This paper presents student case analyses across two areas of law: tort liability and legal ethics. The tort section examines three factual scenarios involving false imprisonment, battery, negligence, dram shop liability, contributory negligence, trespass, and invasion of privacy. The ethics section addresses three landmark cases — Wisconsin v. Yoder, De Santis v. Pacific Telephone Co., and Atkins v. Jimmy Peak, Inc. — asking whether lower court decisions should be affirmed or overturned. Throughout, the paper applies relevant legal definitions, identifies parties who may sue and why, considers available defenses, and weighs ethical and utilitarian considerations in judicial decision-making.
The following three scenarios present factual situations involving potential civil liability. Each is analyzed to identify the applicable torts, the parties who may sue and be sued, relevant defenses, and the legal rationale supporting each conclusion.
During class on a Wednesday, while showing a movie, an instructor notices smoke and smells marijuana coming from the back of the room. When she turns the lights on, she cannot identify who was smoking, and no one admits to it. She tells the class that no one may leave until the perpetrator is identified, and she locks the doors. Four hours pass with no confession. Tyler, growing anxious, grabs the instructor by the arms and shakes her, saying, "I'm not staying in here any longer." Joseph helps him kick down the door, and the entire class leaves. As they exit, Ron grabs a piece of the broken door and throws it at the instructor, who ducks; the piece of door strikes Diana, injuring her leg.
In this scenario, there are several instances of civil liability. First, the instructor is not qualified to conduct a criminal investigation — such as one involving marijuana use — and does not have the legal authority to detain students against their will or compel them to speak. The students' right not to be falsely imprisoned and their right to remain silent are both implicated. Rather than locking the doors, the instructor should have involved the appropriate authorities. The students would therefore have grounds to bring a civil claim against the instructor for false imprisonment, which is the unlawful restraint of a person's freedom of movement without legal justification.
Tyler's act of grabbing and shaking the instructor constitutes battery — an intentional, harmful, or offensive physical contact with another person without consent. Joseph's participation in kicking down the door may expose him to property damage liability, though his actions could also be framed as a reasonable response to unlawful confinement. Ron's act of throwing a piece of the door at the instructor, which ultimately struck and injured Diana, gives Diana a clear tort claim against Ron for battery or negligence. Diana would be best served by suing Ron directly, as he was the proximate cause of her injury. Ron could potentially also assert a claim against the instructor for the emotional distress caused by the prolonged unlawful confinement, which created the circumstances that led to Diana's injury.
Ana, after having a criminal case dismissed, uses money from a found bag to pay her attorney, purchase a vehicle, pay tuition, and spend the rest partying with friends. The group visits Club Disco, where bartender Alexis serves them Long Island Iced Teas all night and receives a generous tip for doing so. Knowing that the group is intoxicated — as they are stumbling and falling — Alexis helps them to their car. Ana then drives away and collides with Kurt's car, which was traveling the wrong way without its headlights on. Kurt's car is totaled. During the impact, Katie, who was not wearing a seatbelt, falls out of the back of the Jeep and injures herself.
Ana would likely have a viable claim against Alexis — or the bar that employed Alexis — under dram shop liability principles. A bartender has a duty to stop serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons, and Alexis not only continued to serve the group but also assisted them to their vehicle, facilitating Ana's decision to drive while intoxicated. This action foreseeably increased the risk of harm to others.
Although the car accident involved Kurt driving the wrong way without his headlights on — a clear traffic violation — Kurt would still have grounds to sue Ana because she was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the collision. Driving while intoxicated is a serious offense that can override or complicate a comparative fault analysis, depending on the jurisdiction. Katie's failure to wear a seatbelt may be raised as a defense of contributory or comparative negligence in any claim she brings, potentially reducing any damages she could recover. Ana could also face liability to both Kurt and Katie as a result of her negligent operation of the vehicle while intoxicated.
Rich is an avid duck hunter who, one day, spots a duck flying over his neighbor Kim's house. He aims and fires, hitting the duck, which falls onto Kim's roof. Matt hops over the fence to retrieve it for Rich and climbs onto Kim's roof. While up there, Matt slips and falls but fortunately lands on the balcony outside Kim's window. He peers inside and sees Kim and Anna watching television, dancing around and lip-syncing to songs. Matt takes photographs with his cell phone and uploads them to YouTube the following day.
Rich could face liability for property damage if his actions caused any harm to Kim's roof or property. However, the stronger legal claim arises from Matt's conduct. Matt's entry onto Kim's property without permission constitutes trespass. More significantly, filming Kim inside her home — a place where she has a reasonable expectation of privacy — and then publishing that footage publicly constitutes a serious invasion of privacy. Kim would have strong grounds to sue Matt for both trespass and the public disclosure of private facts, which is a recognized tort. The fact that Matt entered her private property without consent and then distributed the footage online compounds the violation of her rights.
"Duck hunter and neighbor's privacy violation"
"Children's autonomy versus parental religious freedom"
"Title VII limits and alternative legal remedies"
"Shortened filing period and utilitarian justification"
You’re 59% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.