November 4, 2013
IRAC Assignment 2
There are three issues in this fact pattern
The first issue in the fact pattern is whether or not the Wolf committed the tort of negligence when he ran into Little Red Riding Hood’s car. To prove negligence the plaintiff must be proved by the preponderance of evidence. 1) There must be a duty to act in a manner that puts the plaintiff in an unreasonable risk. 2) Must be a breach of duty by the defendant. 3) Must be proximate cause between the defendant fails to abide by, plaintiff’s loss must have been foreseeable by defendant. 4) Defendant’s act must result in injury or loss to the plaintiff. In this case The Wolf is liable because his act fell under each of the four requirements (pg. 171). The Wolf’s duty was too pay attention to the rode and not the radio, also he had the breach of duty to give himself enough room in between the cars to brake. Third The Wolf’s proximate cause was that he knew by him not paying 100 percent attention to the rode he could seriously hurt someone (Little Red Riding Hood). Last The Wolf negligent act of not paying attention to the rode lead to LRRH suffering a broken arm, cuts to her face and $2,000 worth of damage to her car. Therefore, The Wolf is liable for the negligent act of running into Little Red Riding Hood’s car.
The second issue in this fact pattern is whether or not Prince Charming committed assault to The Wolf. “An aggressor who threatens to beat up another person” (pg. 176). Prince Charming jumped out of the car with a 6” flashlight screaming “I’m going to kill you.” Since Prince Charming didn’t hit The Wolf when he swung the light he didn’t commit battery. The tort of battery is the act of physically touching or injuring someone. Therefore, Prince Charming is liable for the act of assault but not battery because there was no physical contact.
The third issue in this fact pattern is whether or not Jolly Green Giant committed the act of false...