[go: up one dir, main page]

0% found this document useful (0 votes)
159 views3 pages

Courtesy of Professor Kaufman: Part II - Essay

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3

Part II - Essay

Courtesy of Professor Kaufman


Part II Essay (50 points)

Ira Innocent is a professional athlete, married with two young children.  He received serous
injuries, including multiple fractures and a concussion, when Daniel Dozer, the driver of the car
in which Ira was a passenger, fell asleep at the wheel.  The vehicle veered of the roadway,
crashed through the barrier along the side of the road, careened down a non-traversable
embankment and crashed in a V-shaped ditch at the bottom.

Sarah Samaritan saw the car as it crashed.  She ran to the scene and successfully pulled Ira from
the car.  Just then, the car’s gasoline tank ignited enveloping the car in flames.  Despite the
flames, Sarah attempted to extricate the driver, but was unsuccessful.  Daniel Dozer died in the
car.  Sarah suffered serious burns and, after three months in the hospital’s intensive burn unit,
died of her injuries.  Sarah was the single mother of three; she worked as a freelance
photographer.

Ira and Sarah were transported to the hospital in separate ambulances.  En route to the hospital,
Penny Puffer, a medical technician, who had been working for fifteen hour straight, felt a craving
for cigarette.  As she puffed on the cigarette, an ash fell on to Ira’s sleeve and immediately
ignited due to the fact that oxygen was being administered to him.  Ira suffered third degree
burns on his arm.

The evidence at trial established that Daniel Dozer had been working eighteen hours days at his
law firm for the week prior to the accident.  He had consumed three glasses of wine shortly
before getting behind the wheel, which put him over the statutory alcohol blood level limit.  Ira
Innocent did not know that Daniel had been drinking Ira’s injuries (both the fractures and the
burns) have prevented him from returning to professional sports.

Evaluate the claims suggested by these facts.  Be certain to separate out the claims, identify the
parties, and specify the type(s) of damages recoverable in each claim and who is responsible for
those damages.

Ira v. Dozer—Battery

Issue: The issue is whether Ira has claim for battery against Dozer when Dozer sleep asleep at
the wheel seriously injuring Ira?

Rule:
1. Single intent—intent to touch OR Dual intent—intent to touch and for it to be harmful or
offensive
 Desired/wanted consequence to result
 Knew with substantial certainty the consequence would result
 Transferred intent applies
2. Harmful OR offensive contact
 Harmful—bodily contact is harmful if it causes impairment to the (P) physical
condition, physical pain or illness
 Offensive—bodily contact is offensive when it offends a reasonable sense of
personal dignity
3. With the (P) person
 Person means anything for connected with the (P) body as to be customarily
regarded as part of the (P) person.
 Extension of the plaintiff’s body
 Ex. Handbag, Clothes, Desk (P) is sit at

Application:
 The (D) knew with substantial certainty that the consequence would result as he was
working 18-hour work days and had consumed 3 glasses of wine shortly before getting
behind the wheel.
 The accident was harmful as it resulted in the (P) serious injuries--multiple fractures and
a concussion.
 And the (P) body aka the (P) person was directly affected by the battery.

Conclusion: Ira has a viable claim for battery against Dozer.

 Ira is entitled to nominal damages as well as economic damages as her injuries was not
trivial harm or offense but physical bodily harm. Ira is entitled to (1) lost wages, medical
expenses, and earning capacity.

 (D) can avoid liability if Ira (P) fails to prove any one of the essential elements for battery
or if Dozer can prove either an affirmative defense or a privilege.

 (D) can claim the privilege of consent. (D) can claim actual consent because the (P) did
not oppose (D) conduct OR (D) can claim apparent consent because (D) reasonably
believes (P) consented to the conduct. (D) estate can say that (P) knew he was drinking
because she found a wine bottle in the passenger seat and the car smelled like wine and
during the incident report, (P) acknowledged that (P) said nothing to the driver.

Ira v. Dozer—IIED

Rule:
(1) Intent to bring about emotional distress (desired/ wanted, knew) OR recklessness
Transferred intent applies:
1. Bystander is family member whose presence is known to the (D)
2. Bystander whose presence is known to (D) and suffers bodily harm
(2) Extreme or outrageous conduct
 Physical force
 Threatened with physical force to (P) or 3rd party
 Actual or apparent barriers
(3) Severe emotional distress
 Must show causal connection between (P) emotional distress and (D) actions.
 Physical symptoms not required to prove severe emotional distress
 Physical or psychological manifestations of severe emotional distress, nightmares,
evidence of medical treatment, diagnosis, duration and that it impedes with day to
day functioning.

Ira v. Puffer—battery

Ira v. Dozer—False Imprisonment

You might also like