TORT LAW APPLICATION IN LIFE 5
TortLaw Application in Life
Juliewitnessed his Jack throwing the bat he uses in playing cricket at anearby tree after he was defeated in a game. Jack was playing againstHugo. Julie (Hugo’s spouse) and Marsha (Jack’s spouse) had beenwatched the entire game. However, Jack was furious after he lost thecricket game to Hugo. The fury made Jack hurl his bat towards a tree.The bat bounced and critically injured Hugo, who was standing closeto the tree. On the other hand, Julie experienced a nervous breakdownafter witnessing the accident. The objective of this study isinvestigating whether Julie is justified to sue Jack for negligenttrespass resulting from his action of relieving anger that risked thelives of others.
Juliecan sue Jack for making her to suffer from a nervous breakdown.However, she must provide evidence that she suffered a nervousbreakdown because of Hugo’s accident. Julie’s evidenceresponsibility of evidence of the trespassory act that requires proofthat is beyond fault. KirbyP. (232)ruled that the plaintiff require proving that the defendant causedher condition. The injury on Hugo’s forehead would act as theevidence that Jack injured her spouse. Besides, Julie will illustratethe seriousness of the injury using the Hugo’s medical report. Hewas stitched ten times because the injury was big (Rudlin &American Bar Association, 2005).
AfterHugo had been injured, he became unconscious for fifteen minutes.Blood was gushing out of his face profusely. Marsha, Julie’s friendand spouse to Jack, left the scene instead of consoling her. Juliewill argue that she developed a nervous shock because she was scaredthat her husband had passed on. Besides, she had nobody to give heremotional support that her husband would recover from an injury(Rudlin & American Bar Association, 2005).
Juliemust also provide evidence that Jack was responsible for throwing thebat that injured Jack. Probably Jack might deny that he did not throwthe bat that injured Jack after the game. In addition, Julie has aresponsibility either of proving that the defendant committed theoffence deliberately or through neglect. If Julie managed to convincethe court that Jack was the one who threw the bat that injured Hugo,but the injury was an accident, and the court could find him guilty.This implies that she had to collect adequate evidence that wouldprove that either Jack acted out of neglect or he intentionallywanted to injure Hugo. In the case of Weaverv. Ward (1616) 80 ER 284,a plaintiff can only receive compensation after he or she could provethat an accused caused the injury, either with intent or negligent(Bermingham & Brennan, 2012).
Jack,the defendant, can argue that he did not throw the bat that injuredHugo. However, this would depend on whether the police or otherinvestigators have strong evidence linking him to the accident. Incase Julie succeeds in proving that Jack injured Hugo, Jack will havethe burden of proving that he did not injure him deliberately. Juliewould most likely sue Jack for negligence. The act of throwing a batat the tree put the people in the surrounding at risk of beinginjured. In addition, Jack should have ensured that nobody wasfielding close to the tree. The accident was consequential negligentas it resulted from Jack’s action of hurling a bat out of fury(Bermingham & Brennan, 2012).
Juliewill also require filing medical evidence that she does, and she wasnot, suffering from any other disease that could have caused thenervous shock that made her unconscious. Julie can acquire proof fornervous shock from a licensed psychiatrist. In the case Brownv Kendall 60 Mass 292 (1951),the complainant must provide evidence regarding the allegationattributed to the defendant. For instance, Julie must compileevidence that will convince the court that Jack acted out ofnegligence and that the injury her husband sustained after theaccident was the cause of her nervous shock (Bermingham &Brennan, 2012).
Onthe other hand, Jack can contend that he was not in a stable mentalcondition when he threw the bat. Similarly, he can contend that thebat slipped out of his hands accidentally when he was preparing tohit the ball. If Jack can prove that the bat unintentionally slippedout of his hand, the court could find him innocent as he had causedinjury without fault. On the contrary, Julie will have to gatheradequate knowledge for proving that Jack hurled the bat because hegot upset after Hugo and his team won the competition. Julie willthen contend that Hugo was n his sober mind because he had justcompleted playing a professional match. However, he threw his bat ata tree because he was being driven by fury. Despite having the rightto express his anger and disappointment with losing the game, Jackhad a responsibility of expressing his dissatisfaction through meansthat could not harm others (Bermingham & Brennan, 2012).
DoesJulie have adequate proof to sue Jack for negligent trespass thatmade her suffer from nervous shock?
Insummary, Julie will sue Jack for negligent trespass that made hersuffer from nervous shock. Jack hurled his bat towards a tree toexpress his disappointment for losing the match to Hugo’s team.However, the bat bounced accidentally towards Hugo, who was fieldingclose to the tree. The bat hit Hugo on the face, making a deep cutthat was fixed with ten stitches, as well as making him unconsciousfor fifteen minutes. Julie was scared that her husband had died fromthe injury since his face was bleeding, and he was unconscious. Onthe other hand, Marsha abandoned her after her husband sustained theinjury. She did not attempt to console Julie or even give her aid fortaking her to the hospital. In addition, she denied that her husbandwas accountable for Hugo’s accident.
Rudlin,D. A., & American Bar Association. (2005). Toxictorts litigation.Chicago: American Bar Association.
Blond,N. C. (2009). Torts.Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Bermingham,V., & Brennan, C. (2012). Tortlaw.Oxford: Oxford University Press.