The classic definition of tort law
What Is Tort Law?
The classic definition of tort law is: tortuous liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; such duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages.
In other words the liabilities in tort well take place when a duty or a law has been broken by an act from a person who by his act has injured or harmed another individual, there are a lot of ways to solve a tort victim which also called remedies, one of the main remedies available to a victim that been highlighted in the classic definition, the payment of monetary compensation, known as damages.
Tort law has four possible objectives of an action of it, namely, appeasement, justice, deterrence, compensation.
When a person is hurt or injured by someone else his natural feelings would be seeking retribution for wrongs committee against them so appeasement is buying off the claimant's desire for revenge.
It is considered to be a major aim or goal of the law of torts in a modern context by some commentators.
Justice has two aspects: one is for the victim and the other is for the wrongdoer, which are compensation to the victim and retribution against the defendant.
It is often used in relation to criminal law; the basic of the theory of deterrence is aimed at deterring the criminal from repealing his offences or deterring from repealing the same act.
It is when a person has to pay for their duty, and it is regarded as the primary aim of the law of tort, giving an example the Road Traffic Act 1988, ss.143-145.
Looking At The Case Giving:
Advising all the parties involved of their rights and liabilities starting with:
In Paul's case as illustrated that he was drinking a bottle of vodka and sitting in a street corner minding his own business, and out of a sudden a guy across the street started shouting at him and assaulting him “you're a waste of space. People like you should be shot!”
Of course Paul like any person he would act normally shouted out back at mike because he was offended by what mike have said, so Mike provoked Paul and mad him angry which made him try to cross the street to go to Mike. We should also consider the state of mind that Paul was in; he was drink and was not sober, so he was not thinking straight.
Then Mike did not finished there, he came back with a toy gun in his hand which Paul was not aware of its being a toy gun and it looked real, and pointed it at Paul, so Paul as a self defense he strike Mike on the head with the bottle of vodka that was in his hand, so he did not get a weapon he defended himself with the same bottle of vodka he was drinking from, which again would be an act of any normal person who was protecting himself.
So Paul rights are:
he could sue Mike for assault which is an intentional act which threatens violence like in the case of Stephens V Myers (1830) 4 C and P 349, Even though mike was across the street he threatened Paul.
And battery because Mike came back with a toy gun but Paul did not know that fact, and Mike was angry and it is a basic fact in battery.
Like the HL held that the assailant's mistaken belief in an attack did have to be not only honestly but also reasonably held. Every person had the right in principle not to be subjected to physical harm by the intentional actions of another person but every person had the right also to protect himself by using reasonable force to repel an attack or to prevent an imminent attack.
he did assault Mike by shouting at him but that was after Mike provoked him, and when Mike pointed the gun at him Paul hit Mike with the bottle of vodka on the head which is battery but what could be at his defense is that his battery could be justifiable lawful because he was defending himself so it could be “unlawful beating of another.
And Paul has taken Mike after passing out to a nearby garden and locked him in which is false imprisonment by his part.
Mike has assaulted Paul by shouting across the street and came back again with a toy gun pointed it at Paul and this could be battery, but he was knocked down by Paul with the bottle of vodka, so that could be battery from Paul's side, and got locked in a garden till he woke up and called the police, so that was false impressments, then he went to the hospital and was aggressive, tried to punch the doctor but missed and punished the nurse, then he was sedated and Dr George sutured his cut without Mike consent.
Mike harassed and stalked the nurse by calling her at work and showing up there.
he could say that his intention was not to hurt Paul and his proof was that the gun was not real, and for that he was not going to hurt him like in the case of Cockcroft V Smith (1705) 2 Salk 642
And he could say that he did assault Paul but he was across the street so he was not near Paul, in that case he was not capable of hurting Paul like in the case of Tuberville V Savage (1669) 1 MOD 3, and that Paul has assaulted him and tried to cross the street but he was unable to because of the traffic jam. So he could in his defense of coming back with a toy gun he could say that he was afraid that Paul would hurt him.
He was also been locked in the garden after Paul hitting him on the head with a vodka bottle which is battery from Paul's side, and false imprisonment which what Paul did by locking Mike in the garden so Mike could not get out after waking up, so his freedom was restrict by Paul.
And when he went to the hospital he was sedated by Dr George sutured the cut on his head without Mikes consent like in the case of Re F; F v West Berkshire Health Authority (1990) 2 AC 1.
First he assaulted Paul across the street, and then came back with a toy gun and pointed it at Paul who he knows that he was drink and would not be able to differentiate a real from a toy one, and that is considered battery.
When he arrived at the hospital he became aggressive which in his defense we could say he was not seeing or understanding what was going around clearly because he was hut on the head.
He attempted to punch Dr George but he missed and struck the nurse, Stella, which is battery but unintentional battery.
After Mike being discharged from the hospital, he was calling Nurse Stella repeatedly at work and waited for her outside the hospital which made her uncomfortable and distressed, that is harassment and stalking but he could say that he just wanted to apologies to her and did not meant to make her uncomfortable.
When Dr George saw that Mike was aggressive and tried to hit him but missed, he decided to sedate Mike so he could operate on him and for the safe of his staff and himself, so he operate on him after sedated him and sutured the cut on mike's head, but without Mike consent.
Dr George rights:
He could sue the hospital because he was attacked at his place of work, so the hospital would be vicarious liable of what happened, and it should be responsible of the staff safety.
Dr George liabilities:
He has sedated and sutured Mike without his consent, so this could be a kind of battery, but in his defense he could say that he was afraid of the well being of himself and the staff with him because Mike was aggressive and tried to hit him, so he had to sedate him so he can operate on him.
First of all Nurse Stella was punched by Mike while doing her job so she could also sue the hospital because she was hurt at work time and at work place, so the hospital would be vicarious liable for what happened to Stella.
And after that she have been receiving calls from Mike after he was discharged, he was calling her at the hospital making her uncomfortable, and he also was showing up outside her work place.
Nurse Stella rights:
She could sue the hospital for compensation because she was hurt at the hospital premises and while she was working, so the hospital is vicariously liable.
Or she could get insurance for her injury because it was while she was working.
And she could sue Mike for assaulting her with the calls she is getting at work, like in the case of Rv Ireland; Rv Burstow (1998) AC 147.
She could also sue him for stalking her and harassing her by showing up at her work place which made her distressed which comes under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.