Russ For The Tort Of Assault example essay topic

Based on the facts that were provided by the initial client interview one may conclude that the law was broken in different ways. A lot of torts were committed by various individuals, and four of them were selected and analyzed. In the first situation where the tort was committed was when Bill Farrell has ordered pizza and was about to leave without paying for it, then Russ who was the owner of the pizza business saw it and placed himself first three inches in front of Bill's nose and then frightened Bill verbally by saying " if you don't pay me, I'll wipe you away". As a result of that, Bill became terrified and was afraid for his life and had to pay for the pizza. Based on this facts that were provided, Russ has committed the tort of assault, which is described under the U. S tort law, and it identifies that when a victim is placed in fear or apprehension of immediate bodily harm by a tortfeasor (person who commits the tort and thus has engaged in this " twisted" behavior) who has the present apparent ability to inflict that harm, even if no actual physical contact occurred. It is said that he committed a tort of assault.

So based on the facts that were obtained Bill can sue Russ for the tort of assault. In the second situation where the tort was committed by one party was when Bill was running away from Russ and finally got existed and he couldn't run any more, and then Russ caught up with him and tolled him to go back to the pizza truck and sit in front seat until Russ can decide what to with him, Bill being afraid of Russ did so. In this situation Russ has committed the tort of false imprisonment, which is described under the U. S tort law when one party preventing another party from moving about freely, the victim of false imprisonment doesn't have to be locked up in prison or jail cell, the only thing required is for the person's freedom of movement be restricted in some fashion. Sinc Bill couldn't freely leave the pizza truck without Russ' consent, he was falsely imprisoned. So Bill can sue Russ for false imprisonment tort. In the third situation where the tort was committed was when Bill tolled the reporter of Daily Sentinel that Russ was once molested by his uncle when he was a very young child.

Reporter found that story interesting and performed an investigation on it and found a lot of details about the molestation. After all the details were gathered together, the story was published in the Daily Sentinel newspaper. Due to the fact that it was investigated and then published in the newspaper without Russ' consent, we can conclude that Bill and the reporter of the newspaper committed the tort of invasion of privacy which under the U. S tort law states that when one person unreasonably denies another person the right to be left along it is said that he / she has committed the tort of invasion of privacy. In addition right of privacy includes the right to be free from unwanted publicity and the undesired interference with private matter.

In this situation Russ can sue both Bill and the Daily Sentinel based on the respondent superior doctrine, which imposes a legal liability on the employers and makes them pay for the torts committed by their employees within the scope of the employer's business. In the fourth situation where the tort was committed by several parties was when Russ decided to call from his cellular phone and it exploded due to the defect in the design of the phone system and that caused an injury to Russ. Based on the product liability theory, manufacturer and seller of a product produced and sold in a defective condition are both responsible or liable for the physical or the emotional injury to the ultimate consumer and for any physical harm to the user's property. So Russ can sue both the seller of the product, which is Sears Roebuck Co., and manufacturer of the product, which is Nizzon Inc. Since his injury was caused by the accident and no one intended to harm him, he can also qualify to sue both of these companies under the law of negligence.

Based on this results Sears Roebuck Co and Nizzon Inc. have committed the tort under the product liability theory and negligence. 320.