Basic Tort Law - Statutes, and Problems - Essay Example

?Law of Tort As a branch of civil laws, law of tort came into existence at the beginning of the nineteenth century although most developments in the subject were achieved later. The law of tort is concerned with civil crime unlike the common branch of criminal laws. The law is concerned with claims where the defendant has broken important responsibilities imposed by the common law leading to losses or injuries (Yeats, Giliker, & Luckham, 2005). In most cases, people who have suffered injuries apply law of tort to seek compensation as their remedy. The law is also concerned with the option of transferring blame. This implies that using the law blames can be transferred to another person or party. Tort law therefore provides remedies to an individual or a party for losses suffered due unreasonable actions of another person or party. There are two categories of tort laws and they are concerned with suits that are aimed at protecting an individual’s privacy against any violation. Negligence and intentional are the two basic categories or torts and they signify the main tort claims made in most civil courts (Yeats, Giliker & Luckham, 2005). From the given scenario, Charles a freelance photographer sneaks into Bertram compound without his knowledge and proceed to takes his nude photograph. Charles was able to gain access to the highly restricted compound through Desdemona’s assistance. Later a market researcher named Alex tries to have an interview with Bertram in his house without his content. Bertram denies him a chance for an interview based on the warning sign at his drive. In particular, the sign states that any trespasser will be prosecuted. Bertram go ahead and caries the market researcher to the drive although he had proved his identity. According occupier’s liability act of 1984, Alex Charles and Desdemona, violated Bertram’s right to privacy on the other hand Bertram violated Alex’s rights by carrying him forcefully. With the law of tort, it is possible to determine who among the three individuals justify blames and possible remedies to the offenders. This is synonymous to Tuberville v. Savage 86 Eng. Rep. 684 (K.B. 1669), case since the words and gestures applied by Bertram did not constitute an assault (Best & Barriers, 2007. Firstly, Bertram is a billionaire who believes that he should have a private life free from any intruder. He has gone to an extent of placing a sign at his drive indicating that all trespassers will be prosecuted. As an ordinary person, Bertram is entitled to privacy according to the law and therefore any trespassing is a violation of his rights (Yeats, Giliker, Luckham, 2005). Secondly, his house is a private property and therefore he has the right to allow accept or reject visitors accordingly. Concerning the two unauthorized visitors to Bertram’s compound, Charles has a more serious case to answer according to tort law. Although he is a journalist, he needed endorsement before gaining access to Bertram’s compound. In addition, Charles took unauthorized photographs in two separate occasions and this proves that his acts were intentional. Charles not only intentionally took unauthorized photograph of Bertram and his compound but he took nude photographs of the complainant. These activities are intentional and therefore Bertram has legal claims according to the tort law. Basing on those arguments Bertram can proceed to make a legal suit against the trespassers; however, he should make his claims with caution in order to attract the relevant remedies. He has to be aware of the possible claims that Charles can present in the courtroom in defence of his action. Charles can base his counterclaims on the requirements of his career as a journalist. From this basis, Charles can claim that as a journalist, his work serves the public and therefore he needs to cover events that are of public interest. He can therefore claim that the highly restricted Bertram’s compound is of public interest and therefore he should have some legal protections against any legal suit that may arise from covering such events. Being aware of this point will be important to Bertram since it will enable him to present a legal suit that attracts compensation. Trespassing refers to gaining access to private property intentionally without the owner’s knowledge and it attracts a penalty according to the law of tort. Basing on these facts Bertram should proceed and make claims against Charles for trespassing on his private property. Following these actions, Bertram can make two possible claims concerning the actions. The first claim will be against entry to private land (property) without any permission and the second one will be against nuisance caused by the intruders. In the first tort, the court will not require evidence of damages caused to validate the claims presented by the defendant. In the second tort, Bertram will be required to produce evidence of the damages caused by the defendant’s actions. For Bertram to have successful claims he should present the two claims simultaneously with emphasis on the second claim. In the first tort, the court will not require Bertram to present any proof of damage for a past trespassing action. The court will however require him to make his legal claims by giving all the details for the court to make its verdict concerning the defendant’s action (McCarthy, & Cambron-McCabe, 1992). Unlike the first tort, the second tort will be of greater importance to Bertram’s claims since the court will require proof to make its decree. The second tort is also important in the legal claim since the complainant has the chance to prove to the court that he suffered from the defendant’s actions to limits that attract compensations. From the second violation, Bertram suffered nuisance, this intentional interference prevents a person from enjoying his privacy in a private premise. He should therefore present the tort based on the damages he suffered from violation of his privacy following the trespassing actions of the defendant. For the tort to attract compensation, the court will require the complainant to proof his claims by producing evidence. If the court will require evidence in order to validate the tort, Bertram should present the nude photographs taken by Charles as the first evidence. He can also present information on the recent use of the crane used by Charles to access his compound as the second evidence. For the court to accept the presented proofs as reliable evidence they should be free from interference and therefore Bertram should not share information on his evidence with the defendant. To avoid tampering with the evidence he should make his claims on the two torts within the shortest time possible. Desdemona assisted Charles to gain access to Bertram’s compound by allowing his to use his crane and therefore he has a tort to answer. According Contributory Negligence Act of 1945 both Desdemona and Charles are liable to the resultant damages (Best & Barriers, 2007). Although Desdemona did not trespass the complainants private property he assisted Charles to access the private land and therefore he had trespass intentions. When making his claims Bertram should be able to present evidence against the accused concerning his action. However, the court will not require him to present evidence of trespassing against the accused and therefore he should only be prepared against any defence raised by the accused. The defendant can claim that he was unaware of Charles intention when he allowed him to be carried in the bucket of a crane from his building. If the defendant raises such claims, Bertram can present a counterclaim based on his rights to privacy (Ogus, 2010). Basing on this right Bertram will be able to prove that any unauthorized entry to private property is a tort and therefore he deserves a remedy. In such case, the court will authorize the defendant to make monetary compensation to the complainant in case he loses the case. This could be handled similar to Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948) since Charles could have caused similar damages without the assistance of Desdemona (Best & Barriers, 2007). Bertram is also planning to present a petition against Alex a market researcher for interfering with his privacy and trespassing. Trespassing on a private land is considered an intentional tort and therefore Bertram can present legal claims against Alex. Unlike in the previous cases, Bertram will have an added advantage over the defendant and he can easily win the case. According to tort law on trespassing, deliberate entry to private land is a deliberate tort and lack of information on restriction is not a valid defence (Fischer, Schimmel, & Kelly, 1994). The court will not require Mr Bertram to present evidence against the accused for his trespassing actions and therefore he can easily gain compensation from the case. When presenting his claims Mr Bertram should take caution on any possible counter defence that might be presented by Alex. Alex can base his claims on his career as a market researcher by claiming that his work is of national interest and therefore he deserves legal protection. The accused can also claim that he did not intend to cause any harm to the complainant and his action aimed at benefiting the complainant. Alex can also claim that he did not notice the sign at the drive stating that trespassers will be prosecuted and therefore he was unaware of trespassing of restriction Bertram’s compound. Being aware of these possible counterclaims, Bertram can proceed to present a legal suit against Alex based on the trespassing tort. Bertram should also be aware of the court’s Jurisdiction on trespassing before presenting his claims. In particular, the court is bound on matters concerning public interest and therefore he should influence the proceedings of the case from gaining a ground on public interest. He should present all possible defences to deter the accused from taking safe haven on matters of national interest. Therefore, his first defence against the accused should prove that his status is not of national interest. He can achieve this conviction by giving examples of other billionaires in the country that the market researcher did approach. He can also claim that since the market researcher had not approached other billionaires his visit had hidden agendas best known to him. Based on his economic status Mr Bertram can proceed to present a wining argument that disapprove lack of information. If the defendant in this case raises the issue of national interest in his defence, Mr Bertram can claim a state agency should have informed of the visit in advance. Using this argument Bertram will be able to overcome any accusation presented by the defendant based on national interest. Alex can also claim that he produced his identity card to Bertram as a defence against his accusations. If such claims are made Bertram should claim that he was not in a position to verify the validity of the document. Although the court will not require Bertram to produce evidence in this particular case, the court will require him to answer any defence questions raised by the defendant. The court will also require him to have legal interest on the tort and therefore he should pursue the case with all the seriousness it deserves by making a claim and follow-ups on all legal proceedings. When Alex visited Bertram’s house without his authority and knowledge, Bertram used awful language by referring to him as a cow he also carried him forcefully to the drive. These actions violated Alex’s rights and therefore Alex can make a petition against Bertram for his action. Bertram’s actions were intentional and therefore they fall under the category of intentional torts. For Bertram to win any action taken against him by Alex he has to be equipped with a defence that can counter any presented accusation. The first action that Alex can take against him is the use of awful language by stating that he is not bothered with interfering with cows like him. In such case, the complainant lacks evidence for his claims and therefore Mr Bertram should demand for evidence if the claims will have validity (Fischer, Schimmel, & Kelly, 1994). Basing on the lack of evidence Mr Bertram will be able to present a defence on any charges brought against him by Alex. When Alex knocked on Bertram door, Bertram carried him to the drive without his intent. This is a serious tort than the first tort and therefore Mr Bertram requires presenting a strong defence against any accusation brought against him. If Alex raises accusation against the actions, Bertram should use his sign of no trespassing as a basis for his arguments. The no trespassing sign at the drive had a clear message indicating that trespassers will be prosecuted and it was supposed to keep away trespassers by warning them against prosecution. The sign was also conspicuous and therefore Alex must have read the given information. Either Alex ignored the information or the information had no effect on him. Basing on the first case Bertram can make a defence by stating that Alex ignored the warning against prosecution contained on the notice because he had bad intentions and therefore his actions were to prevent him from causing damages. Berman can also argue that Alex ignored the prosecution warning because he has little or no faith at all with the judiciary and therefore he should not use the same courts that he disrespected to demand for remedies. Mr Bertram can also present a defence by stating that if Alex could not understand the information contained in the warning sign then he is insane and therefore he could not understand information requiring him to vacate the premises. Mr Bertram can then proceed and argue that since the man could not understand verbal information carrying was the only method of communication. He can also argue that his actions were meant to save Alex from prosecution due to his actions. By presenting his defence based on the two arguments, Bertram is sure of succeeding in any charges brought against him by Alex. References Best, A. & Barrier, D., 2007. Basic Tort Law: Statutes, And Problems. New York: Aspen Publisher. Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., & Kelly, C 1994. Teachers and the law (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. McCarthy, M.M. & Cambron-McCabe, N.H. 1992. Public Law of tort. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ogus, A. (2010). 4 Common Law Privacy Torts [viewed January 19, 2012] Yeats, I. Giliker, P. & Luckham, M., 2005. Law of Tort. London: University of London press. Read More