Arises Due to the Fact of How

¶ … arises due to the fact of how the primary perpetrator obtained the use of the motor vehicle involved throughout the fact pattern is any possible liability imposed upon the young man's parents. The young man involved took the car apparently without the permission of his parents and, therefore, unless it can be demonstrated that the parents had reason to believe that their child might drive the car without permission there is little likelihood that vicarious liability can be attached to the parents (Glannon, 2010). Any torts that occur once the child takes the vehicle without the permission of the parents will attach to the child and not to either of his parents.

The next possible torts arise as the young man arrives at his girlfriend's house. At this point, the young man has committed essentially two intentional torts (Vandeveide, 1990). First, he has intentionally assaulted his girlfriend's father by attempting to run him over as he was leaving his girlfriend's house. Fortunately, for both the girlfriend's father and the young man the assault did not end in any apparent injury so although the act may have occurred without an injury pursuing a recovery would be limited to punitive damages attached to the assault in that there were no consequential damages.

The second intentional tort occurring by the young man's action is the false imprisonment of the girlfriend's little brother. Although it is arguable that the young man would not be held liable for the initial fact that the little brother had crawled into the car without anyone's knowledge, the fact that such knowledge was obtained within moments thereafter and the young man's subsequent failure to release the little brother immediately gives rise to the elements necessary to constitute a false imprisonment. The malice demonstrated by the young man's actions upon discovering the little brother in the car would likely increase the possible damages arising from the false imprisonment. Again, the consequential damage are either minimal or non-existent due to the little brother not suffering any apparent injuries but, depending on the age of the little brother, the simple act of detaining the little boy and releasing him to walk home alone could give rise to considerable damages.

The situation worsens with the young couple finding themselves parking on the property of another. The simple act of entering and remaining on the property constitutes the intentional tort of trespass. Under the law of most jurisdictions it is not necessary for the plaintiff to demonstrate any actual damage in order to prevail in a tort action based on trespass so, in the instant case, the young couple would be liable for trespass on the land of the man who brandished the gun (Landes, 1981). The young man would also have committed a trespass on the man's property by virtue of his intentionally damaging the sign on the man's property. This would be characterized as a trespass on the man's chattel as opposed to the earlier described trespass on the man's property. The second trespass would require proof of actual damage which would be possible due to the fact that the sign was destroyed.

The situation goes from bad to worse by the young man's decision to fire a gun in the direction of the man brandishing the gun. By taking this action, the young man has committed another intentional assault tort. Similar to his attempt at running over his girlfriend's father, the mere act of firing shots in the direction of the gun brandishing man constitutes an assault. He does not have to have damaged the man in any way in order to be found liable for the tort of assault. In either assault situation already mentioned, for the young man to be found liable for tort assault the plaintiffs must merely demonstrate that they had a reasonable apprehension of injury. As to the owner of the property brandishing a gun and shooting aimlessly into the air no tort has necessarily arisen. The young man and his girlfriend might argue that they had a reasonable apprehension of injury based on the man's behavior but the man has the right to protect his property. The question whether the man's behavior was reasonable under the facts is for the jury to decide.

In the couple's fleeing from the man's property the young man driving the car may be liable for negligence in the way that he operated the motor vehicle when he caused a boy riding his bicycle to lose control and hit a tree. In some limited jurisdictions, negligence might not attach due to the fact that there was no physical contact between the car and the bike but in most jurisdictions this showing would not be necessary. His liability, however, would be limited to the damages suffered by the bike rider as a proximate result of his having to swerve to avoid more serious injury. The young man driving the car would not be liable for injuries that may or may not occur once he arrived at the hospital.