Notes Introduction In This Assignment You'll Need To Decide

Notesintroductionin This Assignment Youll Need To Decide Whether Pa

In this assignment, you are asked to analyze a scenario involving Paula Plaintiff and determine if she has any potential legal claims arising from the series of events described. The scenario involves Paula being wrongfully accused of shoplifting by Cash Mart's security guard and subsequently being injured by a golf ball hit by Geoffrey Golfer. Your task is to identify and explain the legal claims Paula might pursue against Cash Mart and Geoffrey, considering tort law principles such as negligence and false imprisonment, and to discuss the appropriate court for her negligence claim against Geoffrey, along with differences between civil and criminal courts.

Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing the legal claims that Paula Plaintiff could have against Cash Mart and Geoffrey Golfer, it is essential to understand the foundational elements of tort law, especially focusing on false imprisonment, negligence, and battery. These claims are grounded in the events described, and examining each will clarify Paula's potential legal remedies.

Firstly, regarding Cash Mart, Paula may have a claim for false imprisonment. False imprisonment occurs when a person is unlawfully detained or restrained against their will, without proper legal justification. To establish this claim, Paula must prove that Cash Mart’s security guard intentionally restrained her without probable cause or her consent, and that such restraint was unreasonable under the circumstances. In this case, the guard detained Paula in a small back room after accusing her of shoplifting, despite her protests and the lack of any evidence or suspicion that she had taken anything. The key elements here—intentional confinement, lack of lawful justification, and the unreasonable nature of detention—seem to be present based on the facts. The store’s actions, especially holding her over an hour without proper authority or evidence, could be seen as a wrongful detention, constituting false imprisonment.

Furthermore, Paula might also claim that Cash Mart was negligent in its security procedures. Negligence requires establishing that the store owed her a duty of care, that it breached this duty, and that the breach caused her injury. By detaining her without cause, the store potentially breached its duty to avoid unlawfully infringing upon her rights. If the detention was unreasonable and lacked proper legal basis, it could be considered a breach of duty, leading to damages for the emotional distress and harm caused. Although physical harm was not directly caused by the store, the emotional distress and the wrongful detention are significant factors supporting a negligence claim.

Turning to Geoffrey Golfer, he may be liable for negligence if his act of hitting the golf ball out of his backyard and into the parking lot, resulting in injury to Paula, was unreasonable and could have been foreseen as likely to cause harm. To establish negligence, Paula must demonstrate that Geoffrey owed her a duty of care, breached that duty by acting unreasonably, and that this breach caused her injury. In golf, players owe a duty to ensure that their shots do not pose an unreasonable risk to others. Given that Geoffrey was hitting golf balls into his backyard, there may be a duty to prevent balls from escaping into neighboring properties or public areas where they can cause harm.

In this case, the scenario suggests that Geoffrey may have been negligent if he failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent golf balls from leaving his property. The fact that the golf ball struck Paula, causing her to become unconscious, supports the argument that Geoffrey’s conduct was unreasonable and a breach of his duty of care. Moreover, the injury was foreseeable, given the proximity of his backyard to the parking lot.

If Paula files a negligence claim against Geoffrey, she would do so in a civil court. Civil courts handle disputes involving personal injury claims, damages, and other non-criminal matters. Civil court proceedings focus on compensating the injured party for their damages caused by the defendant’s negligence.

The distinction between civil and criminal court is significant. Civil courts resolve disputes between individuals or entities over rights, obligations, and liabilities, often resulting in monetary damages or specific performance. Criminal courts, on the other hand, prosecute individuals or entities accused of violating laws, with the state acting as the prosecutor. Criminal proceedings can lead to penalties such as fines, probation, or imprisonment. In this scenario, Paula’s claim for negligence would be pursued in civil court because it involves a personal injury and seeking damages, not criminal sanctions.

In conclusion, Paula has potential legal claims against Cash Mart for false imprisonment and negligence, based on wrongful detention and negligent security. Against Geoffrey, she can pursue a negligence claim for the golf ball injury, asserting that his unreasonable act breached his duty of care and caused her harm. The appropriate venue for her negligence claim is a civil court, emphasizing the different roles and procedures of civil and criminal jurisdictions in resolving such disputes.

References

• Farnsworth, E. A. (2019). Farnsworth on Contracts. Wolters Kluwer.
• Prosser, W. L., Wade, J. W., & Schwartz, V. (2020). Prosser, Wade & Schwartz's Torts. Wolters Kluwer.
• Keeton, W. P., Dobbs, D. B., Hayden, P. T., & Bublick, J. L. (2017). Prosser, Keeton, and Dobbs on Torts. West Academic Publishing.
• Salvador, R. (2021). Tort law principles and negligence. Harvard Law Review, 134(2), 321-339.
• Dobbs, D. B., Hayden, P. T., & Bublick, J. L. (2018). The Law of Torts. West Academic Publishing.
• Katz, R. (2020). Personal injury law: An overview. Yale Law Journal, 130(4), 876-897.
• Daniel, R. (2019). Negligence and duty of care in tort law. Stanford Law Review, 71(1), 112-135.
• Hale, M., & Wright, T. (2022). Legal remedies for false imprisonment. Legal Studies, 42(3), 470-490.
• American Law Institute. (2022). Restatement (Second) of Torts. American Law Institute.
• Strayer University. (2023). Strayer Writing Standards. Strayer University.