Business Law Torts

There are several claims that arise in this situation.

#1 Tort of Battery

Issue

Ian broke his ankle and the second baseman kicked him in the face breaking his glasses and resulting in an injury.

Rule

Tort of battery requires

• Physical contact – One must physically hit someone
• Intent – One must intend to harm the other

Analysis

• Ian broke his ankle during normal game play. There is an assumed risk when someone participates in such activity.
• Second baseman kicked Ian in face while Ian was still on ground and broke Ian’s glasses, resulting in an injury. This type of behavior is not in the rules of the game and was uncalled for. There is a case of battery against the second baseman
• It was foreseeable that kicking Ian in face would result in an injury
• In second baseman’s defense, he would not be completely liable if he can prove that Ian provoked him

Conclusion

Although the second baseman is not liable for Ian’s ankle injury. He is liable for the battery because of his actions unless he can prove that he was provoked by Ian or was acting in self defense

#2 Tort of negligence – Employers duty of care to employees

Issue

• George drove company car while intoxicated and hit someone on the road which resulted in a whip splash injury to Ian

Rule

• If alcohol is being served at a party, a business owner should make sure that there is enough designated drivers or taxis so that the employees reach home safely.
• He /she should take reasonable preventative steps to stop drunk employees from driving by themselves.
• Based on previous court rulings “Employers may be liable for harm caused when employees have been drinking at the workplace or in connection with work” (Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP)

Analysis

• Derek was aware that everyone at the party is intoxicated but did not take enough preventative measures. If he simply took custody of everyone’s car keys , the situation might have been avoided.
• George chose to drive while he was drunk which resulted in an accident
• Even though the employer did not directly cause the injury, it happened because of contributory negligence of Derek and George.

Conclusion

Ian’s injury claim is valid unless the employer can prove that derek took reasonable steps to stop George from driving

#3 Ralph’s injury

Rule

• No one should drink and drive
• Everyone should follow the traffic rules

Analysis

• Ralph suffered an injury because George was driving drunk
• Bob is partially responsible as a business owner because Derek did not take reasonable preventative measures to stop George from driving while he was intoxicated
• Ralphs family was not able to go on the cruise because of the accident. Even though they did not purchase cancellation insurance, accident is the sole reason of them not going on the cruise.

Conclusion

Bob and George, both would be responsible for Ralph’s damages. In order to put everything the way it was before, Ralph should be awarded for cost of treatment for injury and forgone benefits of going on a cruise.

Case #4 Lack of informed consent

Issue

 Ian developed gangrene and suffered a great deal of pain

Rule

• Doctors must properly disclose to the patient "The nature of proposed operation, it's gravity, any material risks and any special or unusual risks attendant upon performance of the operation.
• Patients are expected to follow doctor’s instructions

Analysis

• Three factors contributed to Ian developing a gangrene and suffering a great deal of pain
• Doctor did not advise him of the risk of putting the cast on when there is a swelling
• Doctor did not use professional judgment, If he had refused Ian’s request to be operated right away, he could have minimized the damage
• Ian was negligent when he did not report back to the doctor in time. He was advised to report back in 48 hours but Ian did not visit the doctor until four days from the incident.

Conclusion