Torts Breakdown of Elements

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

Intentional Torts are defined as “voluntary acts that harm a protected interest” (McAdams, 2015, p. 279). The voluntary act must be found to be an intended act, done on purpose, even though the harm done by the act may not have been intended; however, the victim or plaintiff does not need to prove that the harm done was intended (p.279). In this particular case, was there an intentional act done by the airlines or pilot, which in turn caused injury to the plaintiff?

In order to state a claim for IIED, a plaintiff must allege “intentional or reckless” conduct. Lasater, 194 Md. App. at 448. “To meet the ‘intentional or reckless’ criterion of the first element, the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant either desired to inflict severe emotional distress, knew that such distress was certain or substantially certain to result from his conduct, or acted recklessly in deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that the emotional distress will follow. Floor, 78 Md. App. at 175 (emphases in original); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A (““Intentional” when used in this context means “the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.”); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500 (“If he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct

Willfully Harming and Causing Stress and Anxiety to Purposely Frustrate the Court and Ultimately Harm her Client that will likely have very long term

The defendant began to put his hands up and began walk away and still screaming profanities. Approximately 5-10 minutes, seargeant dabreau, advised that they were flagged down by multiple people, who stated that there was a physical altercation involving the defendant outside in the south parking lot area of the business. seargeant dabreau advised, he observed the above defendant with his t-shirt off, pushing and yelling profanities and attempting to fight another white male and females. (see his supplement for further)

On the above time and date, inmate Paulson had failed to lock down when directed by Officers Mun and Sgt Blades; The control room Officer (Oulton) notified Me (Sgt Webber) and I responded. At approximately 1500 hours, I arrived in the “A” Max Sally-port and ordered inmate Paulson to Lock Down. Inmate Paulson failed to acknowledge my directive and I again ordered him to lock down; again he failed to lock down. At approximately 1501 I entered “A” Max recreation area (where the inmate was located) and began asking inmate Paulson “what’s the problem?’ and asking the inmate “why

Throughout the midst of life, there are several incidental touching “accidents” that one can disregard. Sometimes people bump arms or brush hands when walking past one another. For example, one may give a person a high five. There is no expressed consent to that touching, but there is implied consent when the other person raises their hand. The person initiating the high five did not commit an assault and battery. In the health care field, there are misconducts that are not deemed as “accidents” and are instead considered a “battery.” A battery is an intentional tort relating to the act of touching a person without legal authority or permission (Showalter). In a trial taken place at the Supreme Court of Minnesota, a consent case arose from

The essential requirements of intentional torts are the elements of intent, injury, damages and causation.

A tort is described as a civil wrong doing that occurs when a person or group harms another person or group. This harm could be physical, emotional, or financial, and believe me you will cross many patients who are anxiously waiting for you to mess up to be able to attempt to sue you in court. An intentional tort is basically harming

Plaintiff has experienced severe psychological pain and suffering in the past and in all reasonable probability will sustain severe psychological pain and suffering in the future as a result of her psychological injuries.

Upon arrival I made contact with Georgette Lipford, herein referred to as the victim. It should be noted that this officers noticed the victim to be crying and fearful for her well-being. I also noticed swelling and a large abrasion around the victim’s bottom lip, and a minor laceration on her right cheek. The victim advised me that her and her boyfriend, Mark Tillman, herein referred to as the arrestee, had a physical/ verbal argument.

Before the court is a negligence claim against Interstate, who filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. When determining if the court should accept the motion to dismiss, it must first examine if the contact was purposefully directed at the forum state by the defendant so as to abide by the notion of fair warning. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985). When determining if the contact is purposeful in a tort claim the standard is a tortious contact intentionally directed to purposefully produce a tortious effect in the forum state. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 (1984). Determining if a contact is purposeful relies on what it is not; it is not foreseeable. Mere foreseeability of causing injury is not a

A) Negligence is a situation in which a person acts in a negligent manner which leads to some other person getting hurt or someone's property being damaged. A negligent person after being proved so in court is legally liable to pay for any damages caused due to his/her careless attitude/actions. However, to prove that a person was negligent the plaintiff must provide evidence that the defendant had a Duty--the defendant was dutiable to the plaintiff because of which he had an obligation to act in a particular manner(not to fire his gun at an unseen target); was there a Breach of duty-- whether he failed to fulfill his obligation to act dutifully; what was the Proximate cause— were the defendant's actions the cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and what were there Actual damages—did the defendant's actions

12. The plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all those facts and allegations above and further alleges:

Assault includes any behavior, whether intentional or reckless, which results in bodily injury to another person and/or damage to property. Included in this would be any behavior, intentional or reckless, that by its nature would be understood (interpreted) by a reasonable person as intent to harm another person or to damage his/her property. Threats may be oral or written. They may be communicated through regular mail, computer, fax, or phone. These threats may be direct or implied.