After questioning The Saga of Dirk and Dagmar I came up with five torts and five crimes. When coming up with the torts and crimes, I will identify the individuals involved, and if there are any possible defenses.
The first wrongful act happened when Al persuaded Joe to break into WRB after hours and copy the plans for the new engine. He downloaded the files to a flash drive and gave them to al. This is a tort because the wrongful act is interfering with WRB’s property. Joe would be the defendant and the plaintiff would be WRB because they were the victims of theft. The only defenses that I can see is that they couldn’t prove that Joe committed the crime because he knocked off the power and security cameras, and also the fact that he is no longer alive but the plans are in the hands of Dirk and Dagmar who didn’t technically commit the tort themselves. They already know that the plaintiff (WRB) was injured by being broken into and stolen prints that were not the use of anyone outside the facility. This is considered an Intentional Tort because Joe was trespassing.
Now, breaking and entering has been made a crime by the government so the wrongful act of Joe breaking into WRB could also be considered a crime also. Joe would still be considered the defendant, but WRB would still be considered the victim of trespassing and breaking and entering. In order for WRB to recovered money for the damages done by Joe, WRB would have to sue Joe and their would need to proof of him breaking and entering. None of the defenses would apply to this wrongful act.
The second wrongful act would be when Dirk and Dagmar reviewed over the plans and saw that they clearly had the WRB logo on them and they chose to ignore the fact. This would be considered a...
... middle of paper ...
...rom local boats at the marina. Lou steals an engine from an older WRB prototype that was docked at their private dock. He then sells it to Dirk and Dagmar for $50,000. The crime of stealing the engine is a tort and a crime. It is a tort because his crime impedes with WRB and their stolen property. The defendant would be Lou and the plaintiff would be WRB. Now this situation is a crime also, because stealing and trespassing is illegal by the government and Lou has done these wrongful acts considered a crime by the state and federal government. The victim would be WRB and the defendant again would be Lou. Lou has no defense.
It would be amazing to know that individuals would go through such great lengths to become champions of a speed boat race. Stealing, trespassing, and murder are terrible acts to commit in order to win a boating competition at the end of the day.
4. Facts: It was the time of August in 1986, when William Geringer with his family was on vacation at the Wildhorn Ranch Resort located in Teller County, Colorado. Due to some defective Paddleboating boat two of the family members (William Geringer and his minor son Jared Geringer) were drowned. Mr. Watters, a defendant, was formerly the owner of the resort, but he stated that he handed over the possession to Wildhorn Ranch Inc. “The other defendant, Les Bretzke, was a contractor with an autonomous company that endow with repair services and repair construction to the resort.” During the whole trial the main focus was on the maintainability issues of
Facts: On July 29,2003 Detective Jason Leavitt was doing his usually undercover work, dressed in all black with twenty on dollar bill hanging out his pocket. Leavitt was then approached by the Miller (defendant) asking him for money. The detective refused to give him the money, in return the appellant put his arm around the detective’s neck taking the cash out of his front pocket. The arrest time the pulled up and took Miller into custody and charged him with larceny. Miller was convicted, and sentenced by the district courts to spend up to thirty two months, but no less than 12 months in jail.
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
In the Worcester Cold Storage fire the defendants were initially charged with six counts each of involuntary manslaughter. However the Superior Court dismissed the incitements because the court declared that the defendants did not have a duty to act (report the fire) and that their actions did not satisfy the standard of wanton and reckless conduct required for a manslaughter charge. However, in the appeal the commonwealth presented evidence that the defendants did have a duty to act and their behavior at the time of and after the fire shows a pattern of wanton and reckless behavior.
A police officer, Colin Allcars (Allcars), is suing Harry’s Ammo World (HAW) for his medical expenses, personal injuries, pain and suffering. HAW sold a rifle to Dakota D. West without checking West’s background for felonies or drug use. Federal law prevents the sale of firearms to anyone with a felony or to anyone that uses illegal drugs. Dakota had been convicted of a felony and was also a user of marijuana. Two months after the sale Dakota’s brother took the rifle and took hostages. When the police were trying to subdue and arrest Dakota’s brother he shot and wounded Colin AllCars. Allcars is suing HAW on the grounds of negligence.
Harry Douglas McIntyre, the plaintiff, was involved in a car accident together with Clifford Balentine, the defendant in the early morning of November 2, 1986. The accident, which occurred in the neighborhood of Smith’s Truck Stop in Savannah, Tennessee, resulted in severe injuries to McIntyre (“McIntyre v. Balentine”, 2013). During the rime of the accident, Balentine was traveling south on Highway 69 and McIntyre entered the highway from the parking lot of the truck stop. A few minutes after his entry to the highway, McIntyre’s pickup truck was hit by Balentine’s Peterbilt tractor. McIntyre and Balentine had consumed alcohol the evening before the occurrence of the accident.
According to the facts in this case, Walkovszky was hit by a cab four years ago in New York and the cab was negligently operated by defendant Marches. The defendant Carlton, who is being sued, owned and ran the cab company in which he set up ten corporations, including Seon. Each of the corporations had two cabs registered in its name. The minimum automobile liability insurance required by the law was $10,000. According to the opinion of the court the plaintiff asserted that he is also ?entitled to hold their stock holder personally liable for damages, because multiple corporate structures constitutes an unlawful attempt to defraud the general member of the public.?
These interests are violated by the intentional torts of assault, Battery, trespass, False Imprisonment, invasion of privacy, conversion, Misrepresentation, and Fraud. The intent element of these torts is satisfied when the tortfeasor acts with the desire to bring about harmful consequences and is substantially certain that such consequences will follow. Mere reckless behavior, sometimes called willful and wanton behavior, does not rise to the level of an intentional
It is considered to be a deliberate act on the defendant’s part to cause the harm that occurs. In my opinion the, this was not intentional. McDonald was not wilful in trying to harm Liebeck. Intentionally trying to hurt Liebeck would mean loss of revenue and reputation for McDonald and I firmly believe that is a risk they were not willing to take hence, why it is not intentional tort case. Also, to act with intent would mean to see someone coming and hurting them in the process. This was not the case for Liebeck, she bought the coffee and went back to the car and then the coffee
A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.
Intention to commit an offense (Dave entering boat house without permission to steal Sam’s boat).
2. Compare and contrast tort and criminal law. What are some types of behavior that would be covered by both types of law? In criminal law, the indictment is by the legislature. Disciplines might be fines (paid to the administration) or the correctional facility. In tort law, the offended party who brings the claim is the individual who was specifically harmed and the discipline is normally installment of harms to the individual harmed. A few demonstrations of conduct that would be secured by both sorts of laws are whether some individual physically hit another person and intended to bring about damage on them that would
Law of Torts is a civil wrong and is an unreasonable interference with the interests of others. Law of Torts provides protection against harmful conduct, it attempts to provide an impartial set of rules for resolving private disputes over claims of improper interference with individual rights. A common denominator of each Law of Tort is a failure on the defendant’s part to exercise the level of care that the law deems due to the plaintiff, and the normal remedy for this is unliquidated damages. Negligence is one of these Torts, it is an independent tort as it is an element for other torts. Negligence is causing loss by failure to take reasonable care when there is a duty to do so. To succeed in an action for negligence the plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care to avoid
This paper is talking about “The Serial Killer,” but focus on Gary Ridgway- “The Green River Serial Killer.” He earned his nickname because the first five victims that he killed were found in the Green River. He was one of the most famous serial killers in the United States. Ridgway raped, chocked, killer and discarded 48 women, including many teenagers as young as 15 years old (Silja J, 2003). In Ridgway’s mind, he even believed that he was helping the police out, as he admitted in one interview with investigators (Silja J, 2003).
Burglary is typically recognized, from a legal perspective, as the unauthorized entry into any type of structure. A common misconception is that the crime of burglary is specific to breaking into a home or business; however, this is not the case. Moreover, for a burglary to occur there is no need for a physical breaking and entering, in fact, a burglary can be committed by an individual simply trespassing and walking into a structure through an open door. “Most states and the Model Penal Code use the same basic definition of burglary and incorporate the same three basic elements of which include the unauthorized breaking and entry into a building or occupied structure with the intent to commit a crime inside” (Reuters, 2013).