Paula Plaintiffs Really Bad Week Part 1 Introduction ✓ Solved

Paula Plaintiffs Really Bad Week Part 1introductionin This Assignmen

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.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The scenario presented raises several potential legal claims that Paula Plaintiff might pursue against Cash Mart and Geoffrey Golfer. These claims are rooted in tort law, specifically focusing on claims such as false imprisonment, battery, negligence, and possibly wrongful arrest, depending on the circumstances surrounding her detention at Cash Mart. Analyzing each potential claim involves examining the essential elements and how the facts align with these elements.

First, regarding potential claims against Cash Mart, Paula could assert a claim for false imprisonment. To establish false imprisonment, Paula must demonstrate that Cash Mart intentionally confined her without consent and without lawful justification. The elements include (1) intent to confine, (2) act resulting in confinement, (3) awareness of confinement, and (4) lack of lawful justification. In this scenario, the security guard's actions in stopping Paula and detaining her in the back room without probable cause or her consent may constitute false imprisonment. The key issue hinges on whether the store had reasonable grounds to suspect her of shoplifting. Since Paula denies any wrongdoing and has not taken anything, there could be an argument that the detention was unlawful.

Further, there are potential claims for battery if Paula had been physically touched or harmed without her consent. Although the scenario does not explicitly mention physical contact from the security guard, the detention itself, if it involved physical restraint, could be considered battery. The fact that she was kept in a room for over an hour might also support claims of emotional distress or assault if any threats or aggressive behavior were involved.

Moving to the incident involving Geoffrey Golfer, Paula may have a negligence claim against him. Negligence requires proving four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Geoffrey owed a duty of care to others to act reasonably, especially when using his golf club. The breach occurred when Geoffrey hit a golf ball out of his backyard into the parking lot in such a way that it injured Paula. The causation element links his breach directly to her injury, and the damages are evident in her head injury and unconsciousness.

Analyzing whether Geoffrey was negligent involves considering if a reasonable golfer would have been aware of the risk of hitting golf balls into neighboring properties. Given the distance and his decision to hit a golf ball without ensuring safety, it can be argued that Geoffrey was negligent. He failed to exercise reasonable care by not verifying whether his shot might cause harm to others beyond his backyard.

If Paula decides to file a negligence claim against Geoffrey, she would likely do so in civil court. Civil courts handle cases involving personal injuries, property damages, and other disputes where monetary compensation is sought. Civil court proceedings focus on whether the defendant’s conduct was negligent and if that negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries. In contrast, criminal courts are concerned with whether the defendant’s conduct violated criminal laws, which involve different standards of proof and are prosecuted by the state.

The distinction is crucial: a negligence claim in civil court seeks to obtain monetary damages for injuries caused by negligence, whereas criminal court proceedings aim to determine guilt and impose punishment for violating criminal statutes. Therefore, Paula's injury caused by Geoffrey's golf ball is a matter for civil litigation, aimed at recovering damages for her injuries.

In conclusion, Paula potentially has several legal claims arising from her recent misfortunes. Against Cash Mart, claims for false imprisonment and possibly battery are plausible, depending on the specifics of her detention. Against Geoffrey Golfer, a negligence claim appears viable due to his failure to exercise reasonable care when hitting golf balls that endangered others. Understanding the legal standards for each claim helps clarify the paths available for seeking justice and compensation following these incidents.

References

• Dobbs, D. B., Hayden, P. T., & Bublick, T. J. (2017). The Law of Torts (2nd ed.). West Academic Publishing.
• Restatement (Second) of Torts. (1965). American Law Institute.
• Prosser, W. L., & Keeton, W. P. (1984). Prosser and Keeton on Torts (5th ed.). West Publishing.
• Fitzgerald, T. M. (2020). Negligence and Duty of Care. In K. O. M. Chatterjee (Ed.), Legal Aspects of Tort Law. Oxford University Press.
• Harper, F., & James, G. (2018). The Law of Torts in a Nutshell. West Academic Publishing.
• Smith, J. (2019). Liability in Personal Injury Cases. Journal of Personal Injury Law, 35(4), 331-356.
• Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Torts. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort
• National Law Review. (2021). Understanding Negligence. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/understanding-negligence
• American Bar Association. (2022). Defining Battery. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/battery/
• Stewart, R. (2016). Defenses to Tort Liability. In Torts: Cases and Materials. Aspen Publishing.