Negligence and tort liability in Anna v. Italian Restaurant

Tort Case

"A tort is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Legally, torts are called civil wrongs, as opposed to criminal ones" (Tort, 2011).

Anna v. Italian Restaurant

Negligence

Negligence is conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm (Kionka, 2006). It this case a reasonable prudent person would not expect to find glass in a meal served at a restaurant, which would then mean that the Italian Restaurant would be guilty of negligence. Also, the defendant had a duty of care to Anna because of doing business as an Italian Restaurant. The restaurant owed a duty of care to Anna along with all of its patrons to serve them food that did not contain things that would harm them, like glass.

Patrons v. Anna's waiter

Reckless Conduct

Reckless Conduct is conduct that is in reckless disregard of the safety of another when the defendant knows or has reason to know that it creates an unreasonable risk of harm and the risk is comparatively high, either in degree or in the likelihood that harm will occur (Kionka, 2006). In this case when Ann's waiter cast aside his burning apron he should have been aware that there were table clothes that could have caught on fire causing danger to everyone in the restaurant. Thus, Anna's waiter would be guilty of reckless conduct in the fact that he should have made sure that he discarded the burning apron away from other things that could catch on fire.

Self-Defense

Defendant has the privilege to use so much force as reasonably appears to be immediately necessary to protect himself against imminent physical harm threatened by the intentional or negligent conduct of another (Kionka, 2006). In this case Anna's waiter would claim that he was acting in self-defense when he pulled the burning apron off of himself and discarded it.

Elderly Lady v. Italian Restaurant

Malpractice

The standard of care of medical doctors is decisively established by the usual or customary practice of reasonably well qualified practitioners in that field. Physicians or others, who are certified specialists, are held to the standards of that specialty (Kionka, 2006). In this case the surgeon who would be considered a specialist would be held to a higher standard of care. A patient in a hospital expects to be treated with the utmost care. Since Anna had expected surgery on her mouth and tooth but yet received an amputated leg, surgeon would be guilty of malpractice negligence.