Posted: October 2nd, 2022

Paula Plaintiff’s Really Bad Week, Part 1

Introduction

In this assignment, you’ll need to decide whether Paula Plaintiff has any legal claims arising from a series of unfortunate events. After reading the scenario, answer the questions that follow, making sure to fully explain the basis of your decision.

Paula Plaintiff is shopping at her favorite store, Cash Mart. She is looking for a new laptop, but she can’t find one she likes. Then, realizing that she is going to be late for an appointment, she attempts to leave the store, walking very fast. However, before she can leave, she is stopped by a security guard who accuses her of shoplifting. Paula, who has taken nothing, denies any wrong doing. The officer insists and takes Paula to a small room in the back of the store. The guard tells Paula that if she attempts to leave the room she will be arrested and sent to jail. At this point, the guard leaves the room. Paula is scared and waits in the room for over an hour until the manager comes in and apologizes and tells Paula that she is free to go.

About this same time, Geoffrey Golfer is hitting golf balls in his backyard. Geoffrey decides to break out his new driver and hits a golf ball out of his backyard into the Cash Mart parking lot. The golf ball hits Paula Plaintiff on the head and knocks her unconscious just as she is leaving the store.
Instructions

In a 6–10 paragraph paper, answer the following questions:

What types of legal claims could Paula make against Cash Mart and Geoffrey? Consider the following:
What are the possible tort claims that Paula can make against Cash Mart? Assignment help – Discuss the elements of the claim and how those elements relate to the facts in the scenario.
Was Geoffrey negligent when he hit the golf ball that injured Paula? Assignment help – Discuss the elements of negligence and use facts from the scenario to support your decision.
If Paula files a negligence claim against Geoffrey will she file in civil court or criminal court? Explain the difference between civil court and criminal court.

You will create and submit your assignment by using the ecree link. Just click on the link and start writing. Your work will be saved automatically. You’ll see some feedback on the right-hand side of the screen, including text and videos to help guide you in the writing process. When you’re ready, you can turn in your assignment by clicking Submit at the bottom of the page.

Click the assignment link to start your assignment in ecree. Please note that ecree works best in Firefox and Chrome.

This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course.

In addition to your textbook, you have access to Nexus Uni through the Strayer University Library. Please take advantage of this excellent legal resource!

The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is:

Determine if a plaintiff can make legal claims based on the events in a given scenari0.

Paula Plaintiff’s Really Bad Week, Part 1
Paula can sue Cash Mart for intentional tort for false detention. The circumstance clearly shows that Cash Mart is guilty of the intentional tort of false improvement, which can be assessed using the elements of the tort of false imprisonment. The purpose is the first element of the false imprisonment tort. The security at the Cash Mart had a reason for keeping Paula in the room behind the store. The real confinement of the plaintiff inside an area not accepted by the plaintiff is the second crucial feature of this tort.
The scenario clearly shows that Paula had no intention of remaining in the room and wanted to get out as soon as possible. The third component is the causal relationship, which must explain why the restriction is necessary. In this case, the guard lacked evidence that allowed him to confine Paula in that room. Paula had no idea why she was being held captive within the room. Paula has a tort claim for the intentional tort of false confinement based on this analysis.
Paula can also sue Cash Mart under the occupier’s liability tort. According to the law, the occupier of the premises bears a common duty of care to ensure that the visitor is fairly safe when using the premises where the visitor has been invited or permitted by the occupier. Paula was a Cash Mart customer in the scenario, thus she was granted access to the premises. As a result, Cash Mart owes Paula a duty of care while she is still in the Cash Mart parking lot. Furthermore, it is the occupier, Cash Martresponsibility ,’s to secure all customers on the premises, including the parking lot. Paula may have a tort action against Cash Mart for occupier’s obligation.
Geoffrey’s negligence can be understood by closely considering the elements of negligence as a tort. The tort of negligence has four elements: the legal duty of care, the breach of the obligation, the proximate cause, and the actual harm. The identification of three important features is used to determine negligence. First, the defendant’s action must be unintentional. Second, the action was not premeditated, and finally, the action must result in some form of hurt.
In our circumstance, Geoffrey owes Paula the obligation of reasonable care. He should have realized that the golf ball could injure someone in the Cash Mart parking lot. By hitting the golf ball into the parking lot, Geoffrey failed to act properly and broke his duty of care. The golf ball accidently hits Paula in the head, knocking her out. Furthermore, the defendant’s failure to act reasonably and prudently produced the harm. The plaintiff must have suffered actual loss that the court determines is compensable by the defendant or the court.
The outcome of the lawsuit is determined by the defendant’s legal duty to the plaintiff. The defendant must have obliged the plaintiff to act with reasonable care for the plaintiff. In our situation, Geoffrey did not think that the golf ball could strike a person or cause property damage. Geoffrey had a conventional legal duty of care to Paula. The judge determines this aspect of carelessness by considering whether a reasonable person would have a duty of care in such a situation. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care and breached it by acting negligently. The claims must also concentrate on the cause, which seeks to link the damages to the irresponsible behavior.
In the scenario, the golf hitting Paula on the head is enough to establish cause and effect. Proximate cause is a tort element that states that the defendant is liable for losses that could have been prevented if the defendant had exercised the standard legal care of duty in the activities. In the case, Geoffrey might have avoided the damages by not striking the golf ball into the Cash Mart parking lot. A parking lot is a place where automobiles and people move about; consequently, hitting the golf ball into the parking lot is unreasonable since it can injure people and damage vehicles that are people’s property.
The criminal court operates by the government filing claims against wrongdoers who have committed crimes. The accused is now the defendant. The government is tasked with proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When a person is found guilty, the court sentences him or her to prison or jail. The prosecutor is the government’s lawyer, and his or her job is to prove the defendant is guilty of the charges asserted in court.
In civil courts, a person sues another person by filing a case against them when they disagree. Because the company has a fictitious legal identity, it can sue or be sued in a civil court. When one of the parties loses the case, they must compensate the other parties in the form of money or property. On losing the case, the punishment is not serving a jail sentence. The civil court typically handles matters involving money and debts, property, housing, and injury, as well as marriage and children. In civil court, the plaintiff must establish his or her case by preponderance of the evidence, which means that the strongest evidence among the parties wins.
In the scenario, Paula must bring civil claims against Cash Mart and Geoffrey. The matters in court will be Paula vs. Cash Mart and Paula vs. Geoffrey. Cash Mart is given a false identity as a self-contained individual. If the case is lost, the losing party will be required to compensate the other party in monetary terms, or our case will cater to the health care expenditures incurred as a result of the case. In the scenario, Paula was injured after being struck by a golf ball. Finally, Paula should submit her tort claims in a civil court. The civil court is an appropriate venue for dealing with conflicts between Paula and the Cash Mart Business entity, as well as Paula and Geoffrey. It is also evident that Paula has two claims against Cash Mart: intentional tort of false confinement and occupier’s liability, and one claim against Geoffrey for carelessness.

References
Field, I. D. (2018). Contributory Negligence and the Rule of Avoidable Losses. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38(3), 475-499.
Submitter, R. P. S., Law, N. Y. U., & Geistfeld, M. (2019). Folk Tort Law. Handbook of Private Law Theories (Hanoch Dagan & Benjamin Zipursky eds., Edward Elgar Press 2020, Forthcoming), 19-37.

Order | Check Discount