Internal Legal Memorandum - Term Paper Example

Case Analysis Facts: The Colts moved in as new neighbours to Jones, but when they stopped by for a neighbourly visit, she had just had hip surgery and did not meet them. They perceived this as rude. They started having loud, late parties which affected Jones’ sleep and caused dizzy spells. Jones’ complaints elicited the response from the Colts that it was their home and they would set the dogs on her if she came there. The next incident was the Cold children trying to send their ball into Jones’ bird bath.

When Jones complained about this and shouted, “stop throwing your toys into my yard”, the Colts responded by erecting a fence that was so high, it destroyed the flowers by impeding the light. When Jones walked over to the Colt house to complain, they set the dog on her and she narrowly missed being bitten, falling down in her panic and because of her recent hip surgery. She returned home in a complete panic and developed a nervous tic and paranoid about leaving her homeIssue:The major issues raised in this case would be (a) nuisance (b) harassment (c) assault and (d) intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as (e) criminal destruction of property.

The first issue arises because of the noisy parties at nights, with bright lights in the backyard and during the day, the children trying to send their balls into Jones’ birdbath. The harassment arises because of the way the Colts responded to her request to stop the nuisance activities with the threat to unleash their dog on her. The assault issue arises because the dog Sirius did indeed attack her and would have quite likely caused actual physical harm if it had not been distracted by another dog.

As it is, the dog caused injuries because Jones fell down and hurt her hip that had recent surgery. The intentional infliction of emotional distress arises because of the way the Colts responded to her grievances, with animosity and an attitude of conflict rather than amity and cooperation. The last issue of criminal destruction of property arises because of the fence the Colts built that impeded the access to sunlight of the plants in Jones’ garden.Rule:The rule on nuisance would assess how much disturbance was caused to the Plaintiff and whether this could be deemed intrusive of her right to peace and privacy.

The rule on harassment requires the plaintiff to demonstrate externally that there were hurt or injured feelings arising out of the harassment. In a case of assault, the balance would be between the forseeability of harm against the burden of preventive measures. The intentional infliction of emotional distress would require plaintiff to demonstrate visible injury, while the criminal destruction of property allegation would need to be accompanied by relevant evidence to show such destruction has occurred due to the negligence or deliberate actions of the defendants in a tortuous suit.

Application/analysis:Applying the above, it may be noted that the element of nuisance may not be difficult to establish, because the noise and bright lights were being used in the middle of the night when there are specific rules and legislation decreeing the maintenance of peace and quiet. Harassment and the intentional infliction of harm can be shown in Jones’ condition, especially when supported by a report or testimony from her physician, Dr. Clark. The external visible symptoms are (a) aggravation of the hip injury for which surgery had been carried out (b) the development of the external tic and the phobia about going out and (c) the fact that Jones is taking medication for the tic and her phobia.

Where the assault is concerned, the dog Sirius ran after her and assessing the forseeability of harm, it may be noted that the Colts had the duty to control their dog and prevent it from harming anyone; hence they should have taken some preventive measures such as keeping it on a leash rather than leaving it loose. This count may be easy to prove in Jones’ favour. Lastly, the erection of the too high fence can show a level of harm that can be demonstrated, because the plants in the garden have dried up, which is evidence in support of a claim for the criminal destruction of property.

Conclusion:On the basis of the facts of the case and the application of the relevant rules, it appears that Jones may have a good case against her neighbours for all of the counts that have been indicated above. The courts are likely to take into account the fact that part of her injuries may be the after effect of the surgery on her hip rather than being purely attributed to the dog, but the destruction of the garden is a visible manifestation of damage. The harassment and its negative impact are evident in the nervous tic and the paranoia that Mrs Jones is suffering from, so she has an excellent chance of recoveries in this case.