This paper analyzes the tort law options available to Ron after he is knocked down and injured by protesters affiliated with POA and subsequently kicked by an employee of a nearby business, Print It. Drawing on foundational tort law concepts — including negligence, intentional torts, and strict liability — the paper applies the "but for" causation test, examines employer vicarious liability, and evaluates the prospect of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from a video posted online. The paper concludes that Ron has viable negligence claims against the protesters and a potential strict liability claim against Print It, while a claim for emotional distress is unlikely to succeed.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
Ron has a potential claim under tort law. A tort arises when one person or party does something wrong against another (Edwards and Wells, 2015). For Ron to take action, three elements must be present: the accused party must have had a duty of care toward Ron, that duty of care must have been breached, and Ron (the plaintiff) must have suffered harm as a result of that breach.
Torts are civil actions, and three different types are possible: intentional torts, negligent torts, and strict liability torts. Intentional torts arise where purposeful harm has been committed, including actions such as assault and battery (Glannon, 2015). Negligence occurs when actions were not purposeful but resulted from an error or mistake on the part of the wrongdoer; failing to take the actions expected of a prudent person may be deemed negligent if harm results. Accidents that lead to injury may fall into this category (Edwards and Wells, 2015). Strict liability is a more limited tort under which intent is not an issue; it often applies to product defects and employers' responsibility for the actions of their employees (Edwards and Wells, 2015).
Ron was knocked down by protesters from POA. It may reasonably be argued that any person on a sidewalk or outside a shop would be prudent to consider the presence of others. In this context, both the protesters and the organizers of the protest had a duty of care toward other pedestrians. There is no evidence that the protesters intended to harm any pedestrians, so the applicable tort is that of negligence.
The injuries suffered by Ron originate with the protesters, and therefore the "but for" test — as applied 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 here. But for the protest, Ron would not have received his injuries (Edwards and Wells, 2015). There does therefore appear to be grounds for a claim against the protesters, with proximity and subsequent injury already demonstrated.
"Employee assault and employer's strict liability exposure"
"Medical costs, lost wages, and emotional damages"
"Limits of negligent infliction of emotional distress"
In summary, Ron has a viable case to claim against the protesters for a tort of negligence. As the Print It employee arguably acted beyond any reasonable expectation of their role, there is also potential for a claim against the employer, who may be held accountable for the employee's actions. However, there is unlikely to be any sustainable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from the posted video.
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: Wolters Kluwer.
Kircher, J. J. (2007). The four faces of tort law: Liability for emotional harm. Marquette Law Review, 90(4), 789–920. Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol90/iss4/3
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.