Mike Vs. Louis
Whether Louis caused a tort of Intentional infliction of harm towards Mike depends on whether Louis had the intention to cause harm. One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm. Here, it is clear that Louis’s actions were intentional and could cause emotional distress to Mike. Mike intended to keep the issue a secret but was forced to react and deal with the situation due to the carelessness of Louis’s actions which led him to have severe panic attacks and seek professional help. It could be argued that the act committed by Louis could be overlooked as he can take the defense of truth, and therefore should not be considered a tort. However, following the pattern of the case of , Louis would be liable. Therefore, Louis, by circulating the news about Mike’s past criminal convictions has committed a tort of Intentional infliction of harm.
2. Mike Vs. Louis
Whether Louis committed a tort of Trespass to Chattels towards Mike. Trespass to Chattels may take innumerable forms. It required proof of some damage or asportation It is clear that Louis’s actions led to an act of asportation. Louis has committed a tort the moment he began to hide Mike’s belongings and when he padlocked the bicycle to a street lamp. It is a clear case of trespass as Louis was not authorized and there was a wrongful physical interference with goods that are in the possession of another Therefore, Louis, by hiding belongings and padlocking Mike’s bike to the street lamp has committed the tort of Trespass to Chattels.
3. Mike Vs. Louis
Whether Louis has committed a tort of Battery against Mike. A touching which is not harmful but which is offensive to a normal or reasonable person is a battery, and it subjects the actor to liability if the touching is not consented to or privileged. If any of them use violence against the other, to force his way in a rude inordinate manner, it will be a battery. In this case, Louis out of an intention to cause mischief, mixed food coloring into Mike’s water bottle. Although indirect, battery has been committed as there is an unlawful and physical interference without consent being given. Hence, Louis, by mixing food color into the bottle of Mike has committed the tort of Battery.
4. Mike Vs. Louis
Whether Louis has committed the tort of Trespass to Chattels. Following the rule mentioned in tort 2, at Common law there could be no conversion where there was no voluntary act. Louis, in the heat of the moment went ahead to Mike’s desks and threw his belongings away without a reasonable justification – hence trespassing into his space and goods. Therefore, Louis had committed the tort of Trespass to Chattels by throwing Mike’s belongings away.
5. Mike Vs. Louis
Whether Louis has committed the tort of conditional assault against Mike. With assault defined in terms of attempted battery, one may point a loaded gun at another, or flourish a knife in his face, with a threat, which he intends to carry out, to injure the other unless the latter does something he is not legally obliged to do or refrains from doing something he is legally entitled to do Threatening someone’s wellbeing if they do/ do not do a particular thing constitutes to putting that individual in an uncomfortable and fearful situation. Conditional threats like “If you don’t leave I will kill you” constitute assault. Thus, when Louis threatened Mike by mentioning that he would make him “suffer” if he were to repeat the mistake, he put Mike in a fearful situation. Considering the analysis, Louis has committed the tort of Conditional Assault.
6. Mike Vs. Louis
Whether the tort of False imprisonment has been committed. A person commits false imprisonment where he directly and intentionally imprisons the claimant without a lawful justification. By getting ready to not let Mike leave even when he wanted to, Louis was committing the tort of False imprisonment according to the case of Meeting v. Grahame-White Aviation Co. Ltd The tort requires an absence of consent and being forcibly detained. Therefore, Louis has committed the tort of false imprisonment.
7. Louis v. Harvey
Whether Harvey committed battery against Louis. Following the rule mentioned in tort 3, The moment Harvey squeezed and pushed Louis over after losing his temper, he committed the tort of Battery. There was usage of unreasonable force without any justification. Hence, Harvey committed the tort of battery.
8. Harvey v. Louis
If the torts of Assault and Battery have been committed. Following the rules mentioned in tort 3 and tort 5, the actions of Louis include elements of both Assault and Battery. Him throwing the book from a nearby table constitutes Assault and the book hitting Harvey’s head and giving him a black eye would be battery. Therefore, Louis committed the torts of Assault and Battery.
9. Louis v. Harvey
The issue is as to whether battery has been committed. Following the rule mentioned in tort 3, there exists a clear case of battery as Louis used unreasonable amount of force during the match and hit Harvey until he fell unconscious and lost blood and the promoter may be liable for injuries Therefore, we can conclude that tort of battery has been committed.
10. Zane v. Louis
The issue is whether if the tort of trespass has been committed. Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offense or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property commits trespass Although Zane asked Louis to leave his land, Louis continues to stay after refusing to leave. A person’s right to entry is revoked the moment the owner is against it or they cause damage to the property of the owner. Hence, Louis by refusing to leave has committed the tort of Trespass.
11. Louis v. Zane
Whether Zane has committed the tort of battery. Following the rules mentioned in tort 3, Although Zane had the right over his property, the owner owes a duty of care to trespassers Therefore, we can conclude that Zane had committed battery against Louis.
12. Louis v. Harvey
Whether Harvey has committed the tort of Trespass to Chattel. Going by the rule of tort 3, Harvey was not lawfully authorized to enter into Louis’s cabin early in the morning. He further did not have any right to take away his painting which also happened to be valued. There was an intention of causing wrongful gain Therefore, we can conclude that Harvey committed the tort of Trespass to Chattel.
13. Harvey v. Managing Partner
The issue is whether there existed a tort of negligence on the managing partner’s part. Negligence means failure to act as. Reasonable person to someone to whom he/she owes a duty as required by law under the circumstances Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough; for purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence; and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is established In this case, although the painting was attached to the wall for the past 50 years by 4 titanium bolts with a lifespan of 100+ years, the company is still supposed to take responsibility for the fall of the painting. Hence, we can conclude that the company can be sued for negligence.
14. Harvey v. Louis
Whether there existed a tort of negligence between Louis and Harvey and Louis owes a duty to Harvey. Following the rule of tort 13, although the ginger was handed by Louis, he cannot be held liable for it as established in the case facts of Donoghue v. Stevenson where only the manufacturer can be held liable for the adulteration of the product he is selling as once it is sealed, a person purchasing has no authority or means of taking care of the product purchased in this case. Hence, we can conclude that Harvey cannot sue Louis for this issue.