A) Michael has a claim against Mama Razzi, for invasion of privacy, and negligence, but not battery.
Under common law the tort of invasion of privacy occurs when there is an
"act of prying", that act would be "objectionable to a reasonable person", and said act of prying occurred on something that was "private". Under common law the tort of negligence occurs when, there is a duty of care owned or assumed by one person over another, there was a breach of that duty of care, and injury and/or loss occurred as a result of that breach. Under common law the tort of battery occurs when there is an unlawful direct, or indirect touch of another person, with specific intent.
Here, Michael had a reasonable expectation of privacy, in which Mama breached it by looking into the dressing room. A reasonable person would agree that this conduct is objectionable. Further Mama assumed a duty of care by suspending objects in her control over Michael,without his knowledge. She failed to control those objects, and but for her failure Michael would not have been struck. There is nothing to indicate Mama had any specific intent to strike or hit Michael.
Therefore, Michael has a valid claim against Mama for
i) Invasion of privacy
and
ii) Negligence.
========
b)Mama has a valid claim against Prince for Battery.
Under common law the tort of battery is a specific intent tort, which occurs when there is harmful or offensive contact, with the intent to bring about said action, and the action caused the contact. The defenses to the intentional tort of battery include consent, self defense, defense of others, and defense of property. The law is clear that the amount of force to be used in the defense of others must equal the same amount of force that a victim can use for themselves. In self defense only the amount of force that is "reasonably necessary" to prevent the harm. If more force is used then is necessary then the defense of self-defense, and defense of others is lost.
Here Prince under the belief that Michael was being harmed, by items being thrown picked up a golf club and hit Mama repeatedly. Even if Prince's mistake of fat was in fact accurate, the level of force was clearly excessive to prevent the harm.
Therefore Prince has can not use the "defense of others" in his defense and is liable to Mama for the actual injuries.
=====
c) Mama has two claims against Wally Mart. One for negligence, and the second holding Wally Mart vicariously liable for Prince.
Under common law, negligence occurs when there is a duty of care from one person to another, there is a breach in that care, and losses as a result of that breach. More specifically one of the doctrines of negligence is that of Res Ipsa Loquitor, which means "the thing speaks for itself", applies when the mere fact an injury occurred highlights the negligence. Under common law, vicarious liability occurs when an employee, agent and/or officer of a company causes an actionable offense in the furtherance of their duties.
Here a falling vacuum speaks for itself. Negligent control, placement and management of the stock is evident by the fact it fell. Wally Mart has a clear duty to protect its staff and customers from injury caused by its business operations. Mama being injured from a vacuum that Wally Mart had a duty to control safely is negligence under Red Ipsa Loquitor. With respect to Prince, in the clear furtherance of his duties, he caused battery on Mama. The actions he took though extra-ordinary, would fall under poor judgment in the exercise of his duties.
Therefore Mama has two claims against Wally Mart,
i) for negligence under the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor,
and
ii) for the vicarious liability of Princes battery.
=============
d) Mama has a claim against Dr. Yeung for Battery, and Negligence. Mama also has a claim against the hospital for negligence and vicarious liability.
Under common law as stated above battery is the unlawful intention touching of another person causing contact. At law negligence occurs when there is a duty of care from one person over another, a breach of that duty occurs and injuries or losses result therefrom. Under common law, vicarious liability occurs when an employee, agent and/or officer of a company causes an actionable offense in the furtherance of their duties.
Here Dr Yeung claimed his uninformed surgery was a necessity to ensure Mamas leg healed properly. Dr. Yeungs defense of necessity would not apply, as Mama had a right to be reasonably informed of any procedure to be taken on her. Had Mamas life been at risk, the necessity defense may stand, however the fact pattern does not indicate such. As a result the first surgery is a Battery at law, as it is an intention and unlawful touch causing contact. It is unlawful as there was no consent, and no necessity. For the same reasons as for the first surgery, the second "elective" procedure is also a Battery at law, as there was no informed consent, and the necessity was not sufficient to qualify as a defense.
Here the leaving of foreign objects, and unsterile objects is a clear prima facia case of gross negligence. But for the doctors failures the patient would not have lost her leg. Further the doctor had a duty to recuse herself from performing the surgery if she was physically impaired (sleep deprived). The elements of negligence are numerous and include the same doctrine applied to Mama and Wally Mart (Res Ipsa Loquitor).
Here the hospitals failure to properly staff the surgery team resulted in a foreseeable issue with causing doctors to work under impaired conditions. the Hospital owes a duty of care to patients that its staff will be fit for the tasks they will be performing. the hospital allowed an overworked doctor to perform surgery which would have foreseeable losses.
Further the hospital is responsible for the behavior, acts and omissions of their staff while performing their duties.
Therefore Mama has a claim against
i) Dr. Yeung for Battery
ii) Dr. Yeung for Gross Negligence
iii) The hospital for negligence
iv) The hospital for vicarious liability.
If this helps in any way please CLICK ACCEPT. The question will not close, and you may follow up if needed.