Tort Law, Coursework Example

Introduction

Tort law interview ideally seeks the attentions on the matters surrounding facts that lead to a perspective tied by the jury, the plaintiff and the defence networks.  This follows certain mandatory guidelines as well as the set standards that should be followed, and abided by while certain dynamic resolutions can interfere and terminate the entire cause where conclusion is made and a case closed.

The claims against Walmart nature and issues

David who is the plaintiff in this case has serious complaints over the engagements with the Walmart. This consists of the defence of the security officer and the two Walmart employees who took the law in their hands even without involving the owner of the Walmart shopping. It is important to note that, David did the selections of the ten CDs and DVDs that he paid as a whole with the Walmart cashier. However, the magnetic plate for costing failed to capture all the purchases made by David. This is negligence, breach of procedure, causing harm that eventually led to both the physical injury and psychological injury. This breach is a professional malpractice, against care, and battle over constrains. The obvious outcomes of such engagements are unfriendly, expected, and aggressive upon misunderstandings due to breach of care. In this case, the plaintiff is well placed unless proven thereof on trespass, licences, joint violations, prosecutions per statutory demands and causation which are below threshold by nature, and thus punishable under the strict liability scales.

Eventually, the more results from the discovery of facts by the police on the investigations revealed a misunderstanding on the engagements, whereby the disclosures from the plaintiff and the intervening defense diverted imminently. The interrogations too on the defence violates the threshold of the expectations of the employees and the security officer that demands them as a corporate policy to strictly not touching customers and approaching or following customers outside their premises. The employers who facilitated the affray and assaults of the plaintiff to unconscious state too are culpable of assault through the transferred intent, and a false light in public.

The claims against the private security officer and his employer nature and issues that are likely to arise;

The private security officer has a mandate to enforce and uphold the policies of the organization in question and to implement certain policies as directed by their employer. The security officer facilitated the wrongful injury by which David who is the plaintiff got injured in the legs, and suffered reputational damage. Acting under the capacity of the independent contractor, and the liability of responsibility failing to abide by the due process; thus, it results into negligence that causes damages of injury and monetary terms in economic and non-economic nature. In this regard, they are culpable in reinstatement of the plaintiff position. They, therefore go against their mandate to contravene their procedure of arrest and apprehensions. In this case, they trespassed their mandates, insurance demands, and job descriptions that warrant prosecutions based on proof, and the statutes of demands beyond the thresholds hereof.

The claim against the owner, the nature and issues;

The owner of the strip shopping center ideally went against the professional demands of engaging a trainee employee on a critical sale points where the commission of the negligent of duty, breach, causation, and damage occurred after failing to capture all the purchases. Furthermore, that David had paid all the merchandises accordingly and that Walmart couldn’t detect, is truly unethical dealing of the owner duty of care. The strict liability puts the owner culpable for the negligence beyond statutes, shift of proof, and protection of the plaintiff in this case the customers. The intention of the owner to have the trainer serve, finally cause injury, and eventually lead to assault that led to having deterrence and damages that demands compensations. Ramifying this situation, the owner is entitled to bring substantial feedback on circumstance of this nature by having possible solution as insurances, compensations schemes, and means of amends that promotes the plaintiff healing and the defense accountability.

The kinds of damages David and/or Cathy entitled to recover

Ideally, the plaintiff David and Cathy are entitled to be compensated for the losses of the merchandise, medical fee, libel, public false light, assured insurance over for any complications, and the deterrence on the effects of the assaults of affray, and the assumptions of risk. The owner of the strip shop and security company have to meet these costs proportionally due to degree of responsibilities, and the defendants security officers, and the two employers out rightly deterred specifically, generally and marginally under the strict liability.

Despite these, there are certain limits to which certain tied requirements allows diversion of the due expectations as the need for arbitration, impact paneling, encounters, and conferencing to make the subjects understand the latter’s position in a humanistic concern other than rigid statutory demands. These undo the assumptions of the risks, statutory demands, comparative studies, and the image by the third parties.