Tort Law Case Study Essay
Case 1 In the case at Gigantic State University, students that were a part of the SFT committed several careless acts. Within this particular case there was a definite crime that was committed because both Prudence’s physical and mental integrity was harmed. Not only could this case be classified according to the textbook as an intentional tort against persons but could be put into intentional tort against property. Torts against persons are intentional acts that harm an individual’s physical or mental integrity (Kubasek, pg. 111). A person who is legally injured may be able to use tort law to recover damages from someone who is legally responsible, or “liable,” for those injuries. According to the case, Prudence’s physical integrity was harmed
…show more content…
This tort is classified as trespass to realty under four circumstances, one being when a person intentionally stays on the land of another when the owner tells him to depart (Kubasek, pg. 115). Analyzing the case it is clear that Chandler had asked the members to leave. However, the students did not obey which makes them have the possibility of being accused of trespass. Not only is a trespasser on someone’s personal property but, the trespasser is liable for damages she or he might cause as well (Kubasek, pg. 115). Since Steel and the other members used the properties book case and used it to break down Chandler’s door all of them are liable for the damages caused to both the door and the bookcase. Negligent torts involve failure to exercise reasonable care to protect another’s person or property (Kubasek, pg. 117). When comparing that definition to this case it is clear that negligence does not correspond with the elements of this case. In conclusion with the evidence involved it can be understood that Chandler had not control over this situation and had no way of knowing how to prevent this from
This tort is classified as trespass to realty under four circumstances, one being when a person intentionally stays on the land of another when the owner tells him to depart (Kubasek, pg. 115). Analyzing the case it is clear that Chandler had asked the members to leave. However, the students did not obey which makes them have the possibility of being accused of trespass. Not only is a trespasser on someone’s personal property but, the trespasser is liable for damages she or he might cause as well (Kubasek, pg. 115). Since Steel and the other members used the properties book case and used it to break down Chandler’s door all of them are liable for the damages caused to both the door and the bookcase. Negligent torts involve failure to exercise reasonable care to protect another’s person or property (Kubasek, pg. 117). When comparing that definition to this case it is clear that negligence does not correspond with the elements of this case. In conclusion with the evidence involved it can be understood that Chandler had not control over this situation and had no way of knowing how to prevent this from