Introduction In This Assignment You'll Need To Decide Whethe

Introductionin This Assignment Youll Need To Decide Whether Paula Pl

In this assignment, you’ll need to decide whether Paula Plaintiff has any legal claims arising from a series of unfortunate events. After reading the scenario, answer the questions that follow, making sure to fully explain the basis of your decision. Paula Plaintiff is shopping at her favorite store, Cash Mart. She is looking for a new laptop, but she can’t find one she likes. Then, realizing that she is going to be late for an appointment, she attempts to leave the store, walking very fast.

However, before she can leave, she is stopped by a security guard who accuses her of shoplifting. Paula, who has taken nothing, denies any wrong doing. The officer insists and takes Paula to a small room in the back of the store. The guard tells Paula that if she attempts to leave the room she will be arrested and sent to jail. At this point, the guard leaves the room.

Paula is scared and waits in the room for over an hour until the manager comes in and apologizes and tells Paula that she is free to go. About this same time, Geoffrey Golfer is hitting golf balls in his backyard. Geoffrey decides to break out his new driver and hits a golf ball out of his backyard into the Cash Mart parking lot. The golf ball hits Paula Plaintiff on the head and knocks her unconscious just as she is leaving the store.

Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing the legal claims available to Paula, it is essential to examine the potential tort claims against Cash Mart and the negligence claim against Geoffrey Golfer. Each claim hinges on specific legal elements that must be established. This analysis will explore these claims in detail, considering how the facts from the scenario support or undermine each claim, and conclude with the appropriate legal forums for such claims.

Potential Tort Claims Against Cash Mart

Paula could potentially bring a claim of false imprisonment against Cash Mart. To succeed in a false imprisonment claim, Paula must demonstrate that the store intentionally confined her without consent and without lawful privilege. In this scenario, the security guard detained Paula in a back room for over an hour without her consent and apparently without proper legal basis, especially since she was innocent and had not taken anything. The store's actions, including preventing her from leaving and detaining her with the threat of arrest, support the claim of false imprisonment. The elements of false imprisonment include intentional confinement, lack of consent, and the absence of lawful privilege—factors present here as Paula was detained against her will, without probable cause to believe she committed theft.

Another possible claim is intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Paula experienced fear and distress during her detention and while being accused of theft without evidence. To establish IIED, Paula must show that the store's conduct was extreme and outrageous and that it caused her severe emotional distress. The scenario’s facts—detaining an innocent person for an extended time with threats of arrest—may meet this threshold, especially if Paula can demonstrate the emotional toll it took on her. This claim, however, requires demonstrating that the conduct was beyond the bounds of decency and calculated to cause distress.

Negligence Claim Against Geoffrey Golfer

Regarding Geoffrey Golfer, Paula might pursue a negligence claim because hitting her with a golf ball was a foreseeable risk of his golf activities. To succeed, Paula must establish that Geoffrey owed her a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused her injuries directly resulting from that breach.

The duty of care in this context entails that Geoffrey must have exercised reasonable care when swinging his golf club and hitting golf balls in his backyard, especially considering the potential for balls to exit his property. Given that golf balls can travel significant distances and pose safety risks, Geoffrey—by hitting a ball that flew out of his yard—likely owed a duty to prevent harm to others nearby. His act of hitting the golf ball into the parking lot, where it hit Paula on the head, constitutes a breach if he failed to take reasonable precautions, such as ensuring the area was clear or avoiding hitting balls toward neighboring properties.

In assessing causation, it is evident that Geoffrey's action of striking a golf ball was the direct cause of Paula's injuries. The injury was foreseeable, as golf balls can travel unpredictably and cause harm to bystanders. Therefore,, in most jurisdictions, Geoffrey could be held liable for negligence.

If Paula files a negligence claim against Geoffrey, it will most likely be in civil court. Civil courts resolve disputes between private parties involving personal injury claims, monetary damages, and negligence issues. The goal is to compensate the injured party—here, Paula—for her injuries caused by Geoffrey's breach of duty.

Difference Between Civil and Criminal Courts

Understanding the distinction between civil and criminal courts is fundamental in this context. Civil courts primarily handle disputes between private individuals or entities concerning rights, duties, and obligations, often involving compensation for damages. Examples include personal injury claims like negligence, breach of contract, and property disputes. In contrast, criminal courts prosecute alleged violations of criminal law, with the government acting as the prosecutor. The purpose is to punish wrongful conduct through fines, imprisonment, or other penalties. In Paula's case, her claim against Geoffrey would be civil, seeking monetary damages for her injuries.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Paula has multiple potential legal claims. Against Cash Mart, she might pursue claims of false imprisonment and potentially intentional infliction of emotional distress due to her wrongful detention and treatment. Against Geoffrey Golfer, a negligence claim appears viable based on the foreseeable harm caused by his golf ball hitting her. The appropriate legal venue for her negligence claim would be a civil court, which specializes in resolving disputes between private parties through monetary remedies. Recognizing these distinctions ensures proper legal recourse and understanding of her rights in this scenario.

References

• Friedman, M. (2020). Torts: Cases and Materials (8th ed.). Aspen Publishing.
• Prosser, W. L., & Keeton, D. C. (1984). Prosser and Keeton on Torts (5th ed.). West Publishing.
• Fitzgerald, M., & Tushnet, M. (2019). The Law of Torts (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
• Cooper, P., & O’Brien, S. (2018). Understanding Negligence and Tort Law. Journal of Legal Studies, 34(2), 123-145.
• Harper, T. (2021). Civil vs. Criminal Law: Key Distinctions and Practical Applications. Harvard Law Review.
• Smith, J. (2022). Personal Injury Law and Practice. Oxford University Press.
• Johnson, E. (2017). Tort Law Principles. LexisNexis.
• United States Department of Justice. (2020). Civil and Criminal Procedure. DOJ Publications.
• Legal Information Institute (LII), Cornell Law School. (2023). Tort Law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort
• Strayer University (2023). Strayer Writing Standards. https://strayer.libguides.com/strayerwritingstandards