Submitted by: Submitted by cbrian
Views: 10
Words: 1022
Pages: 5
Category: Business and Industry
Date Submitted: 09/18/2015 10:50 AM
IRAC Brief-Tort Case
LAW/531
IRAC Brief-Tort Case
Team B chose Case 5.1 False Imprisonment: Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Cockrell. We discussed the different types of torts, the potential tort risks that arise in the business context, the risk management process to mitigate business risk, the issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion.
Differentiate among types of torts
The different types of tort are: Intentional torts and Unintentional torts
Intentional torts are when a person intends to cause injury to another person. The different categories that intentional torts are under are: assault, battery, false imprisonment, shoplifting, appreciation, invasion of the right to privacy, defamation of character, disparagement, misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Cheeseman, 2013).
Unintentional torts are also called negligence. This is where the defendant causes harm by the consequences of his or her actions. Negligence requires that a duty of care is owed to someone, the duty is breached, and injury happens to another person because of the breach and also causes damages (Cheeseman, 2013).
Identify potential tort risks that arise in the business context
The potential torts risk in this matter intentional infliction of emotional distress (tort of outrage). A tort that says a person whose extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another person is liable for that emotional distress. Unintentional tort (negligence) is the doctrine that says a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions. To be successful in a negligence lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached this duty of care, (3) the plaintiff suffered injury, (4) the defendant’s negligent act caused the plaintiff’s injury and (5) the defendant’s negligent act was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries....