Patty Plaintiff’s Really Bad Week
In this assignment, you’ll need to decide whether Patty Plaintiff has any legal claims arising from a series of unfortunate events. After reading the scenario, answer the questions that follow, making sure to fully explain the basis of your decision.
Patty Plaintiff is shopping at her favorite store, Cash Mart. She is looking for a new laptop, but she can’t find one she likes. Then, realizing that she is going to be late for an appointment, she attempts to leave the store, walking very fast. However, before she can leave, she is stopped by a security guard who accuses her of shoplifting. Patty, who has taken nothing, denies any wrong doing. The officer insists and takes Patty to a small room in the back of the store. The guard tells Patty that if she attempts to leave the room she will be arrested and sent to jail. At this point, the guard leaves the room. Patty is scared and waits in the room for over an hour until the manager comes in and apologizes and tells Patty that she is free to go.
About this same time, Gerry Golfer is hitting golf balls in his backyard. Gerry decides to break out his new driver and hits a golf ball out of his backyard into the Cash Mart parking lot. The golf ball hits Patty Plaintiff on the head and knocks her unconscious just as she is leaving the store.
Five days later, after recovering from her injuries, Patty returns to work at Acme Corporation. Unfortunately, she used her company email to send her mom a personal email about her injury despite being aware that Acme’s company policy prohibits use of company email for personal communication. Patty’s supervisor, Barry Bossley, discovers Patty’s violation and Patty is reprimanded. When Patty goes home she uses her personal computer to post disparaging comments about her boss and Acme Corporation on social media. The next day Patty is fired from her job.
In a 6-10 paragraph paper, answer the following question: What types of legal claims could Patty make against Cash Mart, Gerry, and Acme Corporation? Consider the following:
What are the possible tort claims that Patty can make against Cash Mart? Discuss the elements of the claim and how those elements relate to the facts in the scenario.
Was Gerry negligent when he hit the golf ball that injured Patty? Discuss the elements of negligence and use facts from the scenario to support your decision.
Does Patty have a right to privacy when using Acme Corporation’s e-mail system? Discuss the elements of the claim and how those elements relate to the facts in the scenario.
Can Patty be legally fired from her job for making negative comments about her boss and her company on social media? Discuss the elements of the claim and how those elements relate to the facts in the scenario.
You will create and submit your assignment by using the ecree link above. Just click on the link and start writing. Your work will be saved automatically. When you’re finished writing, click “Submit” to turn in your paper
Question one
Party can make legal claims against Cash Mart under the category of intentional tort. This claim arises from the fact that the security guards accused her falsely of shoplifting while she was just in a hurry to attend an appointment. Additionally, Party was locked in a tiny room where threats were made to her if she attempted to leave, but the manager later made an apology to her for the incident. According to Gardner (2017), international tort deals with civil wrongs that have resulted from intentional actions. In this case, the security guard’s actions were false and defamatory which makes them actionable under the law. The possible tort claims Patty can make against the Cash Mart is suing them for negligence for the wrong accusations and slanderous statements made by the security guards. Party reputation towards employees at the supermarket and other shoppers was damaged while she also became late for her appointment by being held in a tiny room unjustly. As such, Cash Mart has an obligation to compensate party for defamation and wastage of her time due to the negligence shown by the security guards.
Question Two
Gerry was negligent with his action of hitting the golf ball and injuring patty in the process. Negligence occurs when an action with the likelihood of inflicting pain or suffering on another individual is committed (Dyer, 2019). In this case, Gerry was negligent because he was playing golf in a populous area, a factor that led to hitting patty on the head, to a point of being hospitalized. Gerry had the option of exercising caution by avoid hitting the golf ball outside his courtyard since it is a dangerous undertaking. However, since he didn’t take these precautionary measures, there is clear evidence of negligence on the part of Gerry. As a consequence, Gerry should be responsible for paying patty’s hospital bills because of the damages incurred. Dyer (2019) has identified four negligence elements which comprises of duty or obligation, breach, cause, and harm. In this case, Gerry had the obligation to ensure that he played the golf ball within his courtyard. He breached other people’s safety through his actions especially those outside the Cash Mart. Gerry caused or inflicted harm on Patty, a factor that led to her hospitalization. For this reason, because of Gerry’s negligence, he should be held responsible for the harm inflicted on Patty.
Question Three
Patty doesn’t have a right to privacy while using the Corporation’s e-mail system because is aware of Acme’s privacy policy violations. As such, by sending her mother a private message concerning her health on the Corporation’s e-mail system, patty should not expect any privacy. Under such circumstance, the law requires that employees should treat things like an email system, computers, and other items as their organization’s property (Maras, 2015). As such, they should not expect privacy when using them because the organization has the right to inspect its property at any given time. For this reasons, patty acted out of negligence and cannot sue the cooperation for privacy policy violation.
Question four
Patty’s decision to make negative comments on social media about her boss and organization is not protected by the law which means that she can be legally released from her duties. The National Labor Relations Act doesn’t protect her action because they are conducted out of malice and does not improve the overall conditions at the workplace (Smith, 2012). As such, the boss has a legal right to dismiss patty since her actions amount to gross misconduct and not protected by any law.
References
Dyer, D. K. (2019). 3. Negligence II: Breach of Duty. Concentrate Questions and Answers Tort Law, 33–48. doi: 10.1093/he/9780198745297.003.0003
Gardner, J. (2017). The Negligence Standard: Political Not Metaphysical. The Modern Law Review, 80(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.12240
Maras, M.-H. (2015). Internet of Things: security and privacy implications. International Data Privacy Law, 5(2), 99–104. doi: 10.1093/idpl/ipv004
Smith, C. (2012). National Labor Relations Act. The Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management, 317–320. doi: 10.1002/9781118364741.ch60
