Depending on its severity, a tort can be harmful to a person. If the injury is stern, it attracts civil wrong for courts to impose liability under the context of international torts. Damage, in this context, is a reason to subject the act to be a legal right invasion. Harm, on the other hand, represents a detriment or a loss in the event the participating individual suffered (What Are Intentional Torts 1). Wrongdoings are categorized into various groups, with common ones being referred to as international. Such offenses are referred to as civil wrongs, which occur the moment a perpetrator participates in conduct which results in damaging repercussions. Every person who commits the universal transgression violates the legal duties they own over the involving victims. In the given scenario, various incidences showcase offense, but outrage and battery are the main torts noted.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
The Intentional Torts in the Case
Torts are approved when the intent of actions is realized. The satisfying offense takes place when the tortfeasor’s action certainty is a desire to result in harmful consequences (What Are Intentional Torts 1). When Jay poured warm caramel over Chuck to unfreeze him, the action was aimed at saving him rather than causing harm. It was unnecessary for Chuck to feel upset towards Jay, as the action was a favor, which needs a reward. Unfortunately, the incident led to a series of wrongdoings between the two to the extent of affecting other workers. The first incident of the action happened when Chuck locked Jay in a refrigerated warehouse. The act was intentional, and even though there is no proper documentation whether Jay has been hurt or not, Chuck knew the consequences. Thus, his commitment was to cause emotional distress. Chuck was determined in any way possible to freeze Jay inside the warehouse. Therefore, since the action had unwanted results, it qualifies the event as an international tort in the context of outrage.
The revenge Jay took on Chuck is even worse, but still qualifies to be an outrage. The note which Jay managed to put on Chuck’s desk was intended to cause harm in the context of distressing him. Jay knew Chuck as a member of the Chocolatarian church, thus going against his religion was undermining his legal duty towards him (What Are Intentional Torts 1). The action affected Ben, who is also a member of Chocolatarian church, resulting in another tort. Jay was aware that some of his colleagues were members of this church. He was not supposed to write a note, knowing the act would cause severe consequences. The therapy which Ben went through was a result of the note he had mistakenly received from Jay. Although the aim was to affect Chuck alone, the event happened to hurt other people as well.
Another international tort in the case ensued during a business meeting. A battery is a criminal offense that entails the application of a force towards another individual’s body (What Are Intentional Torts 1). The act was a battery considering the whole event, which accrued to the entire scenario. When an offender touches a victim, and the action causes harm it results in a tort named battery. The shaking of his hand was so severe that Chuck managed to hurt Jay to the extent of making him wear a compress for weeks. When he looked into Jay’s eyes and did the action, it becomes clear, it was planned, and thus, Chuck was liable for the offense. Shaking hands with Chuck while on a business meeting resulted in Jay’s hand injury, hence qualified as an international tort.
Tort Attracting the Possibility of Defenses
On many occasions, torts are defensible if certain conditions are applied. The first two torts are outrageous because they were more of inflicting emotional distress than physical injuries. For the defense to be useful, it should align with the following issues. The first concern is whether the behavior was reckless and intentional. Next, there should be a causal connection between the plaintiff and the manner’s emotional distress. Lastly, the conduct needs to be intolerable and outrageous to the extent of going against the accepted morality and decency standards. For the battery tort, the protection would be common (Ronquillo et al. 2). The accused need to note any threat, injury, or even unlawful force directed against them. They should mention perceived fear detriments whether there is harm or provocation from their side. Therefore, it is essential to agree that torts are defensible, although certain conditions, as noted above, must be followed.
In conclusion, it is agreeable that torts are common acts occurring in societies, as seen in the case. Both Chuck and Jay were subjects to this international offense in the context of outrage torts and battery. The two affected other workers, such as Ben, by their actions. Fortunately, similarly to other types of misconduct, the international torts are legible to defenses. The outrage and battery accusations allow the victims to defend themselves by pointing on the possible harm and fears towards the offenders.
Ronquillo, Yasmyne, Pesce, Michael M. and Varacallo, Mathew. “Tort” NCBI, 2018. Web.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
“What Are Intentional Torts?” FindLaw, 2020. Web.