Legal Claims of Paula Plaintiff Against Cash Mart, Exams of Integrated Case Studies

Download Legal Claims of Paula Plaintiff Against Cash Mart and more Exams Integrated Case Studies in PDF only on Docsity! Case Study.Paula Plaintiff Paula’s possible claims against Cash Mart.2023 Paula Plaintiff can bring a civil action against Cash Mart under intentional torts. Tort law demands that an intentional tort could not necessarily require an offender to have a desire or intent to cause an injury to the plaintiff. Instead, it is enough if the plaintiff can demonstrate that he or she suffered an injury due to the actions or omission of the defendant. The plaintiff here does not have to prove that defendant intended to cause harm to them. In other words, it is not necessary to demonstrate the defendant’s intentions for a tortious claim to stand, as it does not matter whether an individual caused harm intentionally or not; they must account for the injury because regardless of the intention or lack of it, the plaintiff has suffered injury. Therefore, in this case, Paula Plaintiff can bring a claim of false imprisonment against Cash Mart. False imprisonment occurs when an individual, without lawful authority, restricts the movement of a person against his or her will. False imprisonment is also referred to as unlawful imprisonment, and it happens when an individual who lacks justification or legal authority, deliberately restrains another person’s movement. In this case, Paula should demonstrate that the security guard had no legal authority to detain her in a place not legally recognized as a detention facility by the government, as none of her loved ones were aware of her detention and the location. A plaintiff should demonstrate various elements to constitute unlawful detention. For instance, Paula should demonstrate that she did not voluntarily consent to her detention, and Cash Mart did not have any legal authority to detain her, and Cash Mart had the intention of restraining her movement. Moreover, she should show that she was under duress by the defendant, who threatened to take her to jail, and she must have been aware of the detention, or such detention harmed the victim. Therefore, unlawful detainment is an intentional tort that CASE STUDY: PAULA PLAINTIFF 2 leads to physical or psychological damage to an individual (Arbel, 2018, 56). A widely adopted definition of unlawful detention describes the offense as detaining someone against his or her will without any legal justification, and illegal restraint of an individual. However, it is incumbent that the plaintiff demonstrates proximate cause, which would typically demonstrate that the defendant’s actions were the actual of the harm the defendant suffered. The concept behind proximate cause is to the effect that there could have been an overreaching intervening cause that led to the plaintiff’s injury (Rahman, 2020, 158). It difficult for a plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s actions are the actual cause of the harm the plaintiff suffered unless the defendant’s actions caused the injury. To establish whether the detention was illegal, the court should consider if the defendant used any force or any undue influence to compel the plaintiff to stay in the room. Evidently, in this case, the security guard’s actions, and the threats to take Paula to prison amounted to undue influence, as she was in the room detained against her will. In other words, Paula would rather be somewhere else other than the room in which she was detained because she was rushing out of the store because she did not want to be late. Hence, the security guard did not have lawful excuse to warrant Paula’s arrest, also, the security guard did not have the authority to detain anyone. In such cases of unlawful detention, the victim should prove the necessary ingredients of unlawful detention. She should satisfy the court that the defendant held her against her will, and that the store lacks the authority of detaining her, also, she should show that the store had the objective of restraining her movement. In case the guard blocked Paula’s way through and left another one through which would exist, it would not have constituted unlawful detention. Another aspect of unlawful detention requires to establish whether there could be any lawful foundations for such detention. Examples of legal bases for detention are justifiable apprehension undertaken by law enforcement authorities, and shopkeeper detaining a CASE STUDY: PAULA PLAINTIFF 5 in a civil court, the judge would punish the offender by ordering the person to pay fine or money to a victim of their actions. Both criminal and civil courts have extensive sets of punishments and laws. There are many disparities between civil cases and criminal cases. In criminal cases, the state or government brings an action against the offender, but the victim brings an action against a defendant for compensation of the harm caused (Perlin, Dorfman, and Weinstein, 2018, 86). In other words, a criminal offends the state, and the criminal law seeks to punish the offender, but civil lawsuits are instituted by the victim, who is the plaintiff, so the offender may make good of the wrongs they have actuated against other individuals. That is to say, and civil courts deal with issues such as property damage, personal injury, and small claims. On the contrary, criminal cases entail felonies and misdemeanors against the state. Criminal law involves cases such as murder, battery, assault, and burglary. Therefore, since negligence is an offense against an individual or an offense by one person against another, it is a civil matter. For that reason, Paula will have to initiate the suit of negligence against Geoffrey in a civil court. Therefore, the fate of Paula in the current development is contingent upon a succession of components in all situations. She could make a tortious claim of unlawful arrest and detention even though the shopkeepers’ privilege limits it. She may also sue Geoffrey by demonstrating that the case satisfies all elements of negligence. The plaintiff should demonstrate proximate cause, which would typically demonstrate that the defendant’s actions were the actual of the harm the defendant suffered. The concept behind proximate cause is to the effect that there could have been an overreaching intervening cause that led to the plaintiff’s injury. It difficult for a plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s actions are the actual cause of the harm the plaintiff suffered unless the defendant’s actions caused the injury. CASE STUDY: PAULA PLAINTIFF 6 Conclusion Accordingly, the illegal detaining of Paula Plaintiff by the Cash Mart security guard for allegedly shoplifting should be punishable by law in terms of dames. Accordingly, the security guard did not have any probable cause to arrest and detain Paula. It is because, even after detaining her in the office, when the manager came, he just apologized and requested her to leave. It means that the security guard did not have any justifiable excuse to detain her. The only premise upon which the guard relied on to unlawfully hold Paula against her wish was the fact that she left the store in a hurry, and he suspected that she must have stolen something. Subsequently, he proceeded to detain her without any further inquiry. He also threatened to arrest and put her in jail if she attempted to leave the room where he had detained her, such threat amounted to restraining of movement without a probable cause. For that reason, Paula decided to stay in the room due to fear of being taken to jail for something she did not do, and the detention was against her will. Accordingly, she suffered emotional distress because of such actions. For the case of negligence against the security guard of the Cash Mart, Paula can successfully bring an action against the store. It is because she can easily demonstrate that the store owed her a duty of care and that it breached such duty, she can also proceed to demonstrate that her injury were a direct effect of the action that an employee of the store undertook, then finally she will demonstrate that she suffered because of such action. References 1. Arbel, E., 2018. Devalued Liberty and Undue Deference: The Tort of False Imprisonment and the Law of Solitary Confinement. Supreme Court Law Review, 84. 2. Rahman, A., 2020. Ensuring Compensation for the Victims of Wrongful Imprisonment and Wrongful Detention in Bangladesh. International Journal of Social, Political and Economic Research, 7(2), pp.153-167. CASE STUDY: PAULA PLAINTIFF 7 3. Sharkey, C.M., 2018. Institutional Liability for Employees' Intentional Torts: Vicarious Liability as a Quasi-Substitute for Punitive Damages. Val. UL Rev., 53, p.1. 4. Perlin, M.L., Dorfman, D.A. and Weinstein, N.M., 2018. On Desolation Row: The Blurring of the Borders between Civil and Criminal Mental Disability Law, and What It Means to All of Us. Tex. J. on CL & CR, 24, p.59. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)