Tort Laws:

Name:

Instructor:

Course:

Date:

The defendants were legally entitled to self-defense and defense of property. This is after the plaintiff broke into their shop and threatened them using a gun which was apparently not a real gun. The defendants were under attack and were facing harm which legally warrants self defense. Further the plaintiff poised immediate harm to the defendants therefore according to the tort laws of self-defense; the defendants had the right to defend themselves (Best & Barnes, 2007). The tort laws on self-defense require that a person is only entitled to self defense when faced with a threat of death or serious body injuries. This was true initially as the defendants thought that the plaintiff had a gun which poses serious body harm to a person. By all accounts the defendants were legally justified to defend themselves against the plaintiff.

Even though the defendants were entitled to self-defense, they also breached the laws governing the act of self- defense. The tort laws governing self-defense requires the response of the victim to be reasonable and should be aimed at preventing the unlawful attack. Under these laws, the defendants should not torture, maim or inflict unreasonable body injuries to the attacker. The defendants’ action to beat the plaintiff after tying him up is unlawful because it is against the law for reasonable response in self-defense

. The defendants’ breach of the tort laws is further evident considering that they continued beating the plaintiff for an hour well after preventing his attack by tying him up. According to Harpwood (2008), this under tort laws is regarded as an intentional tort of battering. The tort laws require that the defendants should have called the police instead of beating the plaintiff after subduing him. The law states that any response of self-defense should be reasonable and not excessive. If the medical evidence is to be considered, then clearly the defendants’ actions were too excessive. The medical evidence of the plaintiff revealed very serious injuries with far reaching complications such as the left leg being permanently disabled. The plaintiff also had scars in his back and a bone fracture. This report, without any doubt, shows that the defendants’ actions were excessive and unreasonable which is against the tort laws governing a person’s right to self-defense which requires retreating from an attack threat.

The defendants violated the tort on defense of property by committing an intentional tort. The plaintiff broke into the defendants jewel shop which was legally owned by the defendants. The tort law on defense and the subsequent recovery of property allows the defendants to react against the plaintiff’s action to break into their shop. However, this tort law does not allow any force to be used on an innocent person or party (Best & Barnes, 2007). The plaintiff had a toy gun therefore could not pose serious threats to the defendants. The gun the plaintiff possessed could not in any way have caused body injuries to the defendants. In this regard, the defendants committed an intentional tort by battering the plaintiff who did not pose any serious threat to them.

The plaintiff also committed tort law of assaulting the defendants. Although the plaintiff used a toy gun, this created fear among the defendants which under tort laws is an assault. According to Okrent (2009), the tort laws do not require physical contact for it to qualify as a tort. Any act that can create fear by threatening someone is considered as an assault. The plaintiff threatened the defendants using a toy gun and as a result, violated the tort laws. As a result, both the defendants and the plaintiff committed tort laws.

Another tort law violated by the defendants is the economic loss due to the high medical expense caused by the battering the plaintiff was subjected to (Okrent, 2009). The medical evidence reveals that the plaintiff suffered very many body injuries. Some of these injuries will take a lot of time to heal further meaning that the plaintiff will spend a lot of time in the hospital. Consequently, the plaintiff would have a high medical bill to foot. This is as a result of spending a relatively long period in the hospital. The plaintiff will experience economic losses of paying the high medical bill. Furthermore, the plaintiff will not be working but instead spending time in the hospital recuperating. This further will negatively affect the plaintiff’s income further aggravating his economic loss. The defendants’ actions therefore clearly pose a serious harm to the plaintiff not only physically, but also financially. This is a clear breech of the tort laws which prohibits any harm to a person.

The defendants could have caused emotional and physical stress to the plaintiff, thus, violating the tort laws further (Harpwood, 2008). This is because the defendants’ battering of the plaintiff caused permanent disability of his left leg. Without any doubt physical disability could cause emotional stress to the plaintiff. This plaintiff would have to walk using crutches something that he never used to do before. This change of state could affect the plaintiff permanently in his life. His disability caused by the battering is a clear indication of the excessive force used by the defendants. Therefore, as a result of becoming disabled, the plaintiff experienced emotional and physical stress. This indicates that the defendants breeched the tort laws by causing emotional and physical stress to the plaintiff.

The defendants’ action of battering the plaintiff clearly made him to undergo pain and suffering. The many injuries the plaintiff endured could not have been accompanied by lots of pain and suffering. Fracturing any bone is so painfully and equally traumatizing. This in addition to the backaches the plaintiff had was surely painful. To worsen the situation, the fact that the plaintiff would be permanently disabled is not only painful, but also disheartening. It goes without saying that the plaintiff underwent a lot of pain and suffering. This shows a clear violation of the tort laws by the defendants since their action caused the plaintiff to experience a lot of pain and suffering. This is in sharp contrast with the tort laws which prohibits any harm or injury to a person either intentionally or unintentionally.

The defendants subjected the plaintiff to psychological harm by humiliating him. The defendants forced the plaintiff to kneel down and plead for forgiveness. This is after battering the plaintiff continuously for an hour. According to Best & Barnes (2007), this is against the breach of tort laws on self-defense and defense of property which permits committing injury to a person when preventing an attack. The plaintiff had well surrendered and should not have been subjected to such treatment.

Violating the tort laws was done by both the defendants and the plaintiff. The plaintiff violated these laws by illegally breaking into the defendants’ property. The plaintiff should not have broken into the shop as well as threatening the defendants using a toy gun. This caused the defendants harm, a clear contravention of the tort laws.

I agree with this verdict because the defendants’ actions were unreasonable and excessive as well. They were equally unnecessary. This is despite the fact that the plaintiff contravened the tort laws by breaking into the shop. The defendants were entitled to the right of defense of property; however, their actions equally violated the tort laws as they were unreasonable. Their actions seemed to have breached the tort laws of reasonable response to an attack while defending personal property.

References

Best, A. & Barnes, D (2007) Basic Tort Law: Cases, Statutes and Problems. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers Online

Harpwood, V. (2008) Modern Tort Law. New York, NY: Routledge

Okrent, C. (2009) Torts and Personal Injury Law. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning