Answer following questions - Essay Example

Lecturer: Law Questions In question it is necessary to have tort law in order to provide compensation for the injured parties who have been affected by actions of offenders. The primary objective of criminal law is to punish the wrongdoers and promote order in the society while the tort law compels offenders to provide reimbursement to their victims in addition to promoting societal order. For instance, if a soft drink company fails to sieve its syrup effectively hence having some solid particles in their final product, any customer who suffers injuries after drinking it can sue the company for tort but not crime.In 2 (a), defamation refers to an act of damaging one’s good reputation.

Victoria can use the article that was published by Miamisburg Mudslinger as evidence to prove defamation. The evidence would be used to ascertain that libel occurred because a permanent publication that damaged her reputation was made by the Company in form of a newspaper article. In 2 (b), I would bring pure comparative legal defense and assumption of risk defense on behalf of Mudslinger to defeat Victoria’s claim. First, the pure comparative defense would be used to argue that Victoria’s act of engaging in an illegal sexual relationship with a fifteen-year old boy led to the defamation.

The photo of her kissing in a rather vigorous manner with the boy ascertains that they were engaging in a sexual affair. Secondly, the assumption of risk defense would be provided on the basis that Victoria knew the consequences of engaging in an illegal sexual relationship with an underage boy and yet she did not avoid the act (Browne et al., 226). Therefore, the plaintiff was responsible for the defamation because she committed an act knowingly that it would damage her reputation if publicly discovered.

Negligence has four elements that include; duty, breach of duty, causation and damages. In 3 (a), businesses owe their patrons duty of care. In 3 (b), the store breached its duty of care to its patrons because it failed to either repair or warn passers-by against the possible danger that would resulted due to the divot. Although the divot’s view was not hidden by any obstacle, circumstances made it not to be an open and obvious danger. The management of the Company was aware that there are vehicles often entering the parking lot that might attract the attention of pedestrians hence preventing them from seeing the divot.

Therefore, it should have taken precautions to avoid exposing their customers to the danger. In 3 (c), direct cause refers to a determination that the defendant’s actions were directly responsible for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. On the other hand, proximate cause is a determination by foreseeability that dictates the extent to which the defendant can incur liability for the consequences of his or her actions due to the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. In Swiger’s case, the store was the proximate cause of her injuries. In 3 (d), the plaintiff incurred compensatory damages as a result of her injuries.In 4 (a), McCool can use the negligence per se doctrine to pursue a legal claim against DBT.

This doctrine terms the defendant to have violated a certain statute that is enacted to prevent harm from facing a particular group of persons in which the plaintiff belongs. In 4 (b), McCool would pursue compensatory damages that are aimed at reimbursing the plaintiff for the losses suffered. In 4 (c), the plaintiff can also sue Lou Keegan for intentional torts. These torts specify that the defendant acted intending to trigger certain consequences or knowing that they would occur. In 4 (d), SAP has committed intentional interference with contract tort.

This tort argues that the defendant’s intentional actions were responsible for causing one of the parties in a contract to breach it hence making the plaintiff to suffer injuries. In 4 (e), McCool could pursue Lou for conversion tort. This tort occurs when the defendant has permanently removed property from the owner’s possession and control. In 4 (f), DBT can sue McCool for unfair competition tort. This tort occurs when a person enters into an industry with the sole intent of driving another firm out of business (Browne et al., 200).Work CitedBrowne, Niel et al.

Dynamic Business Law. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012.