Tort Scenario free essay sample

Tort Actions The most prevalent tort in scenario 2 is negligence. The first act of negligence would be the glass that was found in Anna’s food that caused her injury. The second negligent act was the waiter’s decision to carry a flaming dish through the restaurant without announcing his presence. The restaurant owner’s negligent decision to not install an emergency exit other than a revolving door entrance caused an elderly woman to be trampled and caused several other patrons to suffer from smoke inhalation and burns.Anna also has a medical malpractice tort because when she was taken to the hospital to have surgery on her mouth a hospital mistake resulted in her leg being amputated instead. Potential Plaintiffs The potential plaintiffs in this case are Anna, the elderly woman that was trampled, the waiter who was burned, and the restaurant patrons that suffered smoke inhalation and burns. Possible Defendants Possible defendants are the cooks because of their negligence and actions that caused Anna to be served a dish with glass in it to begin with. We will write a custom essay sample on Tort Scenario or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The waiter is a possible defendant because he failed to announce his presence and was responsible for tossing his apron onto another tablecloth starting a larger blaze. The restaurant owner is another possible defendant because they failed to provide a proper emergency exit. Defendants of the malpractice tort are both the doctor who performed the wrong surgery on Anna and the hospital in which the mix up took place.The surgeon failed to ensure he was performing the right procedure on the right patient and the hospital because they failed to have standard operating procedures in place that would prevent such a horrible mishap. Tort Elements Anna can claim negligence against the restaurant and its owner because their breach of duty to care caused for Anna to injure her mouth when she bit down on glass that was in her food.Anna can claim malpractice against the hospital and the doctor that mistakenly amputated her leg instead of performing surgery on her mouth! The elderly woman and the patrons of the restaurant can claim negligence against the restaurant owners because of their failure to install a proper emergency exit. Defenses In this case it is possible that the defendants- the restaurant owner and waiter, could try and use the defense that patrons entering the restaurant do so with a certain amount of assumed risk.They may try to say that patrons are fully aware of the types of dishes (including the flaming dishes that started this incident) and that the patrons enter the restaurant at their own risk. It is possible that the cooks may try to claim that the glass was put into the meal after it left the kitchen and that they are not responsible. The restaurant owners may try to dismiss the patron’s claims of negligence and claim that those injuries would still have occurred if there had been another emergency exit.The restaurant owners may claim that the smoke inhalation and burns were not because of the revolving door exit, but rather the fault of the patrons being frantic. Claim Resolution Anna has two strong claims in this scenario. The first claim is her negligence claim against the re staurant because of the glass in her food. This incident is directly responsible for Anna being taken to the hospital where her malpractice claim took place when doctors mistakenly amputated her leg.The elderly woman has a strong case again the building owners because she suffered injuries being trampled while other patrons were trying to squeeze through the revolving door. The staff and patrons that suffered injuries might have a more difficult time proving their case because the smoke inhalation and burns might have occurred regardless. If taken to trial the judge could also decide that the waiter dropping the flaming plate was an accident and therefore the following injuries were the result of an accident and not negligence.