The false accusation by the security guard relates to the tort of defamation of character. False imprisonment arising from Paula being detained unwillingly will be classified as an intentional tort while the action by Geoffrey will fall under the tort of negligence. In the event of false imprisonment, there are elements under this tort that need to be considered:
- There was a deliberate incarceration of the defendant.
- The incarceration was without consent from the plaintiff.
- The detention must have been unlawful.
The security guard detained Paula deliberately without her consent, hence violating the stipulations under false imprisonment. She was detained within a reasonable time (a little over an hour), and the fact that she could leave the room irrespective of the guard’s decree means that the case against Cash Mart with reference to intentional tort cannot be admissible in court. This is because these two grounds act as exceptions when considering a case under the intentional tort.
Negligence typically occurs when an individual fails to avoid inflicting damage or harm on another individual; it applies to both businesses and people. On the other hand, defamation relates to a false statement made by someone about another individual, which is often presented as a declaration of “fact.” It also damages one’s professional or personal reputation or causes another harm, for instance, emotional distress and financial loss. These two legitimate claims are perceived as damaging, and their pertinent consequences are well-established in legal statutes under the human rights section.
As indicated earlier, defamation involves an utterance that harms the reputation of a third party; it incorporates both spoken statements (slander) and written declarations (libel). A plaintiff should demonstrate four primary elements to indicate prima facie traducements. These elements include:
- An incorrect utterance claiming to be true.
- Communication or publication of that affirmation to a third party.
- A fault that amounts to negligence.
- Harm or some damage caused to an entity or individual who is the statement subject.
As indicated in the case study, the security guard made a false accusation against Paula (shoplifting) and conveyed the allegation to a third party. However, there is no vivid proof of negligence or harm caused to the plaintiff following the fallacious accusation.
Elements of negligence include: 1. Duty: it entails the capacity to demonstrate that the accused owed the plaintiff an obligation of care, rather than causing pain. 2. Cause-in-fact: it involves the capability to demonstrate an interconnection between the remiss act which occurred and the adverse impact suffered by the accuser. 3. Proximate cause: it is the capacity to establish evidence of a direct connection between a careless action and the damage emanating from the action. 4. Harm: it is the capability to demonstrate that one endured a loss or injuries due to another individual’s negligence. 5. Breach: it involves providing proof of the infringement of a standard of care, which caused damage to the accuser or a person close to them.
Geoffrey is liable for the offense; he was obligated to avoid causing harm by restricting his golf course perimeter to his background. Paula suffered an injury due to Geoffrey’s negligence exhibited by him failing to consider the fact that he lived next to a public place, and his actions could harm shoppers. A direct link exists between the accused’s careless act and the injury triggered by his deed. The defendant also breached the municipal code that proscribes swinging, practicing, or playing golf around constrained areas.
If Paula decides to file a negligence claim against Geoffrey, she will do so in a civil court. This is because Geoffrey’s conduct falls short of how a ‘reasonable’ person would act in a similar scenario. His behavior also cannot be considered an irrational retreat from how a reasonable person would have acted. It might be deemed a one-time act of negligence, as Geoffrey could have strayed from the norm in this one instance.
A civil court is designated to review and resolve differences that arise when private individuals can no longer agree independently. It handles cases such as adoptions and divorces and those involving personal injuries and conflicts between businesses and individuals. On the other hand, criminal courts are designed to dictate whether an individual violated the law, thereby causing damages or endangering others or their property, and if that is the case, be punished. They usually handle such offenses as murder, fraud, burglary, and robbery.