Tort case analysis and legal principles

Tort Case

"A tort is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Legally, torts are called civil wrongs, as opposed to criminal ones" (Tort, 2011).

Anna v. Italian Restaurant

Negligence

Negligence is conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm (Kionka, 2006). It this case a reasonable prudent person would not expect to find glass in a meal served at a restaurant, which would then mean that the Italian Restaurant would be guilty of negligence. Also, the defendant had a duty of care to Anna because of doing business as an Italian Restaurant. The restaurant owed a duty of care to Anna along with all of its patrons to serve them food that did not contain things that would harm them, like glass.

Patrons v. Anna's waiter

Reckless Conduct

Reckless Conduct is conduct that is in reckless disregard of the safety of another when the defendant knows or has reason to know that it creates an unreasonable risk of harm and the risk is comparatively high, either in degree or in the likelihood that harm will occur (Kionka, 2006). In this case when Ann's waiter cast aside his burning apron he should have been aware that there were table clothes that could have caught on fire causing danger to everyone in the restaurant. Thus, Anna's waiter would be guilty of reckless conduct in the fact that he should have made sure that he discarded the burning apron away from other things that could catch on fire.

Self-Defense

Defendant has the privilege to use so much force as reasonably appears to be immediately necessary to protect himself against imminent physical harm threatened by the intentional or negligent conduct of another (Kionka, 2006). In this case Anna's waiter would claim that he was acting in self-defense when he pulled the burning apron off of himself and discarded it.

Elderly Lady v. Italian Restaurant

Negligence

Negligence is conduct which falls below the standard recognized by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm. The test is not whether the defendant intended to exercise due care, nor whether the defendant did the best he could to be careful, but whether the defendant's conduct was that of a hypothetical reasonably prudent person placed in the same or similar circumstances (Kionka, 2006). In this case because there was only a revolving door the patrons were not able to get out of the restaurant in the fire emergency. The Italian Restaurant would be guilty of negligence in regards to the elderly lady who was injured as patrons tried to escape.