The Tort Liability under Common Law - Assignment Example

TORT LAW Prepared by : Submitted to : Question 7 In case of dissolution of marriage the court contemplates the nonabusiveness of the parent in granting custody of the children This has been manipulated by Harry to gain the custody of the children. The broken wrist of the Harry resulted in court believing the Harry’s version. If Wilma is able to prove the fabrication of the Harry’s story as it is the first instance of violence mentioned between them, there can be a changed in the custody of children. 1 As the custody of the children happened due to the fabrication of incident , Wilma should be able to prove it to claim the compensation from Ann. The required action is the change of custody and this depends on the case of malicious prosecution and defamation claim by Wilma. Though Ann did not know about the Harry’s fabrication of incident he cannot claim exemption under that. He did not inform the court after he came to know about it. This can amount to malicious prosecution and violation of discipline of a lawyer if Wilma is able to prove the fabrication of incident of Harry. This depends on the witnesses Wilma possesses in that context. 2 The likelihood of the success of Wilma depends on the proof she have about the fabricated incident of injury by Harry. If the fabrication of Harry is not proved there is a little chance for her to win the case against Ann. If the evidence about the fabricating of the incident by Harry is strong, it may compel Ann to reveal the situation to the court and help Wilma to have the custody of her children along with the along with the compensation from Harry and Ann. Question 8 In Melinda’s case she can sue Wilbur for the compensation for the damage of her life due to the death of Chip. As Wilbur violated traffic laws in injuring Chip and resulting in his death, he can be sued for the concerned damages incurred for chip. As chip died the compensation can be awarded to his wife and children if any. As Milinda is widow of chip she is entitled to get compensation from the Wilbur. Wilbur cannot claim any insurance as he violated traffic laws. There is a chance of Milinda to claim compensation from the insurer of Wilbur as she is the victim due to the loss of life of Chip. As the insurance claims are not applicable for Wilbur, Milinda can get the payment from the insurance company that insured for Wilbur. Though it sounds simple, the claim and the final settlement are not easy as the main victim is dead and his nominee is claiming the compensation. Though the claim involves the convoluted process the final settlement can be in the favor of Milinda. This can be made possible when she persecutes with her case. The lawyer should be professional in negotiating with the insurance companies. 3 Considering the case of Jack, he should rely on suing the lawyer who is responsible for the expiry of statute of limitations. This depends on the agreement between Jack and the Lawyer. If the agreement between the lawyer and Jack is legal and in written form about suing the Wilbur Jack is having the opportunity to sue the lawyer. As this information is not provided, the case of Jack against lawyer depends on the legal validity of the agreement between him and the lawyer responsible for the expiry of the statute limitations in the case. Question 9 The case that able tries to fight in the court to get compensation for the damages come under product liability act in the common law. The product liabilities do not take responsibility for the customer’s ignorance about the precautions given. The product liability is governed by the consumer protection act, monopolies and restrictive trade practices and sales of goods act along with law of torts. The protection for the buyers can be got from the law of torts. In case of Able; he wants to get the compensation for damages happened to him. This comes under consumer protection act and avoids the supply of defective goods by manufacturers. In the Able’s case there is no defect found in the donut supplied by the shop keeper to him. He ignored the wax paper while trying to make a yellow signal before it goes red. This ignorance does not come under the defect according to consumer protection act. The only deficiency that can be found in the donut is that the wax paper has the instruction ‘do not eat’ inscribed in a manner that is not visible clearly. This cannot be termed as a serious defect, but this is the only defect Able can find on the product. Even for that defect the compensation can be given for any unhealthy consequences he may face due to eating it. So instead of suing damages for car crash, Able can sue the shopkeeper or the manufacturer for the unhealthy consequences that may occur due to eating of wax paper without noticing the precautions on it. 4 Question 10 The Tort liability under common law is defined as the law that protects the interests of the party injured. This helps the injured party to collect damages from the host or owner. The injured party may be the worker or the customer; he is having the right to the collect damages for the irresponsibility of the owner. The boards that are put before entering into organization are not legal and the owners cannot escape the responsibility of protecting the interests of the customers entering the premises by paying the organization for the services they receive or by invitation. 5. The present case of Ms Papazian injured by the dropping of light comes under Liability without fault from the side of owner. This comes under strict liability or absolute liability. This can be imposed in various contexts when the actions of the business establishment proved contrary to public policy. Though the action is not intentional and negligent the responsibility lies with the owner of the business. In this case the employee of the world studios has acted negligently and injured Ms Papazian. Even in the case of absence of negligence the owner can be sued for the damages from the side of papazian. Here the incident happened due to the negligence of the employee and this amounts to irresponsibility from the side of the business owner. The victims can sue for the damages and mental agony incurred due to the incident. The defense is weak for world studios. In case of Avakian he can sue for the damages caused due mental agony caused by not allowing him into the rest room. If the company is having doubt on him, the guards can accompany him into the rest room. It did not happen and Avakian can sue the world studios for mental agony caused to him. In case of dove; the employee of the World studios, though he can sue Mr. Papazian for the gestures he showed after his wife was injured, there is more chance for papazian to be relieved of them. Read More