Quarterback vs Opposing Player
The tort actions caused by the opposing player during the football game were intentional. The reason is because the opposing player did try to tackle the quarterback. The plaintiff in this case would be the quarterback. The opposing player would be the defendant because he is the person who intentionally tried to hit or tackle the quarterback. The quarterback has the right to sue the opposing player because the hit was an intentional battery. This claim will be difficult for the plaintiff to win in court because football is a dangerous sport that consists of many risks.
Malik vs Quarterback
Malik is the fan who got injured by ball ...view middle of the document...
Daniel will take this lady to court for defamation of character.
Malik vs Daniel
Malik can sue Daniel in this case for battery because he was shot by Daniel who had a concealed weapon. Malik aimed his unloaded gun at Daniel first, which caused Daniel to draw out his concealed weapon and use it for self defense. When this case is taken to court, it will probably be dismissed due to contributory negligence. Both parties each share a percentage in damages.
Daniel vs. Concession Worker
Daniel is the plaintiff in this case, while the concession worker is the defendant. The concession worker owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. She should have been paying attention to what Daniel ordered which was two diet sodas, instead she gives him two sugary soft drinks. These drinks caused him to go into a diabetic coma. Daniel will sue the concession worker under unintentional negligence.
Anna vs. Italian Restaurant
The Italian Restaurant was liable for Anna injury because they have a duty to insure that each customer is serving at a certain standard. The restaurant failed to comply when they served Anna a plate with glass in her food. This caused Anna mouth to bleed and she was in pain because she was crying. The company must find a way to insure that these types of accidents don’t happen because they can be sued each time. Anna can sue the restaurant for any damages to her mouth and sue for any time off for this injury.
Waiter vs. Waiter
The waiters are trained how to be an efficient waiters. They have to always be aware of their surroundings when there serving customers. Each waiter has been trained. I don’t think the waiter can be sued because the waiter with the plate should have been looking and when the other waiter spin around he could have moved also. I think it was both of the waiters fault. I don’t think suing will be justifiable.
Old Woman vs. Restaurant
The old lady was trampled over by the crowd and had serious injuries. The restaurant is responsible for their customer’s safety inside of their place of business. They breached their contract when they weren’t able to control their customers and the scene became dangerous. The woman has the right to sue them for any pain and suffering. She also can sue them for distress she is old and might never recuperate from the injuries.
Anna vs. Hospital
Anna will win her malpractice law suit because the doctor preformed the wrong...