Paula Plaintiff's Really Bad Week, Part 1 Introduction ✓ Solved

Paula Plaintiff's Really Bad Week, Part 1 Introduction In th

Paula Plaintiff's Really Bad Week, Part 1 Introduction 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 Cash Mart. She is looking for a new laptop, but she can’t find one she likes. Then, realizing she is going to be late for an appointment, she attempts to leave the store, walking quickly. A security guard stops her, accuses her of shoplifting, and takes her to a back room. Paula denies wrongdoing. The guard warns that leaving the room could result in arrest. The guard leaves, and the manager later apologizes and says Paula is free to go. Soon after, Geoffrey Golfer hits a golf ball from his backyard into the Cash Mart parking lot, striking Paula and knocking her unconscious just as she is leaving the store.

Instructions: In a 6–10 paragraph paper, answer the following questions: What types of legal claims could Paula make against Cash Mart and Geoffrey? What are the possible tort claims that Paula can make against Cash Mart? Discuss the elements of the claim and how those elements relate to the facts. Was Geoffrey negligent when he hit the golf ball that injured Paula? Discuss the elements of negligence and use facts from the scenario to support your decision. If Paula files a negligence claim against Geoffrey, will she file in civil court or criminal court? Explain the difference between civil court and criminal court.

Paper For Above Instructions

The scenario presents two potential shafts of legal exposure for Paula: claims against Cash Mart (the retailer) arising from the store’s handling of Paula during a shoplifting scare, and claims against Geoffrey Golfer arising from the golf ball that injured Paula. A careful analysis turns on the elements of the relevant torts, the concept of vicarious liability, and the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. Below, I outline plausible claims, their elements, and how the facts align with or challenge those elements, followed by a synthesis that weighs which claims are most tenable and the likely forum for relief. Throughout, I rely on standard tort doctrine as described in key authorities (Cornell LII; FindLaw; Nolo; Justia; Britannica).

Potential claims against Cash Mart

False imprisonment is a core potential claim against Cash Mart. The elements typically include (1) an intentional act or statement that directly or indirectly confines the plaintiff, (2) within a bounded area or for a specific or reasonable period of time, and (3) without the plaintiff’s consent and without lawful privilege. Here, Paula was detained in a back room for over an hour after being accused of shoplifting, despite presenting no evidence of wrongdoing, and was told she could be arrested if she attempted to leave. These facts strongly support a claim for false imprisonment, particularly because the confinement was based on a false accusation and coerced detention rather than a lawful arrest. The store’s authority to detain a suspected shoplifter is typically framed under shopkeeper’s privilege, but that privilege has limits and may not justify prolonged detention without reasonable cause, due process, or a timely release once innocence is established (Cornell LII, false imprisonment; Cornell LII, shopkeeper_privilege).

Additionally, Cash Mart could face negligent security or negligent supervision claims if the detention was the product of inadequate policies, training, or supervision of the security guard. Vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior ordinarily extends to the employer for torts committed by employees within the scope of employment. If the guard acted within the scope of detaining a suspected shoplifter, Cash Mart could be liable for the employee’s actions, and possibly for negligent hiring or negligent retention if the guard’s conduct was unreasonable given the store’s policies (Cornell LII; Justia; FindLaw). In some cases, the emotional distress resulting from the detention could be analyzed under negligent infliction of emotional distress if the conduct was extreme and outrageous and caused severe emotional distress, though this is less certain than a false imprisonment claim (Britannica; FindLaw).

Another angle is whether Cash Mart violated Paula’s civil rights by detaining her without probable cause or due process. Depending on jurisdiction, certain state or federal protections might apply to unlawful detention, particularly if the detention was under color of authority and outside of ordinary shopkeeper’s privilege. In many analyses, however, the central claim remains false imprisonment, and any civil rights claim would have to be framed within applicable statutory or constitutional rights rather than a straightforward tort theory (Cornell LII; Britannica).

Potential claims against Geoffrey Golfer

Negligence is the primary theory against Geoffrey. The elements of negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. Geoffrey owed Paula a duty to exercise reasonable care not to injure others with foreseeable actions, including ensuring that his golf activities do not pose a risk to the public. Throwing or hitting a golf ball that travels into a public area and strikes another person is a foreseeable risk in many circumstances, particularly when the ball is hit in a manner that could cause harm to passersby. If Geoffrey breached the duty by choosing a negligent course of action—such as failing to consider the potential reach of his ball or his control over the ball after leaving his property—and that breach caused Paula’s injuries, then liability could attach (Cornell LII, negligence; Justia; Nolo). Paula’s injuries—consciousness loss, medical costs, and pain—constitute the damages required for tort recovery (Justia; Nolo).

Additionally, Geoffrey’s actions could be analyzed under the doctrine of negligence per se if there were a statute or ordinance that prohibited discharging or propelling projectiles in a manner creating risk to others. However, absent a specific statute, the negligence framework remains the primary vehicle for recovery. The causation analysis would require showing that Geoffrey’s breach was a substantial factor in causing Paula’s injuries, and that those injuries were not too remote a consequence of the act (Cornell LII; FindLaw). If Paula can demonstrate that Geoffrey acted carelessly in ways that a reasonable person would avoid, and that her injuries were a direct result of that conduct, a negligence claim would be viable in civil court (Britannica; Justia).

Civil vs Criminal forum and burden of proof

When Paula files a negligence claim against Geoffrey, she will almost certainly file in civil court. Negligence is a tort—a civil wrong—not a crime. Civil actions require the preponderance of the evidence standard (greater than 50%) rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard used in criminal cases. The criminal law system would require proof that Geoffrey’s actions violated a statute or were criminally negligent or reckless to a degree that the state prosecutes him, potentially for reckless endangerment or assault, depending on jurisdiction and facts. However, the scenario as stated points toward a civil recovery for damages rather than a criminal prosecution (Cornell LII; Britannica; Justia).

Discussion: What claims are strongest and why

Among the possible claims, Paula’s strongest chance for recovery against Cash Mart is likely for false imprisonment and potentially negligent security/vicarious liability, given the prolonged detention based on an unproven accusation and the store’s control over the detainee. The shopkeeper’s privilege does not blanketly justify a one-hour confinement without a timely resolution if the detention lacks probable cause or reasonable basis. Paula’s potential claim against Geoffrey hinges on the clarity of causation and whether a reasonably prudent person would anticipate that throwing or firing a golf ball could injure someone in a public area. If Paula can establish that Geoffrey’s conduct created a foreseeable risk of harm and that his actions were negligent in light of standard duties of care, a civil recovery would be available (FindLaw; Justia; Cornell LII).

In sum, Paula’s legal claims would most plausibly include false imprisonment and possibly negligent security or vicarious liability against Cash Mart, and a negligence claim against Geoffrey. The civil route offers the appropriate remedy framework, consistent with the nature of damages and causation at issue; criminal charges would only arise if the facts supported a distinct criminal wrongdoing, which is not clearly evident from the scenario as presented (Cornell LII; FindLaw; Justia; Britannica).

Conclusion

Overall, Paula’s best-supported claims lie in the realm of torts governed by civil law. The specific facts—detention for an hour following an accusation of shoplifting, the absence of evidence of theft, and a manager’s later apology—point toward potential false imprisonment and related liability for Cash Mart, with Geoffrey potentially liable for negligence in causing Paula’s injuries. The civil process, not criminal, would be the appropriate mechanism for pursuing compensation, and Paula would bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The distinction between civil and criminal courts is central to how each party presents evidence, the nature of remedies, and the standards of proof (Cornell LII; Britannica; Justia).

References

• Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. False imprisonment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/false_imprisonment
• Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. Negligence. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence
• Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. Civil case. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_case
• Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. Criminal case. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_case
• FindLaw. Negligence overview. https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts/negligence-overview.html
• Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. Shopkeeper privilege. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shopkeeper_privilege
• Nolo. Negligence: what it is. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/negligence-what-it-30298.html
• Nolo. What is a civil lawsuit? https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-civil-lawsuit-article.html
• Justia. Negligence. https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence/
• Britannica. Tort law. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tort-law