Law

Assignment #3
Debbie, aged sixteen, lives at home with her mother, Jennifer, in a state where the age of majority is eighteen. Jennifer is aware that Debbie has recently exhibited a sometimes violent and delusionary nature diagnosed as schizophrenia, and has attacked persons in the neighborhood. Medication that can control Debbie’s behavior has been prescribed, but without Jennifer’s knowledge Debbie has stopped taking it.

A week after Debbie stopped taking her medication, she approached a neighbor, Mark, as he walked along the sidewalk fronting Jennifer’s home. When she was face to face with Mark, Debbie, without provocation, gestured threateningly and screamed, “I know you’re out to get me and I’m going to get you first,” and then strode away.

Two days later, after Debbie confronted Mark, Debbie saw him raking leaves which had fallen into the street fronting their adjoining homes. Debbie got on her bike and rode it as rapidly as she could directly at Mark. Although Debbie swerved away from Mark at the last moment, Mark reacted by diving to one side. He struck his head on the curb and suffered a severe concussion and facial injuries.

Mark has sued Debbie for assault and battery. What result?

Model answer for Assignment #3

Mark v. Debbie

1. Debbie Approaching Mark

Assault

An assault is an intentional placing of another in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive touching.
Debbie approached her neighbor Mark. When face to face and without provocation Debbie gestured threateningly and screamed at Mark, “I know you are out to get me and I am going to get you first.” Based on Debbie’s words she acted with a substantial certainty to scare Mark. Therefore, her act was intentional.
Debbie will contend that she has been diagnosed as schizophrenia and she does not have the requisite intent to commit an intentional tort. Further, she is only sixteen years old and is considered a minor, because the age of majority in her state is eighteen. Therefore, she could not form the requisite intent necessary to commit an assault.
Mark will counter that the courts today have held that schizophrenias can form the required intent necessary for an intentional act. Further, the courts have held that a minor can also form the requisite intent. Therefore, Debbie’s act was intentional.
Debbie screamed at Mark “I know you’re out to get me and I’m going to get you first.” Mark will argue Debbie’s words put him in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful touching. Debbie will counter her words “I’m going to get you first” and then strode away showed that the apprehension was not imminent. Further, words alone are generally not enough to constitute an imminent apprehension.
Therefore, Debbie will not be liable to Mark for assault.

Assault – Riding the bike at Mark

Defined supra.

Debbie saw Mark raking leaves in front of their adjoining homes. Debbie got on her bike and rode as rapidly as she could directly at Mark. Debbie acted with a desired result to create imminent fear in Mark. Debbie will argue that she has been diagnosed as a schizophrenia and is also a minor. However, as discussed supra she can form the required intent. Therefore, her conduct was intentional.
Although Debbie swerved away from Mark at the last moment, Mark reacted by diving to one side. Mark struck his head on the curb and suffered a severe concussion and facial injuries. By Debbie riding her bike directly at Mark, she created a reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful touching.
Therefore, Debbie will be liable to Mark for assault.

General Damages

General damages are damages that naturally flow from the tort. General damages allow recovery of compensation for pain and suffering.
In an attempt to avoid being struck by Debbie, Mark dove to one side, struck his head on the curb and suffered a severe concussion and facial injuries. He should recover for these damages which reasonable and naturally flowfrom Debbie’s tortious conduct. Mark will be able to recover for his pain and suffering.

Thus, Mark will be entitled to general damages.

Special Damages

Special damages must be foreseeable, reasonable in amount and not too remote. Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved in order to recover.

Mark will receive damages for his medical expenses and lost wages resulting from Debbie’s act. It is foreseeable and reasonable based on Debbie’s conduct that Mark would require medical treatment and suffer lost wages while recovering from his injuries. Since the damages would relate to the conduct of Debbie, the damages are not too remote.

Therefore, Mark is entitled to special damages.

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages may be awarded where there was intent to injure or harm plaintiff.
As discussed supra, since Debbie committed an assault against Mark, she acted with the intent to cause injury to Mark.

Therefore, the court can award punitive damages from Debbie’s conduct.

Battery

Battery is the intentional, harmful or offensive touching of another.

Debbie’s conduct of riding her bike directly at Mark and swerved away at the last moment shows she was substantially certain to cause Mark to react. Thus, Debbie’s actions were intentional. Debbie will argue she only intended to scare Mark and not harm him. As such, Debbie lacked the requisite intent to harm Mark.

However, under the transferred intent doctrine a Defendant’s wrongful intent can be transferred from the intended tort to the committed tort.

Debbie rode her bike as rapidly as she could toward Mark. Since Debbie intended to cause apprehension to Mark, she will be liable for the resulting harm to Mark since her wrongful intent can be transferred from the assault to the battery.

Further, Mark dove to one side and struck his head on the curb and suffered a severe concussion and facial injuries. Thus, harmful touching of another.

Under the transferred intent doctrine, Debbie may be liable for battery.

General Damages

Defined and discussed supra.
Special Damages

Defined and discussed supra.
Punitive Damages

Defined and discussed supra.

Torts Lesson 4 Assignment

This order is for a law school coursework assignment. This assignment is worth 50% of my grade therefore please follow the direction for the assignment. Please see the direction for this order under word document title Tort Lesson 4 Assignment before proceed with the order. Samples of documents related to the assignment are uploaded for your review so please review all uploaded documents prior/after the order have been place/complete as well as for revision request. For revision request, please return the assignment as instructed. Please follow the instruction in regard to how the assignment should be format by my professor. If additional if an increase in page is warrant for the assignment, please let me know before proceeded. I will upload my own answer if I disagree. Please edit my works.

Format for Assignment Lesson Assignments should be prepared in Microsoft Word® using the Times New Roman font, 12-point, single space, double space between paragraphs. Each page must be numbered, and your last name and student number included on the upper left-hand corner of each page.

More is not always better. One-word answers or short answers that lack substance will earn no participation credit. Substantive means that you are contributing information that moves the knowledge base for the class, as a whole forward. Some of the questions will ask you to answer a specific question. We are interested not only in your answer but why you came to that answer. Other questions may ask for your opinion. Again, your answer will be much more substantive if you explain why that is your opinion. Answer need to be clear, brief, and concise. PLEASE follow this guideline when completing the discussion since this is from my professor as to how the discussion should be.
Required Reading Assignments
• Casebook – Study Chapters 4, 5, 6, 10 and Brief cases.
• Gilbert’s – Study Pages 56 through 114.
Writing Assignments for Personal Review
• Gilbert’s Review Questions 52-68. Check your answers.
• Finz – Answer Questions 5, 6, 9, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 31, 32, 35, 43, 44, 46, 51, 54, 56, 59, 60, 62, 64, 72, 76, 77, 78, 83, 90, 93, 94, 95, 105, 110, 115, 131, 132, 136, 140, 143, 147, 169, 185, 192 and review your answers.
Assignments
The following Assignment should be completed and submitted to the course faculty via the learning platform for evaluation and grading. Submit your response in one WORD document.

You will have two separate tasks for this assignment. First you will brief a case using the format set forth in Gilbert’s Legal Research, Writing & Analysis. Second draft interrogatories.
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.
248 N.Y. 339
(This case may be found on Lexis®/Nexis® or in your casebook)
Draft 10 interrogatories to gather further information about the cause of the incident from the below facts:
Interrogatories are written questions or requests for information that one party to a lawsuit submits to the other party. Interrogatories should not be written in typical question form. An interrogatory should not be written using a question mark: “Do you employ security staff?” Instead, use wording such as: “State whether you employ security staff, and if so, describe their positions in detail.” This leaves room for a more open-ended response, rather than a yes or no.
Interrogatories must be drafted based on the specific information you wish to gain.
In a personal injury case, for example, your interrogatories should relate to the cause of the injury and the negligence of the defendant. For example: – Please give a concise statement of facts as to how you contend the car accident took place.

Debbie, aged sixteen, lives at home with her mother, Jennifer, in a state where the age of majority is eighteen. Jennifer is aware that Debbie has recently exhibited a sometimes violent and delusionary nature diagnosed as schizophrenia and has attacked persons in the neighborhood. Medication that can control Debbie’s behavior has been prescribed, but without Jennifer’s knowledge Debbie has stopped taking it.

A week after Debbie stopped taking her medication, she approached a neighbor, Mark, as he walked along the sidewalk fronting Jennifer’s home. When she was face to face with Mark, Debbie, without provocation, gestured threateningly and screamed, “I know you’re out to get me and I’m going to get you first,” and then strode away.

Two days later, after Debbie confronted Mark, Debbie saw him raking leaves which had fallen into the street fronting their adjoining homes. Debbie got on her bike and rode it as rapidly as she could directly at Mark. Although Debbie swerved away from Mark at the last moment, Mark reacted by diving to one side. He struck his head on the curb and suffered a severe concussion and facial injuries. Mark has sued Debbie. Mark has retained you to sue Debbie and perhaps her mother Jennifer for her injuries. If Mark wants to sue Debbie’s mother, Jennifer, for her negligence what information does Mark need in order to support his case?