Tort Case Study for Ron and Print It

Legal Case; Ron is Hurt by Protestors What Action can he Take?

Ron has a potential claim under tort. Tort is seen when one person/party does something wrong against another (Edwards and Wells, 2015). For Ron to take action, three things should be present, the person accused of wrongdoing should have a duty of care, that the duty of care was breached, and that Ron (the plaintiff) suffered as a result of that breach.

Torts are a civil action, with three different types of tort actions possible; intentional, negligent, and strict liability torts. Intentional torts are seen where there is purposeful harm committed, including actions such as assault and battery (Glannon, 2015). Negligence is seen when actions where not purposeful, but where the result of an error or mistake, on the part of the wrongdoer, including not taking actions expected of a prudent person, may be seen as negligent if they lead to harm. Accidents which result in harm may be included in this category (Edwards and Wells, 2015). Strict liability is a limited tort under which intent is not an issue, often dealing with issues associated with product defects, and employers' responsibility for the actions of their employees (Edwards and Wells, 2015).

Ron is knocked down by protesters from POA. It may be argued that any reasonable person on a sidewalk, or outside a shop, would be prudent to consider the presence of others. In this context, the protesters, and the organisers of the protest had a duty of care to other pedestrians. There is no evidence that the protesters intended to harm any pedestrians, so the tort is that of negligence. The injuries suffered by Ron starts with the protesters, and therefore, the 'but for' test as seen in cases such as Mccahill v. New York Transp. Co., 94 N.E. 616, 618 (N.Y. 1911) and Whitner v. Von Hintz, 263 A.2d 889, 894 (Pa. 1970) may be applied. But for the protest, Ron would not have received his injuries (Edwards and Wells, 2015).. Therefore, there does appear to be grounds for a case to be brought against the protestors, with proximity and subsequent injury already demonstrated.

However, when looking at the situation there is an additional complication, Ron was also harmed by a Print It employee, who kicked him while he was down and threatened him saying "stay down or I will make you stay down." This may also be argued as being negligent, as it may be argued that this was not the role the employee should have been taking on. It is possible that the employee may argue that they felt threatened and were merely defending themselves. However one must consider the situation and whether or not this as a reasonable action (Glannon, 2015). In normal situation where the actions of the first wrongdoer starts a chain of action, they will be liable for the entire chain of events, even actions of a third party as long as they are 'normal efforts' (Franklin & Rablin, 2015). In this case, the aggressive actions of the employee are unlikely to be seen as normal. Indeed, there is also the potential to argue for an assault tort, if the employee had seen the protest and intended to take aggressive action harming the protestors. However, this is less likely to be successful.

The employee was employed by Print It, and was undertaking the action while at work. Therefore, there is the potential of a strict liability; if it can be shown that it was the kicking from the employee rather than the knocking over of the employee which lead to the injury, as well as taking potential action against the employee, Ron may be able to take action against Print It. This action may be more likely to succeed as the commercial insurance may be more willing to settle (Franklin & Rablin, 2015).

The total damages Ron is likely to receive will include compensation for the medical costs incurred and for the lost wages resulting from the injury, and in some cases there is also the potential for damages for emotional distress or embarrassment (Franklin & Rablin, 2015).

There is also the issue of the video that has been posted creating emotional harm. There is a tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress available in most U.S. states. This has very limited impact, it occurs where one party has a legal duty to protect another from emotional distress (Kircher, 2007). However, the protesters did not have a legal duty to prevent emotional distress, and the recording and posting of the video is unlikely to be classified as the outrageous distress requirement (Kircher, 2007).

In summary, there is the case for Ron to claim against the protesters for a tort of negligence, and as the employees has arguably acted beyond reasonable expectation, there is the potential for a case against the employer who may be held to account for the employees action. However, there is unlikely to be any sustainable claim for emotional distress.

References

Edwards, J S; Wells, P K. (2016). Tort Law. New York, Cengage Learning

Franklin, M A; Rablin, R L; Green, M D. (2015). Tort Law and Alternatives: Cases and Materials, Foundation Press

Glannon, J W. (2015). Examples & Explanations: The Law of Torts, New York, Wohters Kluwer

Kircher, J J, (2007), The Four Faces of Tort Law: Liability for Emotional Harm, Marquette Law Review. 90 $), 789 -- 920, Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol90/iss4/3