Cl600 Module 5 Mini Essay Assignment Torts

Cl600 Module 5 Mini Essay Assignmenttorts Mini-Essay Assignment

Please follow the steps below to complete your mini essay Assignment. Please note - this is a CLOSED BOOK ASSIGNMENT. Do not use your notes, outlines, books, or any other resource to complete this Assignment. There is no specific page limit or time limit for this Assignment. This Mini-Essay Assignment has three components: 1. Draft an exam outline for this for the following Mini-Essay Exam fact pattern. 2. Write an exam answer to the Mini-Essay Exam fact pattern. 3. Complete the self-assessment. All three components must be included in the document that you upload.

Mini-Essay Fact Pattern: Diego sees Pedro at a convention. Diego walks up to Pedro, slaps Pedro on the back, and congratulates Pedro on the success of Pedro’s new product. Unbeknownst to Diego, Pedro has a fear of being touched by others. Discuss Diego’s liability to Pedro, if any, for intentional torts.

Self-Assessment: ISSUE : Did I identify and prioritize all key issues and frame each in the form of a question? If not, why not? (Select all that apply; note which are most important.) ___ I did not read the facts closely enough to notice that an issue was raised. ___ I did not understand the law so I did not see that the issue was raised. ___ I saw the issue but didn’t think it was important enough to discuss. ___ I saw the issue, but simply forgot to write about it. ___ I saw the issue, but didn’t have enough time to write about it. ___ Other What can I do to improve my performance in this category in the future? (This could include, but is not limited to, further studying the law, doing practice problems, refining your outline of potential issues, and spending more time organizing your answer.) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RULE : Did I succinctly and accurately state the rules of law relevant to the issues? If not, why not? (Select all that apply; note which are most important.) ___ I did not have the rule of law memorized. ___ I did not understand the elements of/exceptions to the applicable rule. ___ I did not understand the facts to see how they implicated the rule. ___ I knew and understood the rule, but simply forgot to write about it. ___ Other What can I do to improve my performance in this category in the future? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ANALYSIS : Did I link each relevant fact to the element of law at issue? If not, why not? (Select all that apply; note which are most important.) ___ I did not read the facts closely enough to see how they related to an issue. ___ I did not understand the facts to see how they related to an issue. ___ I merely repeated the facts but did not go further to explain how the facts showed why an element of an issue was or wasn’t met. ___ I failed to identify and/or write about what each party might assert. ___ Other What can I do to improve my performance in this category in the future? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CONCLUSION : Did my analysis lead to a clear, well-reasoned conclusion? If not, why not? ___ I did not provide a clear and concise conclusion for each issue. ___ My conclusion was not supported by my analysis. What can I do to improve my performance in this category in the future? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Did I organize my time well? _______________________________________________ Did I use my time appropriately to read the call of the question, read the fact pattern, organize my response, and write my answer? ______________________________________________ Did I organize my answer well? _________________________________________________ Did I follow the exam outline that I created? _______________________________________ Did I utilize the IRAC format? __________________________________________________ Did I use a separate IRAC format for each issue? ___________________________________ Did I make any grammatical mistakes? Typos? Misspelled words? ____________________

Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing Diego's liability for an intentional tort against Pedro, it is essential to identify potential torts such as battery, assault, and false imprisonment, and evaluate whether Diego’s conduct constitutes each of these elements. The core issue hinges on whether Diego’s conduct—slapping Pedro on the back—can be considered intentional, harmful, or offensive, particularly considering Pedro’s known fear of being touched.

Issue Identification and Prioritization

The primary issue is whether Diego’s act of slapping Pedro on the back constitutes an intentional tort, notably battery, given Pedro’s known fear of being touched. A secondary issue involves whether Diego either intended to cause harm or was reckless as to the impact of his actions. Clarifying these issues lays the groundwork for a comprehensive analysis.

Legal Rules and Principles

Battery in tort law requires (1) an act by the defendant that is (2) intentional, (3) harmful or offensive contact, (4) directed toward the plaintiff. Importantly, the intent can be transferred if the defendant intends to contact one person but inadvertently contacts another. Pedro’s fear of being touched adds an element of offensiveness, especially if the contact was unwanted and offensive to a reasonable person (Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 13-19).

Moreover, under the doctrine of intent, the defendant need not intend to cause injury but only to make contact, which becomes unlawful if the contact is offensive or harmful (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 18). The mental state is evidenced by showing that Diego intended to slap Pedro or that he knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would produce contact.

Linking Facts to the Law

Diego approached Pedro and slapped him on the back, an act likely intentional and at least offensive. Since Pedro has a known fear of being touched, the contact is more likely to be deemed offensive from Pedro’s perspective, satisfying the offense element. This is significant because in intentional torts, the subjective perception of the plaintiff is relevant; what matters is that Pedro was uncomfortable or distressed by the contact, which was unconsented.

Diego's intent to perform the slap appears evident, as he deliberately walked up and made contact. His intent is further supported by the nature of the contact—an unsolicited, deliberate slap—an act typically considered intentional in tort law (Guffey v. State University, 408 A.2d 1131). Therefore, Diego's conduct satisfies the intent and contact elements.

As Pedro did not consent to the contact and has a documented fear of being touched, the contact can be considered offensive, especially under the reasonable person standard and given Pedro’s known sensitivity. This meets the offensiveness element necessary for battery. It is immaterial whether Diego intended harm, as intent to contact suffices, and the offensive nature is judged subjectively but also from an objective standard acknowledging Pedro’s known fears.

Potential Defenses and Other Considerations

Potential defenses might include consent or privilege; however, since Pedro explicitly has a fear of being touched, consent is unlikely unless Pedro consented to such contact in a different context, which the facts do not suggest. Privilege (such as in self-defense or necessity) does not apply here since Diego’s conduct was unprovoked and non-defensive.

Another consideration involves whether Diego’s conduct constitutes assault; that is, an act that reasonably causes the victim to apprehend imminent harmful contact. While slapping on the back does not typically constitute assault, Pedro’s reaction—fear—could suggest that the contact was perceived as threatening, reinforcing the battery claim.

Additionally, liability could extend to emotional distress or invasion of privacy, but these are less relevant unless the contact caused significant emotional harm beyond the offense element, which the facts do not specify.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis, Diego's conduct of slapping Pedro on the back was intentional, and the contact was offensive especially considering Pedro’s known fear of being touched. Therefore, Diego would likely be liable for an intentional tort, specifically battery, since all elements—intent, contact, and offensiveness—are satisfied.

References

• Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 13-19 (1965).
• Guffey v. State University, 408 A.2d 1131 (Del. 1979).
• Prosser, W. L., & Keeton, W. P. (1984). Prosser and Keeton on Torts (5th ed.).
• Farnsworth, E. A. (2019). Farnsworth on Contracts (4th ed.).
• Harper, F. V., & James, F. (2011). The Law of Torts. Stanford University Press.
• Dobbs, D. B. (2000). The Law of Torts (2nd ed.).
• Calabresi, G. (1961). The Cost of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis. Yale University Press.
• Friedman, L. M. (2005). Law in America: A Short History. Simon & Schuster.
• Schrager, L. C., & Ditommaso, M. (2019). Tort Law and Practice. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
• National Center for State Courts. (2020). Tort Law: A Comprehensive Guide.