Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution Essay
By definition, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would be expected to do when guided by conditions of human conduct (WIKIPEDIA, 2). From the conditions in the case the president of GSU is negligent in the provision of . This is clearly shown by the action of the SFT in organizing a protest against the at the University. If the president was a reasonable person he would have attended the problem in its early stages and not allow this to run out of proportion.
Law can be described as a set of commands of human conduct prescribed by human beings and for the obedience of human beings, and this to some extent is an expression of the morality of a particular people. Rights on the other hand are the things one is entitled to enjoy. In the law of torts, harm is considered when there is physical invasion to a person there fore in the case there was no violation of this law as the secretary was not harmed by the action of the SFT leader in slapping off the phone from her hands. However, there was the infliction of fear in the secretary by the threats to shoot her if she moved which is considered an assault.
Since there was no case of physical invasion, the leader of the SFT and the members of his group cannot be held liable. This is because in the law of torts, harm is taken as a physical invasion of a person or property and requires payment of damages for emotional harm only if the harm is due to the physical invasion (Edward 1997, p.127-129) which was not the case in this case. This means that members of the SFT would only be held liable in tort liability only if the secretary was harmed physically.
In the case in GSU University, the can be discussed in brief as will follow. An assault is the creation of fear or apprehension of battery in one person by another (Edward 1997, p.129 -132). However, for an assault to be subject to legal action this has to be specific and close thus in accordance to the law of torts. Therefore in the case since the threats by SFT were merely verbal with possession of a toy weapon, there was no one liable in tort. Battery involves the infliction of violence to the person by another and involves physical contact which is an exception in this case as there was no case of this.
From the case it is clear that there was the infliction of emotional distress to the secretary evidenced by the inability of the secretary not report to work for a week after the incident occurred. Moreover, she could only reform and come back after heavy doses of tranquillizers prescribed by her doctor. False imprisonment is constituted when a persons physical freedom is unlawfully restricted which is the case when the secretary is restricted from any movement by the SFT leader.
Case Study 2
From a simple definition, negligence involves doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. For the plaintiff to succeed in an action for negligence, he must prove that there existed a legal duty of care. Furthermore, he has to prove that there was a breach of that duty that caused harm to him. In the case in question, Steve Simple (the plaintiff) was owed a legal duty of care by the Minor State Teachers College (MSTC). It was in the duty of MSTC to ensure the safety of Steve which it failed, leading to a breach of the duty. Despite an earlier occurrence where pigeons were fried, MSTC did not take an obligation to repair the short circuit so as to provide safe working conditions for its employee. Due to the failure to meet the obligation, Steve is electrocuted in the course of his employment making MSTC liable in negligence. Therefore, the institution is prone to any legal action that can be taken by the plaintiffs family in the view of settling damages.
