a suit in Federal District Court
against petitioners, a nationally circulated magazine and its publisher, to recover damages for libel
and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the publication of an advertisement
"parody" which, among other things, portrayed respondent as having engaged in incest. The jury
found against respondent on the libel claim, finding that the parody could not "reasonably be
understood as describing actual facts . . . or events," but ruled in his favor on the emotional distress
claim. HISTORY: The Court of Appeals affirmed; petitioners appealed. ISSUE: Is Hustler Magazine
liable for Intentional infliction of emotional distress? RULING:

Dietz V. Finlay Fine Jewelry: Case Study
Issues:
Did Al have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his locker and his bag? Did Al experience
intrusion upon seclusion? Does have a claim under intentional infliction of emotional distress? Did
Al experience false imprisonment? Is Al protected under the Weingarten rights?
Rule:
The rule is reasonable expectation of privacy. In the Dietz v. Finlay Fine Jewelry states, "The
general tort, invasion of privacy, includes four distinct injuries: 1) intrusion upon seclusion, 2)
appropriation of likeness, 3) public disclosure of private facts, 4) false–light publicity." (Dietz v.
Finlay Fine Jewelry, 2001) (Walsh, 2013–2016, pg. 651) The rule is intrusion upon seclusion. David
Walsh writes, "Plaintiff must show the following: 1) An intentional ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
He could not leave and he was impeding him from leaving. Gary could utilize the Shoplifting
Detention Act for immunity. In case of Dietz v. Finlay Fine Jewelry, it states, "An owner or agent of
a store who has probable cause to believe that a theft has occurred or is occurring on or about the
store and who has probable cause to believe that a specific person has committed or is committing
the theft may: detain the person and request the person to identify; determine whether the person has
in their possession unpurchased merchandise taken from the store;...The detention must: 1) be
reasonable and last only for reasonable time; and 2) not extend beyond the arrival of a law
enforcement officer or two hours, whichever first occurs." (Dietz v. Finlay Fine Jewelry, 2001)
(Walsh, 2013–2016, pg. 651) Gary did not have probable cause other than that Al worked alone.
Weingarten rights
Gary asked for someone to be present or if he could call his attorney. In the assignment material, it
did not say if the business was unionized. If the business is unionized he is allowed to have a union
representative present. However, the representative cannot impede the investigation. Al does not
have a right for an attorney to be present. Based on the fact pattern, I would think the business is not
unionized.

Emotional Distress: Case Study
Final Memo
LRW# Nathan Orlando
November 20, 2015 MEMORANDUM
TO: Brooke Hardy, Managing Partner
FROM: LRW # Nathan Orlando
DATE: November 20, 2015
RE: Mr. Jason Valdes– Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Question Presented
Under Kentucky State case law, which provides that a wrongdoer is liable under intentional
infliction of emotional distress when their conduct is intentional or reckless, so outrageous that it is
beyond the standards of morality and decency, and is causally connected to an individual suffering
from emotional distress that can be classified as severe, can a pet owner collect damages for
emotional distress when a veterinarian fails to inform a pet owner that she performed a surgery that
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mr. Valdes left his pet cat, who he loved like family, in the care of the veterinarian for her to perform
a procedure on it's ears. While the cat was sedated the veterinarian mistakenly performed a
declawing procedure and kept that information from Mr. Valdes even after multiple medical
problems arose. Like the defendant in Ammon, the veterinarian did not intentionally cause
emotional distress. Even though she withheld the information about the mistaken surgery after more
problems arose, her actions unlike the actions of the defendant in Wilson, were not done with the
purpose of causing harm. The court will likely hold that since the veterinarian did not mean for her
actions to cause Mr. Valdes emotional distress her conduct was not

Writing Complaints Method Torts Essay
To: Teacher
From: , Student Assignment 4
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Date: February 5, 2014
SUPERIOR COURT OF FREEDONIA, COUNTY OF FREEDONIA __________________
Deidre Jones, Plaintiff, vs. Jack Daniels, Defendant(s). | )))))))))) | Case No.: 123456PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT | Plaintiff, Deidre Jones complaining of the Defendant, alleges that: JURISDICTION
AND PARTIES 1. The court has jurisdiction of this matter based on Rule 1.1 of the Fredonia State
rules of litigation and venue is proper for the County of Freedonia. 2. Plaintiff, ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
As a result of defendant's tortious conduct of battery defined as any intentional, unlawful, and
harmful or offensive contact by one person with the person of the other when defendant yanked
plaintiff's purse off her shoulder and causing offensive contact with the plaintiff. COUNT TWO
(Assault) 12. The plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all those facts and allegations
above and further alleges:
As a result of the defendant's action of picking up a rock and throwing the rock at the plaintiff. The
plaintiff saw the rock thrown by the defendant and was able to dodge from being hit by the rock,
thus causing the plaintiff to be in apprehension of being hit by the rock, wherefore the defendant
committed the action of assault defined as an act which causes another person to have apprehension
of imminent harmful contact. COUNT THREE (Trespass to Chattels) 13. The plaintiff realleges and
incorporates by reference all those facts and allegations above and further alleges:
The plaintiff was dispossessed of one purse when defendant yanked the purse from the plaintiff's
shoulder and thus, breaking the shoulder strap of plaintiff's purse. As a result of the

Ammon V. Welty Case Summary
Issue: Whether Mr. Schuester's behavior in fatally shooting a dog he thought to be a coyote,
sufficient to hold him liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress? Rule: Outrageous
causing severe emotional distress consists of four elements: (1) The wrongdoer's conduct was
intentional or reckless; (2) The conduct was outrageous and intolerable in that it offends against the
generally accepted standards of decency and morality; (3) There was a causal connection between
the wrongdoer's conduct and the emotional distress; (4) The emotional distress was severe. Analysis:
In Ammon v. Welty, 113 S.W.3d 185 (Ky. App. 2002), "Brewer did not shoot Hair Bear in the
presence of the Ammons. As a matter of fact, Brewer had not made positive

Court Of Appeals Case Summary
Christina Freeman 1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) Court of Appeals of
Ohio, First District, Hamilton County. 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to
prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) In order to prevail on a motion for summary
judgment, a movant has the burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact remains to
be litigated; that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and that it appears from the evidence,
when viewed most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that reasonable minds can come to but
one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. 3. Briefly state the facts of
this case, using the information found in the case in ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Thus, serious emotional distress may be found where a reasonable person, normally constituted,
would be unable to cope adequately with the mental distress engendered by the circumstances of the
case. 5. According to the case, why didn't the court approve summary judgment for product liability
claims? (5 points) The court didn't approve summary judgment for product liability claims because
the Nadel's failed to show that a reasonable consumer would agree with them that coffee brewed at
175 degrees was excessively hot. They also failed to produce any evidence that the coffee was
actually hotter than they expected other than Christopher receiving the second–degree burns. The
articles they provided were not true evidence because documents that do not have an affidavit have
no value as evidence. 6. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? (5 points) I disagree
with this decision because Christopher suffered second–degree burns which is more than enough
evidence to show that the coffee was too ho. No warning was given to the family by the employee,
and Burger King lacked to have the manufacturer of their coffee cups place a warning on the cups. A
lot of cases like this have occurred before, and now it is a requirement for the warning to be placed
on containers. Some may argue that you know to proceed with caution when handling hot objects,
and that Evelyn should not have placed the cup holder on the floor or the dashboard which would
have

Torts And Crimes
Examples of Torts and Crimes
Susie Tejeda
San Joaquin Valley College
July 13, 2017
The definition of Tort is a violation of a duty imposed by the civil law. Originally the word "tort"
meant "wrong" in French. Tort can be a disagreement among two parties but it takes the one of the
injured parties to file claim to get compensated for their injuries. When the case falls under tort the
plaintiff must pay for their own attorney fee and they must convince the court that the defendant is
at fault. (Samuelson, B., 2016)
The definition of crime is an unlawful act. Crime is an act against society. For those who commit
wrongful act will be punished by the authority who I apart of the government. There is district
attorney in every county who will figure out a way to press charges on those who commit crime.
District Attorney works for government. Contract law in a business perspective would be a
competitor who lower the prices or talk bad about the competition in order for them to steal the
customer away from competitors. (Samuelson, B., 2016)
The four elements in a defamation case are as follow: Defamatory statement, Falsity,
Communicated, and Injury. Intentional torts mean to involve harm caused by deliberate action.
There are five diverse kinds of intentional tort.
The first intentional tort is defamation, defamation is a law that protects false statement made
against someone that can affect their image. Defamation can be in written or verbally, written
defamation

An Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress
Question Presented Does Samuel Taylor, the former member of the Local 718 Teamsters Union,
have a cause of action against Ronald Murray, Local 718 business representative, who repeatedly
harassed Taylor for about four months and intentionally inflicted emotional distress which resulted
in Taylor's loss of twenty pounds, extreme nervousness, loss of his union membership and his job?
Brief Answer Probably yes. Under Massachusetts law, a plaintiff has a claim for an intentional
infliction of emotional distress if all of the following elements are satisfied: (1) the defendant
intended, knew or reasonably have known that his conduct will result in the emotional distress; (2)
the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible limits of decency and
utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the defendant's conduct is the cause of the plaintiff's
distress; and (4) the plaintiff's emotional agitation was so severe and of a nature that no reasonable
person could withstand. Here, Murray intended to inflict emotional distress by harassing Taylor so
he would cooperate with the union, it was of extreme and outrageous manner, when he threatened
Taylor's and his wife's life, and caused the emotional agitation so severe, which no person could be
reasonably expected to endure, and as a result, Taylor withdrew his membership, quit his job,

Sherman Vrs Light
Outline with Thesis Statement
Tort Law
11/29/2010
Sherman's v. Church of the Divine Light
Thesis statement: This case of the Shermans v. Church of the Divine Light. According the case, the
Shermans claim that their minor child has been the victim of illegal detention and intentional
infliction of emotional distress and among other torts. They seek to be compensated for all the
damages that such detention have brought to their minor child as well as the medical and other
expenses they incurred in getting him away from the church and "bringing him" from their
intentional "brainwashing" of their minor child.
I. Will Rob Jr. (technically, his parents will sue the church on his behalf) be able to get this case to
trial? ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
California courts have also acknowledged the right to recover damages for emotional distress alone,
without consequent physical injuries, in cases involving extreme and outrageous intentional
invasions of one 's mental and emotional tranquility. (State Rubbish etc. Assn. v. Siliznoff (1952) 38
Cal.2d 330, 336–337) Rob Jr. subsequently suffered some sort of emotional distress, when he was
detained and abruptly cut off from his parents love and affection when he had to live with his
suppose "new family".
c) Fraud– Intentional deception resulting in injury to another person or an intentional
misrepresentation, concealment, a false promise or a negligent misrepresentation. The following
abstract from the case "The next day Tom had Rob Jr. wrote a letter to his parents telling them that
he was planning to stay with the Church, as they were his "new" family. Rob Jr. was also told to
demand money from his parents to cover his expenses. This clearly states the intent of fraud from
Mr. Tom Marsden to the Shermans.
d) Undue Influence– This involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another
person. Taking any fraudulent or unfair advantage of another 's weakness in mind, distress, or
necessity. The relationship between Rob Jr. and the Mr. Tom Marsden is a Priest/member of parish,
Whereas, Mr. Tom Marsden to advantage of Rob Jr. because he was member and also because he
was minor and used his position to influence the

Emotional Distress Case Study
The fourth element for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is the requirement that
emotional distress must be severe. Comment j of Section 46 of the Restatement, elaborates on this
requirement: It is only where it is extreme that the liability arises. Complete emotional tranquillity is
seldom attainable in this world, and some degree of transient and trivial emotional distress is a part
of the price of living among people. The law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe
that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it. In the controlling case, Jones v. Harris, 35
Md. App. 556, 371 A.2d 1104 (1977), the court held that fourth element of the tort that the
emotional distress must be severe was not established by legally sufficient evidence justifying
submission of the case to the jury. That element of the tort requires the plaintiff to show that he
suffered a severely disabling emotional response to the defendant's conduct. The severity of the
emotional distress is not only relevant to the amount of recovery but is a necessary element to any
recovery. The court ruled that held ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Ford Motor Credit Co., 502 A. 2d 1057 – Md: Court of Special Appeals 1986, The plaintiffs, debtors
filed an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other counts, against defendant
creditors. The evidence which the plaintiffs presented consisted of a wide array of objectionable and
harassing conduct, including persistent phone calls, one allegedly late at night, threats to sue, threats
to ruin the plaintiff's credit, and threats to attach the plaintiff's house and property. One of the
plaintiffs produced evidence that she was upset, that she had difficulty sleeping, and that she was
embarrassed. However, the court held that to sustain an action for intentional infliction of emotional
distress, one must suffer an emotional response so acute that no reasonable person could be expected
to endure

Cady V Murray Case Summary
Discussion Taylor suffered serious emotional distress, part of which was fear for his and Mya's life
which led them to fleeing their home state of Massachusetts as a result of Murray's continuous
intimidations during four months. The issue in this case is whether Taylor has a claim against
Murray for the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. Under Massachusetts law, the
court will likely conclude that Taylor has a claim against Murray for his conduct toward Taylor
because (1) Murray intentionally inflicted emotional distress to Taylor; (2) Murray's conduct was
extreme and outrageous; (3) Murray's conduct directly caused Taylor's emotional distress; and (4)
Taylor's emotional distress was severe. See Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140, 144–45
(Mass. 1976); Quinn v. Walsh, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 696, 706–07 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000); Cady v.
Marcella, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 340–41, (Mass. App. Ct. 2000). (1) Murray's purpose to inflict
emotional distress on Taylor probably is ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
App. Ct. Mass. App. Ct. at 341, the court reasoned that the degree of emotional distress can be
inferred from the actual conduct and the circumstances, no need for an expert witness. Caddys had
headaches and stomachaches and could not concentrate on work because their home was taken away
from them which is not something an ordinary person could endure. Id. Similarly, Taylor felt so
unsafe that he and Mya quit their jobs, he withdrew his membership from the union, and they left
Massachusetts altogether because Murray was threatening their lives. No reasonable person could
carry on with their life when someone is threatening to take their life. Although, Murray may argue
that Taylor's weight loss, insomnia and nervousness are not severe enough physical ailments,
according to a holding in Agis, 371 Mass. Mass. at 146, absence of physical damages should not
thwart a claim. Thus, the court will likely rule that Taylor's favor on this

Harris V. Wideman Case Summary
(EC & LQF)Can the plaintiff, Wideman, maintain a lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional
distress when the defendant, Lucas, knowing that the plaintiff had serious concerns for the safety of
he and his family after representing the state in a serious criminal case, posted a photo of the
plaintiff with his wife and children on twitter, and also made the location of the plaintiff's home
available to the public, causing the plaintiff to suffer from serious medical and emotional
impairment? II. Short Answer (EC & LQF) Mr. Wideman, is likely to succeed in recovering
damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress from Ms. Lucas. The court's decision in
Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560, 566, 380 A.2d 611, 614 (1977) provides the controlling law of the
case and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The second prong aims to prove that the conduct was extreme and outrageous, going beyond certain
standards of decency. The third determines whether there is a causal connection between the
reckless conduct and the emotional distress. Lastly, the fourth prong states that the injury must be
severe. In Wideman's case, the facts are sufficient to allow him to recover damages from Lucas for
intentional infliction of emotional distress. First, the conduct of Lucas was reckless because Lucas
was aware of the troubles and dangers Wideman was dealing with because of the case, and she still
proceeded to post a tweet that could have compromised the safety of Wideman and his family
because of the geotag and mention of the case that has resulted in death threats. Secondly, the
conduct of Lucas was extreme and outrageous because Lucas knew that Wideman was susceptible to
emotional distress as a result to photo being posted and abused a relationship between herself and
Wideman when she turned a private conversation public. In addition, there is a causal connection
between Wideman's emotional distress and Lucas' tweet, once

Tort : A Civil Wrong
Torts
A tort is a term that is used to describe a civil wrong. The civil wrong must cause harm or loss to
someone in order to be classified as a tort. There are numerous types of torts which include assault,
battery, negligence, products liability and intentional infliction of emotional distress. These torts fall
into three general categories which are: intentional torts, negligent torts and strict liability (Cornell
University Law School, n.d.). The following paper will describe a situation in Washington in which
four legal secretaries filed an intentional tort claim against Clark County and the prosecuting
attorney's office for harassment and retaliation. In addition, it will also cover how tort reform might
affect the case.
The Situation In Clark County Washington, four legal secretaries have filed a tort claim against the
county and prosecuting attorney's office after being placed on administrative leave. Their claim
alleges harassment and retaliation after they refused to implicate a co–worker who was under
criminal investigation. Their co–worker, Matthew Kozlowski, was investigated for sending emails
which hinted that he wanted to shoot someone in the prosecutor's office. He was then arrested facing
felony harassment charges, which the Attorney General Office later dropped (Prokop, 2015).
According to the women's tort claim, the four women received Kozlowski's email and two had
replied. In an interview with the Clark County Sheriff, they said they understood the

Brown Vs Smith
Brown v Smith In the club bar Smith, by way of a practical joke, pulled a chair away just as Brown
(the referee) was about to sit down, resulting in Brown falling over and striking his head on the
floor. Therefore S. may be liable under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton, in addition to battery. He
will not be liable for assault since this requires reasonable apprehension by B and that does not seem
to be the case. Battery has been defined earlier when discussing his liability for J's injury, so
although the elements from the criteria will not be repeated here it will still apply to this scenario.
Both the act and immediate infliction can be dealt with together; in this case, the act of pulling the
chair away was a positive act and was immediately inflicted since B. was about to sit down
instantly, as a result of which he fell and injured his head. As for intention, its scope is argued to be
wide enough to cover practical jokes (Williams v Humphrey); for example, pushing someone into
the pool, or even an amicably intended kiss, can be argued to amount to battery. In this case, even if
S. were to argue that, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, it is hard to establish the liability for this tort due to the low number of case–law, and even
then, they are mostly conflicting. In Wainwright v Home Office, the courts have held that the
defendant needs to at least have acted recklessly "without caring as to whether they caused harm";
simply emotional distress is not enough. This case approved the definition in Wong v Parkside NHS
Trust, with the degree of harm being such that the defendant "cannot ... say that he did not "mean" to
do it" (the intention being a combination of likelihood of harm and deliberate engagement). More
recently, in Rhodes v OPO it was held that the defendant must have intended to cause physical harm
or severe mental or emotional

Steeple Vs Eagen Case Study
Steeple v. Eagen Eagen was in a situation where his instructor, and possibly other students, were in
danger. Each state and the federal government allow for the right to self–defense. However, states
have developed rules which define when self–defense is allowed. Factors that must be examined are
the imminent nature of the threat, reasonable nature of the threat, proportional response, duty to
retreat versus stand your ground, and beyond. Eagen was within his right to respond to Steeple.
Miller et. al states a more succinctly phrased test to determine if self–defense is applicable. Miller
et. al questions, "Was the defendant privileged to use force to defend herself, and was the degree of
force that she used reasonable?" A person may defend themselves against any threat of physical
contact or confinement. The notion of whether the threat is negligent or intentional is irrelevant. In
fact, the defendant does not even have to be harmed to use this defense. Based on the idea that
""self–preservation is the first law of nature" even in err, a defendant must genuinely believe there is
a threat. For example, if a police officer shoots and kills a criminal known to be armed who reached
in their pocket for keys, the officer still can claim self–defense because the notion the criminal was
pulling out a gun, based on their background, is reasonable. Likewise, Eagan perceived not only
imminent danger but a deadly danger that would likely have left Bonds dead if he had not
responded. The fact that the danger was no real, has zero bearing on the legal situation. Another
issue at hand is proportional response or reasonable force. It could be argued that Eagen responded
in a disproportionate manner that led to the broken leg of Steeple. However, this argument is
mitigated by the fact the deadly force may be used to address a threat of equal deadly force. Eagan
did not likely intend to break Steeple's leg, only intending to prevent Steeple's aggression from
escalation. However, this is largely irrelevant from a legal standpoint. At the time of Eagan's actions,
Steeple was seemingly choking Bonds. Choking can equate to deadly force. If the simulation were
real and Steeple continued to choke Bonds, he would succumb to

Employment Contract
The above arbitration clause extracted from the Google Inc. Employment Contract can be used in
the relationship between a university and a student athlete in the terms of the forms of conflicts and
disputes that, if occurring, would be settled by arbitration.
The clause lists examples of such conflicts, and states that "[Any and all claims] for breach of
contract, both express and implied; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, both
express and implied" are conflicts that would be settled by the arbitration process. This specific part
could apply to universities and student athletes in the occasion that the student athlete is paid for
their athletic participation with organizations such as the NCAA. In the case that a student ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
in the determination of how much each individual athlete will be paid. Performance should be the
ultimate deciding factor in this situation. However on the account of disabilities, it is very rare for
someone with a disability to participate in the NCAA or professional athleticism, but in the case that
a disabled student does, there should still be absolutely no discrimination. In a case that there is, this
student would be able to engage the arbitration process, as stated by the arbitration clause in the
contract.
Lastly, in order to ensure that there is no conflict in terms of unfair pay between student athletes
with greater performance than those with lesser performance, there must be a clause that states that
the salary will be based on the performance and popularity of the athlete. However, there should
also be a minimum and maximum amount that an athlete can receive.
All in all, most of the provisions in the Google Inc. Employment Contract arbitration clause can be
applicable in the case of a paid student athlete and university, although some modifications would
need to be

Unit 1 Tort Law
PA–310 Unit 1 Causes of Action Tort laws are laws that offer remedies to individuals harmed by the
unreasonable actions of others. Tort claims usually involve state law and are based on the legal
premise that individuals are liable for the consequences of their conduct if it results in injury to
others. Tort law only requires 4 elements to be shown. The first one is that the tortfeasor owes the
injured party a duty to do something or not to do something; two is that tortfeasor breached the duty,
based on the applicable standard of care that he/she is owed; three is that tortfeasor action or
inaction is the proximate cause of the injured party 's injury; four is the injured party has in fact
suffered some type of injury (physical, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The reason why I choose this case for Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress even though the
Church of the Divine Light did not physical hurt Rob Jr. they harmed him mentally. Rob Sr. and
Bunny Sherman causes of action against Church of the Divine Light: Washington v. Farlice, 1 Cal.
App. 4th 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Appellant provided financial assistance to her deceased boyfriend
to purchase his daughter, respondent, and a car. In an effort to retrieve the car after the boyfriend 's
death, appellant falsely reported the automobile as stolen. This resulted in the respondent husband 's
arrest and detention in a police cell. Appellant was subsequently found liable for false imprisonment
of respondent husband and ordered to pay him compensatory and punitive damages. The reason why
I choose this case for financial distress is because the parent's of Rob Jr. provided financial
assistance to the Church of the Divine to support their child while he was being held at the church.
Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88 (N.J. 1980) The plaintiff's seven year old son got caught between the
elevator and the shaft of the wall and was pinned for four hours while his plaintiff watched and
attempted to rescue until his death. Afterwards the mother experience psychological problems,
attempted suicide. It was the defendant's duties to avoid prevent mental and emotional harm by
death or

The Death Of Mrs. Summers ' Injury Of Situational Anxiety...
1. The Defendant's behavior in the Tavern is the proximate cause of Mrs. Summers' injury.
By shooting her husband, the Defendant is the proximate cause of Mrs. Summer's injury of
situational anxiety and psychological hysteria. In order to show that a defendant is the proximate
cause of a plaintiff's injuries, the plaintiff must show that there was a sufficiently close, actual,
causal connection between defendants conduct and the actual damage suffered by plaintiff. Rickstad
v. Holmberg, 456 P.2d 355 (Wash. 1969). There are two elements in displaying the casual
connection. First, plaintiff must show that the defendant's action is the cause in fact plaintiff's injury.
Second, plaintiff must show that the defendant is the legal cause of her ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Summers' anxiety is a "but for" result from the trauma she experience in witnessing the shooting of
her husband. The second prong for causation, legal causation, considers the policy considerations of
how far the consequences of a defendant 's acts should extend by considering if liability should
attach as a matter of law given the existence of cause in fact. Christen v. Lee, 780 P.2d 1307, 1313
(Wash. 1989). In considering public policy, it would be in the best interest of the public if shooting
someone at a Tavern attached as a matter of law due to the egregious nature of the crime. However,
plaintiff argues that this should be a matter for a jury to consider. Therefore, partial summary
judgment would not be proper.
2. As a result of the Defendant's Actions, Mrs. Summers has a medical injury that entitle her to
damages.
There is sufficient evidence of the final prong for damages under the claim for negligent infliction of
emotional distress. The court has held that in order for a plaintiff to show damages, he or she must
be susceptible to medical diagnosis and medical evidence that proves the casual link between the
observation at the scene and the subsequent emotional reaction. Hegel v. McMahon, 136 Wash. 2d
122 (Wash 1998). The emotional response must also be reasonable under the circumstances. Id.
(citing Hunsley, 87 Wash. 2d at 436.)
In Hegel, the plaintiff displayed symptoms of nightmares,

Sherman V. Church of Divine Light (Causes of Action)
Mark A. Puno
PA310 – Tort Law
Prof. Laurence Mraz
22 May 2011
Unit 1 Assignment
CAUSES OF ACTION
What are the possible causes of action that one can take against the church?
In the case of the fifteen–year–old Rob Jr., the Church of Devine Light was at fault will be held
responsible for the actions of Tom Marsden, an employee of the church, under strict liability. Rob's
parents, Rob Sr. and Bunny, could file charges against Tom Marsden and the Church of Devine
Light for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment. Tom
Marsden intentional misled Rob Jr. and brainwashed him into staying with the church. Mr. Marsden
also threatened and assaulted Rob Jr. by telling him "If you leave, you ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
As an adult of this church group, you are responsible for the welfare and protection of the children
from harm's way. The church should take every precaution not to endanger the children under their
supervision. Furthermore, the parents should have every right to see if their children is taken care of
and be allowed visitation rights any time of day. The church had exploited the child and their parents
by putting the child in danger by brainwashing him, assaulting him, inflicting emotional distress,
and false imprisonment. This alone is grounds for intentional tort or strict liability lawsuit. The
parents put their faith and trust on the Church of Devine Light and Tom Marsden, but instead were
misled by their actions.
Causes of action
Intentional Tort: Torts actionable upon evidence of an intent to cause harm on another, such as
assault, trespass, false imprisonment, private nuisance, defamation or invasion of privacy.
Strict Liability: Tort liability, which is set upon the defendant without need to prove intent,
negligence or fault; as long as you can prove that it was the defendant's object that caused the
damage.
Negligence: A failure to act as a reasonable person would be expected to act in similar

circumstances.
Assault: A person commits an assault when without the consent of another

Concord Essay
MODULE 7 MODEL ANSWER
Evaluation Approach
To learn the most from your experience of writing this essay, with an eye towards improving both
your essay–writing skills as well as your knowledge of the relevant substantive law, please compare
your essay to the model answer provided below using the following approach:
(1) Score: Find the score the essay received in the grading rubric (below), and note the description
of why an essay would receive that score. The score tells you in general terms how the way the
essay was written correlates to the expectations for the assignment (note that when taken by
themselves, some parts of the essay might by themselves be of higher or lower quality, the score the
essay received is the overall ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If after doing this you are not certain why that particular detail needed to be addressed (or why a
particular level of detail should not have been addressed), please feel free to e–mail me.

Result/Outcome: Does the essay reach the same result or outcome at each point as the model
answer? If not, determine why not. If the differing result is mentioned in the notes on the model
answer as one that could also be supported by the facts, that's fine. If it isn't, and you aren't certain
why the essay's result on a specific point in the analysis is not supportable under the law and the
facts presented, please feel free to e–mail me.
(d) Conclusion: Make certain that your conclusion is well–supported by your analysis. If your
analysis does not support your conclusion, identify where the two differ or where the analysis is
silent. This focus will show you where and why the essay needed a deeper and more detailed
analysis, or why the conclusion was erroneous, or possibly both. If your conclusion for an issue is
not well–supported by your analysis for that issue, and you are uncertain how to resolve this
discrepancy, please feel free to email me.
MODEL ANSWER FOR TIMED (SAME) TORTS ESSAY 1 – MODULE 7
[Note that the IRAC format is used throughout the answer. The answer is written in the format you
are learning in your Legal Writing and Test–Taking course. Issues are framed as questions. Rules
immediately follow

Hustler Magazine V Falwell Summary
After all this information on parody and satire, the question still remains, can SNL be sued for their
comedy sketches? Since one cannot directly attack head on parody and satire, it is important to look
around the situation. What is it about the parody that can affect a person: defamation. Defamation is
defined as "any communication that holds a person up to contempt, hatred, ridicule or scorn and
lowers the reputation of the individuals defamed" (Pember and Calvert). This was a big factor in
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, how far can a parody go?
Hustler Magazine decided to put a parody in their magazine of the Campari Liquor ads. Campari
Liquor at the time were releasing advertisements of famous personas reflecting about their first time
drinking ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Levitt later figured out that it was a student that had created an account. Levitt felt that his
credibility as a teacher and lawyer was being attacked by the imposter account. Tweets that were
written from the imposterous account played off of the originals stating:
Buy me a drink at Cabin Karaoke will get you extra [credit], but it's not like that matters because
you are guaranteed an A in the syllabus...#inToddWeToke and 4/20=Pot smoking holiday[.]
Possession of marijuana=Client[.] Client=Income [.] In the words of Snoop Dogg: smoke weed
every day. #inToddWeToke[.]

Analysis Of The New York Civil Practice Law
Preliminary Statement Defendant Dr. Brandon Iron respectfully moves the Court, pursuant to Rule
3212(a) of the New York Civil Practice Law & Rules, to grant a motion for Summary Judgement in
response to Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress Claim. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Iron
intentionally inflicted emotional distress while performing a surgical procedure. Iron contends that
the marking does not satisfy the extreme and outrageous behavior element. Absent such extreme and
outrageous behavior, the cause of action cannot survive as a matter of law and the defendant should
be granted a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Statement of Facts Dr. Brandon Iron (Dr. Iron) is a physician specializing in obstetrics and
gynecology. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Markup signed the consent form. Dr. Iron performed Markup's successful hysterectomy procedure
on December 30th 2011. On January 6th Dr. Iron had a follow up appointment with Markup during
which he showed her a video of the procedure. The video revealed that Dr. Iron marked Markup's
uterus with the letters C.W.R.U. Although there is no specific protocol identified by Dr. Iron for the
type of marking he performed, he used the marking on every surgical specimen being removed
during a procedure to provide a third check to ensure that the organ and specimen were correctly
identified for the pathology department. As a result of her surgical experience, Markup has sued Iron
in state court. This argument is submitted to the court in support of Defendant's request to grant
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Argument
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE
PLAINTIFF CANNOT ESTABLISH THAT THE MARKING OF HER UTERUS WAS SO
EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS AS TO MEET THE STRICT REQUIREMENT FOR AN
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIM.
In order to make a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress it must be shown that there
was: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) with the intent to cause, or the disregard of a
substantial likelihood of causing, severe emotional distress; (3) direct causation; and (4) severe
emotional distress. Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 121, 596 N.Y.S.2d 350, 353
(N.Y.1993). The only element at

Essay On Week 3- Legal, Political, Ethics Dim Of Business

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Kimberly Bundy

More from Kimberly Bundy (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Essay On Week 3- Legal, Political, Ethics Dim Of Business