Sarah Alverson 334132 alversons mail missouri edu Introduction to Business Law Lesson 2 Progress Evaluation Business Law 2 1 Sean and Jason get into an argument in a Best Buy Store regarding who gets to purchase the last iPod Sean did not like what Jason had to say so he punched him square in the face Sean turned around to walk away and Jason hit him in the back of the head with a computer box knocking Sean to the ground Sean and Jason leave the store without paying Sean with the iPod and Jason with the computer still arguing as they go out Dana the Best Buy Store manager stops both Sean and Jason and handcuffs them to two separate poles in the middle of the store Dana then tells them I ll deal with you in the morning locks the doors and leaves List each intentional tort committed by Sean Jason and Dana Please frame your answer in the following format The tort of was committed by because The torts of assault and battery were committed by Sean because Sean hit Jason straight in the face and Jason saw the blow coming Both an assault and battery were committed because not only was Jason put in immediate expectation of injury but he also suffered an injury The tort of battery was committed by Jason because Sean did not fear the blow that was coming as he did not see it Only a battery was committed The tort of false imprisonment was committed by Dana because Dana intentionally detained Sean and Jason and they were aware of it and did not five consent Dana cannot use shopkeeper s privilege because detention of the two men was not reasonable 2 2 In the fact situation in 2 1 above does Dana have a defense to her causes of action that could prevent liability in certain circumstances Why does this defense apply or not apply here Dana cannot use shopkeeper s privilege because detention was not reasonable It is not reasonable to lock someone to a pole in the middle of the shop and leave them locked up all night 2 3 Dana goes to Smooth s used cars and Smooth tells Dana that a 2001 Cadillac Catera has only 12 000 miles on it but Smooth knows it s been driven 120 000 miles Dana buys the car based on what she was told by the dealer However a week later the car breaks down and she sees the car s odometer reads 120 000 miles Please list the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation and discuss whether Dana has a valid cause of action for fraud against the Smooth The elements of fraudulent misrepresentation are 1 A misrepresentation of material facts or conditions with knowledge that they are false or with reckless disregard for the truth 2 Intent to induce another party to rely on the misrepresentation 3 A justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation by the deceived party 4 Damages suffered as a result of that reliance 5 A causal connection between the misrepresentation and the injury suffered Dana does have a valid cause of action for fraud against the Smooth because first off Smooth s Used Cars knew that the Cadillac Catera had been driven 120 000 miles and yet they told Dana it had only been driven 12 000 miles Smooth lied about the material fact of the car and the conditions of the car which is exactly element 1 listed above Also Dana believed that this car was in better condition and was much more of a less used car then Smooth made her believe which is represented by the second and third elements above After a week of having the car it breaks down and Dana sees the car s odometer reads the true miles This fits number four of the elements because there were damages suffered from the reliance Dana had with Smooth The last element is clearly present here as there was a causal connection between the misrepresentation and the injury suffered 2 4 You are walking in a park and stumble upon your math professor whom you REALLY disliked He is in the middle of a lake in the park struggling against drowning You sit down and watch mildly amused then leave for a picnic The professor is rescued by someone else but suffers some medical complications which could have been avoided if you had rescued him earlier He sues you for negligence Please list each element of a negligence case and determine if you have committed an act of negligence or which element of a negligence case is missing The act was intentional There is no legal duty to act therefore there is no specific standard of care that needs to be imposed Yes the negligence did cause damage to the professor As far as the causation of fact exist because the stumble was the start of the chain of events I do not think I am liable as I do not have a legal duty not the set degree of standard of care 2 5 a List and define the five defenses to negligence 1 Comparative Negligence requires that the recovery of the plaintiff be reduces by the percentage of fault which the jury attributes to the plaintiff 2 Contributory Negligence allows the defendant to completely avoid liability if the plaintiff was at all negligent in causing the injury 3 Assumption of risk allows the defendant to avoid liability where4 the plaintiff voluntarily encountered a known risk 4 Sovereign Immunity allows the government to escape tort liability in any lawsuit unless there is a specific stature allowing liability 5 Official Immunity allows government employees to escape liability for damages resulting from policy decisions if there was no malice by the official who made the decision b Steve Smith is driving down West Broadway in Columbia at 60 M P H twice as fast as the posted speed limit John Jones is traveling south on Stadium runs a red light and collides with Smith s vehicle Jones has evidence that Smith could have avoided the accident if he d been going slower Stella Samson is a passenger in Jones car and rode with him although she knew Jones was highly intoxicated Smith and Samson want to sue Jones What is Jones best defense to each lawsuit Please use this format Jones best defense against is because Jones best defense against Samson is assumption of risk because Sampson knew Jones was intoxicated yet she still got into the car with him by which she voluntarily encountered a known risk Jones best defense against Smith is contributory negligence because Smith was negligent as he was driving twice the speed limit so his negligence has a part in the injury and therefore Jones can avoid liability 2 6 In 1973 Miranda v Arizona was decided by the U S Supreme Court Ernesto Miranda had been convicted of rape based upon a written confession The Supreme Court reversed Miranda s conviction