Tort Law Case Analysis
Issue
Adam’s acceptance to attend the baseball following the invite from his friends Sean and Dot shows Adams’s consent to be in the field. Brad’s choice of showing his frustration by throwing the baseball helmet also depicts his intention to display anger. Later on, Brad and Dot commit trespass on Susan’s flower garden while on their way to Sean’s car. Also, by deciding to go for a spin to show off their team’s win, both Sean and Dot are liable to their actions as they were drinking heavily during the game.
Should Sean and Dot compensate Susan for the loss of flowers? Should Brad compensate Adam for the severe injury on the side of Adam’s head? Should Sean and Dot pay the truck driver all dues to his injuries and compensate for the damage to the truck?
Rule of Law
The common law principle safeguards defendants to the point of consent by the plaintiffs. The duty of care principle puts liability of concern to persons to act in good accord for the safety of other people. Brad did not show the element of duty of care in his act of throwing the baseball helmet.
The tort of trespass protects those in possession of land from unlawful and unjustified entry to their premises and properties. Both Sean and Dot violated Susan’s right to the flower garden. Susan has exclusive possession of that piece of land where she has put flowers, and Sean and Dot violate this principle as they trampled on the flowers to get to Sean’s car.
During celebrations, Sean and Dot are in control of their actions. Although reluctantly, Dot’s agreement to Sean’s proposal of going in circles to show their team’s win indicates his consent to Sean’s plan. Law prohibits driving under the influence of alcohol. Dot is seemingly aware of this fact as they were heavily drinking during the game. Yet, Dot consents to be the driver and do the spins around the route Sean showed him.
Reasonableness puts Dot and Sean in an awkward position as per the rule of law. Adams’s injury and the injuries the truck driver incurred are the only facts the rule of law favors in the wholesomeness of the events of that baseball game day. The truck driver is liable for compensation by either Sean or Dot, or both. The same case applies to Adam, as Brad should pay him.
Application of the Rule of Law
The principle of consent is clear on what constitutes a reasonable age to consent. Adam is an adult of a sane mind. Adam had the chance to either accept or deny the offer as per the request from Sean and Dot.
Besides, the duty of care undermines the foreclosure of foreseeability to Brad. Brad cannot claim that he could not foresee the ripple effect from the bouncing of the baseball helmet. He could have been mindful of other players in the field. By so doing, Brad cold not have thrown the helmet, and the head mask could not have bounced off to the stands and injure Adam, who was sitting at a proximal distance from the field.
Trespass to land binds none landowners from using or having access to other people’s piece of land, properties, and premises. Sean and Dot trespassed on Susan’s land, and they are liable for their actions. The same applies to the accident scene. The truck driver should be duly compensated Sean trespassed on his lane of control to facilitate the collision where all parties involved got severe injuries.
Conclusion
Starting with Adams’ injury to the side of the head, Brad shows negligence. There is negligence on the part of Brad. As a sportsman, players are supposed to show a duty of care to other persons. Reference is from Poon v Kan Wa Yu & Anor. Just as the jockeys are mindful of fellow players, Brad should also have been conscious of ripple effects for his actions.
Brad should have foreseen that the baseball helmet is of hard metal, hence had the tendency to bounce off in an unwarranted direction. Proximity to the field also puts Brad at a disadvantage to argue the case. A few rows up from the pitch is as good as within the limits of the playing area.
Trespass on Susan’s garden is intentional and deliberate. Being drunk, Sean and Dot commit trespass on Susan’s land as they seek to shorten the trek to where they had parked the car. This fact duly ties Sean and Dot’s actions as a violation of the law of tort for trespass. The same applies to the accident scene. As drank as they were, and in a celebratory mood, Sean and dot threw caution to the wind. The two, Sean and Dot, are liable for accountability in causing the accident.
Sean and Dot should duly compensate the truck driver for the injuries, and recompense repairs to the truck. Moreover, Sean and Dot should pay Susan for the intentional trespass on her land and the resultant loss of the flowers. The source of compensation to Adams should come from Brad due to Brad’s negligence on the duty of care and foreseeability. Adam’s proximity to the field underscores the credibility of this verdict.