****Part A: The defense of consent protects a defendant from liability where a person voluntarily gives up the right to be free from harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension or fear of such contact. Justify whether or not the following situations gives rise to a valid defense of consent.

Three friends were hanging out at the beach when one of the friends, Tom, said, “You couldn’t throw me into the water if you tried.” The other two friends jumped up, grabbed Tom, and threw him into the water, despite his protests and struggle. Upon hitting the water, Tom hit his head on a rock, leaving him partially paralyzed.

Would Tom’s words give rise to the defense of consent given the situation in which they were given?

If you believe that Tom gave his consent by his words, do you believe that he withdrew his consent by his “protests and struggles?” If you do not believe Tom gave consent, then provide a rationale for your position.

***Part B: Courts have held that an actor with a legal interest in land has the right to use “reasonable” force to prevent intrusions onto the land of Woodard vs.Turnipseed.

Here, Turnipseed had fired Woodward and escorted him to the time clock to punch out. During this time, Woodward threatened several times that he was “going to get” Turnipseed but did not carry out his threat. Woodward remained on the farm at least ten (10) minutes, presumably waiting for a ride home, during which time Turnipseed repeatedly asked him to leave. When he didn’t leave, Turnipseed hit Woodward three (3) times with a broom, causing a hematoma of the right flank, a contusion of the left forearm and some contusion to the kidney.

Discuss whether or not Turnipseed’s use of this force could support a defense of self or property from imminent harm.

Discuss whether or not Turnipseed’s use of this force was justified by the right to use “reasonable force” to evict a trespasser, that is, one who has been asked to leave and refuses. Was the force used reasonable?

***Part A: Assume that Amanda, a person with no formal medical training, was the first person on the scene of a car accident in a rural area of town. She removed an injured person from a car, when the victim said, “Get me out, the car is going to catch fire.” She pulled him out to the side of the road, and the car did indeed catch fire. Later when the EMT arrived, they told the victim that his shoulder was dislocated, in addition to other injuries he received in the crash.

If a complaint is filed against Amanda for negligence, which of the following “standards of care” do you personally feel should be used in evaluating her actions:

The fact that Amanda acted in an emergency, should be treated as one factor among many, that a jury considers in deciding whether or not Amanda is liable for negligence.

Provide a rationale to support your selection.

Because she acted in an emergency, Amanda should be judged with a standard of care that is less demanding than a typical standard of care, in deciding whether or not she is liable for negligence.

Because she acted in an emergency, Amanda is absolved of all liability for negligence.

***Part B: Mark decided to sit down on a bar stool in a furniture store to check his email while his wife shopped for a dining room table and chairs. When he did so, the stool collapsed, throwing him to the floor sustaining back injuries. No one witnessed the accident.

Layout the elements required to prove “res ipsa loquitur,” a tort doctrine which allows the use of circumstantial evidence to infer negligence, under specified conditions. See Shull v. B.F. Goodrich Co, 477 N.E. 2d 924 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) 

Explain whether or not res ipsa loquitur is an appropriate doctrine to use in this case to prove negligence on the part of the furniture store.

Discuss whether or not it would matter that that bar-stool was just put on floor and Mark was the only customer to have ever sat on that chair, or whether or not the bar-stool had been on the floor for a month.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

****Part A: The defense of consent protects a defendant from liability where a person voluntarily gives up the right to be free from harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension or fear of such contact. Justify whether or not the following situations gives rise to a valid defense of consent.

Three friends were hanging out at the beach when one of the friends, Tom, said, “You couldn’t throw me into the water if you tried.” The other two friends jumped up, grabbed Tom, and threw him into the water, despite his protests and struggle. Upon hitting the water, Tom hit his head on a rock, leaving him partially paralyzed.

Would Tom’s words give rise to the defense of consent given the situation in which they were given?

If you believe that Tom gave his consent by his words, do you believe that he withdrew his consent by his “protests and struggles?” If you do not believe Tom gave consent, then provide a rationale for your position.

***Part B: Courts have held that an actor with a legal interest in land has the right to use “reasonable” force to prevent intrusions onto the land of Woodard vs.Turnipseed.

Here, Turnipseed had fired Woodward and escorted him to the time clock to punch out. During this time, Woodward threatened several times that he was “going to get” Turnipseed but did not carry out his threat. Woodward remained on the farm at least ten (10) minutes, presumably waiting for a ride home, during which time Turnipseed repeatedly asked him to leave. When he didn’t leave, Turnipseed hit Woodward three (3) times with a broom, causing a hematoma of the right flank, a contusion of the left forearm and some contusion to the kidney.

Discuss whether or not Turnipseed’s use of this force could support a defense of self or property from imminent harm.

Discuss whether or not Turnipseed’s use of this force was justified by the right to use “reasonable force” to evict a trespasser, that is, one who has been asked to leave and refuses. Was the force used reasonable?

***Part A: Assume that Amanda, a person with no formal medical training, was the first person on the scene of a car accident in a rural area of town. She removed an injured person from a car, when the victim said, “Get me out, the car is going to catch fire.” She pulled him out to the side of the road, and the car did indeed catch fire. Later when the EMT arrived, they told the victim that his shoulder was dislocated, in addition to other injuries he received in the crash.

If a complaint is filed against Amanda for negligence, which of the following “standards of care” do you personally feel should be used in evaluating her actions:

The fact that Amanda acted in an emergency, should be treated as one factor among many, that a jury considers in deciding whether or not Amanda is liable for negligence.

Provide a rationale to support your selection.

Because she acted in an emergency, Amanda should be judged with a standard of care that is less demanding than a typical standard of care, in deciding whether or not she is liable for negligence.

Because she acted in an emergency, Amanda is absolved of all liability for negligence.

***Part B: Mark decided to sit down on a bar stool in a furniture store to check his email while his wife shopped for a dining room table and chairs. When he did so, the stool collapsed, throwing him to the floor sustaining back injuries. No one witnessed the accident.

Layout the elements required to prove “res ipsa loquitur,” a tort doctrine which allows the use of circumstantial evidence to infer negligence, under specified conditions. See Shull v. B.F. Goodrich Co, 477 N.E. 2d 924 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) 

Explain whether or not res ipsa loquitur is an appropriate doctrine to use in this case to prove negligence on the part of the furniture store.

Discuss whether or not it would matter that that bar-stool was just put on floor and Mark was the only customer to have ever sat on that chair, or whether or not the bar-stool had been on the floor for a month.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *