Reference no: EM131004383

Each issue should be addressed in the following format:

1. Immediately identify the issue. For example. Fraud

2. Identify the party that can bring the issue/claim and against whom

3. Discuss the elements

4. Discuss the facts that support that claim

5. Discuss a defense.

You must identify three (3) issues.

Professor Tickle has been asked by Twlight Community College to attend a training in Eastern Washington. She has been provided with a state car for transportation. While in route, she visits a fellow professor who just retired from teaching at TCC. They have a glass of white wine. As she leaves this professor's home and heads back to the freeway to continue on to the training, she is involved in an accident. As she was approaching the on ramp and entering the freeway, another vehicle, going 15 miles over the speed limit, raced passed her, and they collided. The other lane of travel had been clear such that the driver, even though he was speeding, could have simply changed lanes.

Professor Tickle is later fired and after several unsuccessful attempts to obtain employment, she contacts a private investigator. The private investigator suspects that her former employer may not be providing a good reference and contacts TCC disguided as a potential employer seeking a recommendation for Professor Tickle. He is informed that Professor Tickle was fired because she was a "lazy" employee is "drank too much." The employee also suggests that Professor Tickle might be having a nervous breakdown because her husband and her five cats ran away. He'd happened to overhear her making an appointment to see a therapist. Outraged upon hearing this information from, Professor Tickle speeds to this employee's home, where she confronts him at his front door.

When he attempts to move past her to leave his home for work, Professor Tickle blocks his path.

The employee's neighbor is out walking his pet bull. His dog has only bitten one person in the past and it was only because the person was unknown to him. He knows everyone who visits the neighborhood and since no one is home today, he had decided to walk his dog. The dog is running ahead of him, seeings Professor Tickle and immediately launches at her.

Another neighbor, just arriving home sees the attack that has left Professor Ticklet with nasty bit to her left leg and a few scratches. In an effort to help, she immediately drags Professor Tickle in the back of her vehicle, bumping her head. She then speeds off to the nearest hospital. While in route, she takes a phone call which requires her look down and when she looks up,she has to come to an abrupt stop which causes Professor Tickle to bang her head on the back of the seat, resulting in a cut to her forehead.

Well from the story I am able to identify three legal issues. The first issue is Negligence, international tort and strict liability. The issue identified that could qualify to Negligence

The issue

The issue identified that could qualify to be negligence is when the other driver raced passed professor tickle and they collided. However, the professor can be termed as negligent because of driving while drunk. In this case I choose to follow the line of the other driver hitting the professor while he could have avoided him.

The party that can bring claim and against who

In this case, professor tickle has a right of ringing claim against the other driver because of careless and negligent driving (from the article we are told the other lane was free and as such he could have avoided him)

Elements of negligence

Duty of care- the other driver owed professor tickle duty of care (protecting him while driving-he should not have hit him)

Breach of duty-the driver breached the duty of care to professor Tickle by hitting him

The breach causes injuries-the professor was hurt by being hit and later lost his job

Monetary losses-the professor lost his monthly salary by losing his job.

Facts that can support the claim

The facts that can support the claim include that the other driver indeed hit the professor while he had the option of changing the other lane since it was free.

Defenses

There are several defenses that the other driver can employ to counter the professor's claims. These include comparative negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of risk. The defendant in this case could defend himself that the professor was drunk and as such he contributed to his hitting-a drunk person is bound to be negligent. Comparatively therefore, the plaintiff could have been said to have been negligent on his part and as such could not recover everything from the defendant. Assumption of the risk could also be a perfect defense for the plaintiff because by being drunk the professor had assumed the risk of by hit. He drunk while he was aware he was going to drive.

Strict liability

The second issue identified in this case was strict liability in the case of the neighbor leaving his dog lose while he knew it was dangerous. Thus the dog bite the professor. Strict liability refers to imposition of liability on a party without finding a fault.
Party that can bring the issue against the other

The professor can prefer a strict liability claim against the neighbor.

Elements of strict liability

1. The plaintiff need to prove that the tort occurred
2. Prove that the defendant was responsible

In this case, the professor could prove that he was bitten by the dog of the neighbor while visiting his employees. He could easily do this by showing the dog bites. It was easy for her to prove that the neighbor was responsible because he very well knew that the dog had bitten one person. While knowing this he chose to walk with it while lose.

The facts

The professor was bitten by the dog

The dog had been let lose by the neighbor despite knowing that it could bit people.

Defense to strict liability

Even though the plaintiff does not have to prove fault the defendant can still bring defense by showing that there was no fault and indeed if it was there it was contributed to by the plaintiff. In this case the neighbor could show that the professor was at fault by walking near his place.

Tort

This refers to a wrongful act of infringing on other people rights. In this case a tort could be identified where the professor's employees (private investigator) was seeking information from his former employer instead of him. This was infringing on the professor's right to privacy.

The party that can bring the claim

The professor in this case ought to bring the claim against the private investigator (defendant).

Elements of tort

There must be duty, breach of duty, causation and injury. All these elements must be present for the plaintiff to claim damages. In this case the professor must show that his employees has a duty to keep his information secret, that the defendant breached the duty causing damages to the professor and hence suffered injury. Indeed, the defendant breached the duty of keeping the plaintiff information secret, thus inuring his reputation. The damages were that he was regarded lowly by her neighbors.

Facts

The employee divulged private information

The professor suffered reputational injury

Defense

The defendant could bring defense that the professor had given him consent to investigate the matter and that it was necessary for him to seek information from the neighbors to accomplish his duty. Therefore the professor could not bring tort against him.