You'll have to determine the content. Here are some corrections for the English:
the lady at whom Lee intentionally shot
because his wife had been shot
tort laws require (not "requires")
when conducting their lives
Lee could claim a strict liability tort existed Randy did act with extreme caution and had not intention to cause him harm, he did end up unconscious and had his ribs broken. <~~There are at least three sentences here, but no periods. Correct the runons. Also you need "no" not "not."
situation with Lee and Lee ~~<put a comma after the first "Lee"
Buy-mart in this case... <~~Awkward interruption between subject and verb; start this sentence with "In this case, Buymart..."
trained from Buy-mart <~~delete "from" and insert "by"
by stating his was ensuring <~~delete "his" and insert "he"
wife that was injured <~~delete "that" and insert "who"
injured from the misguided bullet <~~delete "from" and insert "by" -- check on the meaning of "misguided" -- it's not the correct word here.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/misguided
http://thesaurus.com/browse/ricochet
to be filed as well from the 3 <~~delete "from" and insert "by" -- also spell out the word three instead of using the numeral.
Can you please reveiw my answer and provide me feedback.
What tort actions do you see
o The identity of potential plaintiffs
o The identity of potential defendants and why you see each one as a defendant
o The elements of the tort claim that constitute the plaintiff’s claim
o Any defenses you think defendants might assert
• How you think the claim will be resolved, stating legal reasons for your answer
Scenario 4: Randy is a sales clerk at Buy-Mart, a huge discount store. He works in the hardware and gun department. One day, Lee asks to look at a rifle. Randy unlocks the case and hands Lee the rifle he wanted to see. Lee examines the rifle, and tells Randy he will take the rifle and a box of bullets. Randy puts the bullets on the counter, and turns to ring up the transaction. While Randy is not looking, Lee opens the box, loads the rifle, aims, and shoots a lady who is walking with a man in the next aisle. Upon seeing his wife fall, the man clutches at his chest and has a heart attack.
Lee aims at someone else, but Randy tackles him and knocks him down, spoiling his shot. The bullet ricochets off a metal beam and injures a boy. Randy and Lee struggle until Randy knocks Lee unconscious. The store security guard comes over and, in the heat of anger, kicks the unconscious Lee in the ribs. Randy can hear Lee’s ribs breaking. Randy and the security guard manage to lock Lee in a storage room until the police come. For some reason, the police do not arrive for two hours. Before they get there, Lee comes to and bangs on the door, saying he needs medical attention. The security guard tells Lee, “Be quiet or I will break more of your ribs.” Lee does not get released from the closet until the police arrive to arrest him.
In scenario 4 the torts that have occurred are Lee opening fire on innocent customers and the security guard who takes his anger out of Lee by kicking him while unconscious because of the actions he committed. These torts were intentional, negligent and strict liability. The torts committed were also criminal based on the harm done from one person to another.
The potential plaintiffs in the scenario are the lady who Lee intentionally shot at, the man who had a heart attack because his wife was shot and the boy who gets injured from the ricocheted bullet. These plaintiffs can file a tort claim against Lee based on the element that tort laws requires all individuals to act responsibly and reasonably when conducting our lives.
Lee can also bee considered as a potential plaintiff in this scenario based on his injuries suffered from Randy. Lee could claim a strict liability tort existed Randy did act with extreme caution and had not intention to cause him harm, he did end up unconscious and had his ribs broken.
The potential defendants in this scenario are Buy-mart for ultimately being responsible for ensuring the safety of their customers, Randy for leaving Lee unattended with a gun and bullets, the security guard for inappropriately handling the situation with Lee and Lee for his intentional criminal act of shooting the gun. Buy-mart in this case could argue the fact they had no knowledge of Lee’s intentions and could not be held accountable for his actions. The store clerk Randy could argue he was not properly trained from Buy-mart on how to process the sale of fire arms. The security guard may defend his actions by stating his was ensuring the safety of the stores customer and needed to make sure Lee was unable to hurt anyone else.
As a result of Lee’s intentional criminal activity, it is believed that he will held accountable for his actions in a criminal suit from the husband and wife that was injured and boy who was injured from the misguided bullet. It is possible for a civil suit to be filed as well from the 3 victims against Buy-mart.
1 answer
1 answer