Toms Staff at Toms Auto Mechanics - Math Problem Example

Name Institution Word count 1799 Torts Law Law Case Factual Scenario At around 5am on Monday, a robbery occurred involving commercial business area of the suburb of Willow Ponds in Western Australia. The following day, what followed was an inversion of the area by the police officers in a bid to obtain evidence and leads to the crime. In the meant time at 08:30am that day, the police entered Tom’s business, Auto mechanics which was next to the crime scene. Tom is the proprietor and owner of Auto mechanics besides the premises covering the business. He has established an organized setting in which he carries out his business. Within this environs, Tom established a car park just in front of the house. The customers who had problems with their automobiles would be welcomed as they park their cars at the parking area. There is a reception area where visitors are received and attended to by Tom’s staff at Tom’s Auto Mechanics. Within the reception area are other refreshments as drinks, television views, and coffee houses. As customers wait for their automobiles to be attended, they relax at the reception area. Apart from the reception, only certain areas could be accessed by clients. One of the areas not to be accessed was a large mechanics workshop situated besides the building. On arrival at Tom’s workshop, the police officers are urged to speak to the person in charge who happens to be Tom himself. Tom is not aware of what the officers are up to as he was in his daily duties of attending and responding to customers in the reception as he waits for others. It takes no long before Tom is entrenched to let the police officers even get to the sections of the building which are out of bounce to non-working staff. Officer Falcon commands Tom to respond to every question they asked, only to the dismay and surrender of Tom. Even to questions which Tom is incapable of responding to, Falcon stresses that Tom should provide further information as regards what had taken place the previous day. Tom is not aware of anything and hence is forced by Officer Falcon to get himself to the police station in order to give more statements. Tom agrees this in reputation of what he knew and for the sake of his customers who were waiting for their services. The officers are lenient enough to act out of their rule and obligatory laws. They allow Tom some little time to get his “take away coffee” before proceeding to the station. After some hours of questioning by Falcon and Derk, the police officers, Tom is allowed to leave the station and get back to his daily duties. Aim of the study The purpose of this study is to discuss Tom’s case as regards to trespass of land and trespass of a person against officer Falcon and officer Derk. Moreover, the study exemplifies various defensive facts which apply to Tom’s lawful resonation of wrongly placed allegations against his existence and participation in the crime. Besides this, this paper has noted down statutory justifications as regards what the officers and Tom engaged in1. Title to sue Trespass to land Tom is the owner of the workshop in which he works. This is his own property and he has all the right to question everyone who is in need to enter into it. In this case, there is a case Tom can establish trespass to land against the police officers. The plaintiff has been deprived of his right of land where he has made it an illegal for every one to enter. The defendant intentionally and directly interferes with land within the elite ownership of the plaintiff without Tom’s rightful consent or any legal justification. The defendant entered the plaintiff’s territory without any legal or sentimental agreement between the two, which is a legal and well established interference. In this case, the plaintiff gave enough reasons for the defendant not to enter into the working sections of the workshop. Due to negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff has to surrender and let them enter the workshop to no advantage of them. The officers take their time to go around the workshop though they had been told by Tom that he had no bit of information as regards the previous robbery. This replicates a clear trespass to land. In this case, the defendant subjected the plaintiff’s land under misconception that it could have been a hiding place for robbers2. Within a legal interception, there were sufficient acts of interferences of the plaintiff by the defendant as regards rightful possession and protection of and dominion over land. The interference to the plaintiff was direct upon the defendant. Besides this, the interference was not consequential at all. This gives the plaintiff enough reasons to file a suit against the defendant. He has got enough title to sue the defendant since the defendant had the requisite state of mind. A court wont fail but rather will have a succinct base to establish a trespass to land. Trespass to the person Title to sue Falcon and Derk behaviors engage in assault against Tom as described in the Forde v Skinner (1830) 4 Car & P 239; 172 ER 687 case law. The officers on arrival at Tom’s Auto mechanics took Tom as a misfit who is not enough to let them get the answers to all the questions they had. In the first instance, the officers do not make advances to near where Tom was. After subjecting Tom to few questions which were readily answered, the officers felt that Tom was not giving them enough of what they thought Tom knew as regards the previous day’s crime near Tom’s workshop. Though the officers never even touched Tom in the first instance, they subjected him to apprehend contact.3 This gives Tom every right to file and establish a trespass to land against Falcon and Derk as clearly laid out in the Forde v Skinner (1830) 4 Car & P 239; 172 ER 687 case law4. It is arguable that there are traces of false imprisonment involving Tom and the two police officers. As the police officers arrived at Tom’s place, Tom is engaged in his daily duties. He could not leave the mechanics workshop since with him were his clients who were waiting for their services. However, the police officers forced Tom to accompany them to the police station. This is a clear form of interference. It was out of order that Tom was forced to appear at the police station yet he had actually done nothing wrong apart from giving enough evidence as regards the previous crime. Therefore, it is likely that a Court would hold that Falcon and Derk committed trespass against Tom5. Moreover, as described in the Forde v Skinner (1830) 4 Car & P 239; 172 ER 687 case, Tom was battered by the behaviors and actions done by the police officers as they let him into his workshop without his predetermined permission. Falcon placed his hand in Tom’s shoulders with no comment and approval by Tom. This was a form of battery as Falcon did this amidst asking many questions yet Tom had felt in himself that he had answered Falcon and Derk’s questions appropriately6. The plaintiff’s land amenities are damaged together with its respectable use in the society, with no inconvenience to the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff has been deprived of his right to enjoy land. The land’s amenity and use has been subjected to damage yet the plaintiff is not for the case. Tom owns an Auto mechanics workshop from where several clients are able to visit the place and get assisted7. Though the plaintiff expressed his concerns as regards how he makes use of the land covered by the workshop, the defendant went against this freedom by demanding a forced entry which resulted din no positive affair. The plaintiff has been deprived of hiss access to enjoyment of land due to a private nuisance8. The plaintiff has been subjected to a number of legally misquoted actions as unreasonable interference, deprivation from a rightful propriety, and other obligatory facets which exemplify the plaintiff’s freedom. In this case, the plaintiff has title to sue the defendant since the defendant is liable to whatever he did. He deprived Tom of his right of propriety amidst unreasonable interference. Though the officers did not touch anything as they roamed the workshop, their presence was not legal since it was not up to the essence and rightful mandate of the plaintiff9. Conclusion Tort law, as specified in the above case law, exemplifies a body of obligations, rights, and remedy measures that are used by civil courts in. The law involves a plaintiff, as in Reynolds v Clarke (1725) 1 Str 634 case, who is the person at hand and has suffered an injury, pecuniary damage, or undergone a horrendous act of a torturing conduct, and the defendant, an individual responsible for inflicting injury and/or torture to the plaintiff. In most cases, the defendant has been engaged in cases of trespass as trespass to land, trespass to person, and nuisance, which go against the plaintiff’s wishes and legal stability. It is a subjective law which has best been epitomized in the case above. The above case is a simple exemplification of how a Tort law gets underway in the service of people involving the plaintiff and the defendant. Under the above three elements of nuisance, trespass to land, and trespass to person, the main categories of Tort analysis are edified. First, the plaintiff is in a position to establish that the defendant was not under any legal duty to behave in a particular way as he served him. Secondly, the defendant went against the plaintiff’s orders. He breached the plaintiff’s duties by opting not to adhere to his behavior respectively10. Third, the plaintiff has enough prove that he suffered under the hands of the defendants who happened to have been two. It is quite clear that the plaintiff was wronged from the start to the end of the case exemplification. First, the robbery activity never took place in his own grounds of residence yet the police officers are considering and trying to force it that his workshop is a hiding place for the robbers. The defendants wasted the plaintiff’s time and energy. Moreover, they deprived the plaintiff of his freedom of ownership of land and enjoyment of property11. Therefore, a court would establish that Falcon and Derk are subject to breach of law as they trespassed against Tom. Bibliography Carol Harlow, Understanding Tort Law, (2005) Sidney, Sweet & Maxwell. Christopher Reynolds, ‘Public Health Law and Regulation’ (2007) 12 Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd [1910] AC 295 review journal, 20. Frances McGlone, and Amanda Stickley, Australian Torts Law, (2008) Melbourne, LexisNexis Butterworths. Harpwood, Vivienne,’ Torts Law’ (2009) 5 Herd v Weardale law case (1978) Steel review journal, 6. John Murphy, ‘Streets on Torts’ (2011) 6 Bird v. Holbrook (1828) 4 Bing 628 review journal, 45. Kit Barker, The Law of Torts in Australia, (2012) 5 Melbourne, Sweet & Maxwell. Nicola Monaghan, ‘Streets on Torts’ (2012) 2 Beckford v R [1988] AC 130 journal, 4. Pamela Stewart, and Anita Stuhmcke, (2009) 5 Australian Principles of Tort Law, Melbourne, Federation Press. Read More