1. Barbara, a precocious child aged 12, is visiting a restaurant with her family
ID: 382660 • Letter: 1
Question
1. Barbara, a precocious child aged 12, is visiting a restaurant with her family. At the next table, an elderly woman named Edna is about to sit down. Thinking it would be humorous, but not in any way intending to harm her, Barbara pulls the chair out from under Edna as she is about to sit down, and sits in it herself. Although Barbara quickly tries to put the chair back into its place before Edna can sit down Barbara is too late. Edna is called to come pick up Edna from the restaurant, and takes her to the hospital. The injuries are extensive and require hip surgery, resulting in arthritis in her leg. Edna then sues Barbara for damages. You are the judge who is hearing this case. a) What theory of tort could Edna's lawyers sue Barbara for, and what would their legal arguments be? b) What legal arguments would Barbara's lawyers make in her defense? c) What would your ruling be in this case? falls to the floor and breaks her hip. Edna is unable to get up, so an ambulanceExplanation / Answer
(a)
Since the act of Barbara stems out of her carelessness and thoughtlessness, Edna's lawyers may sue her under the unintentional tort liability i.e. Negligence. The legal argument is that the defendant (Barbara) had a legal duty to remain careful about the duty she conducted in a social environment which includes the plaintiff (considering that the activity conducted by Barbara is not foreseeable to the plaintiff). Barbara failed to abide by her duty as a child of her age could have reasonably done. The action of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury caused. Finally, there is a real damage and injury caused by the defendant's action.
(b)
Barbara's lawyers may argue that since Barba is only 12 years of age, she is not capable of conducting negligence. Note that is many States, children under the age of 14 are considered incapable of committing negligent activities. And since this is not a case of deliberate tort (note that Barbara didn't have any intention to harm Edna and that she was doing this to have fun only), Barbara is not liable for the injury happened.
(c)
The case will definitely come under the unintentional tort liability or negligence. it cannot be an intentional tort in any case because a child will not have any intention to harm the defendant. Depending upon the State legislation, the decision will be taken. For example, if the state law specifies that children under the age of 14 years are incapable of conducting negligent activities, Barbara will not be held liable for her activities.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.