Business Law Case Study: Torts, Crimes, and Legal Liabilities Analysis

This assignment presents a case study analyzing various legal scenarios to determine if torts or crimes have been committed. The first scenario involves Walter, who, while driving under the influence, injures a pedestrian. The analysis considers Walter's drunk driving and the pedestrian's jaywalking, applying the principle of contributory negligence. The second scenario examines Walter taking Paula's phone, evaluating whether it constitutes an intentional or unintentional tort. The final scenario involves a mugger drawing a gun on Walter, with the analysis focusing on whether the mugger committed a crime, even though Walter was not injured. The analysis references relevant legal principles and USA Criminal Law to determine the legal implications of each situation.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
Question no 1...................................................................................................................................2
Question no 2...................................................................................................................................2
Question no 3...................................................................................................................................3
Reference List..................................................................................................................................5

2BUSINESS LAW
Question no 1
To ascertain whether there is a tort or crime committed by Walter.
Blood Alcohol Content or BAC is the unit for measure the alcohol content that can be
found in the blood. 0.08 BAC is the legal limit of alcohol content in blood that is restricted for
drivers. A person who is driving and having a BAC of 0.08 is to be held guilty. Additionally,
when the driver having a BAC of 0.08 hits a person crossing the road while the signal light was
on, the drunk driver is considered guilty as he hit the person. The person crossing the road while
the signal light is also considered guilty of jaywalking. In such situation, the principle of
contributory negligence would be applied by the court for both parties were at fault. The liability
of damage would be shared by both the parties in this case (Adar, 2013).
In the given case, the BAC limit was twice in Walter’s blood. We would be held liable
for drunk driving. In addition, as Walter hit the person while drunk driving, he would also be
held liable for this matter. However, as the pedestrian crossed the road while the signal light was
on, the liability would be shared by both the parties.
Therefore, Walter would be held guilty under tort for hitting the person and also, guilty
under the criminal law for drunk driving.
Question no 2
To ascertain any tort or crime that has been committed by Walter for he took away
Paula’s phone with telling her

3BUSINESS LAW
Tort can be classified as intentional and unintentional. When a person takes away
someone’s thing, thinking it to be his own without letting the other person know, it can be
considered as intentional tort. However, it is unintentional if such act causes injury or loss to the
other person (Levine et al., 2016). It would be considered as an act of negligence occurred out of
failure to carry out duty of care.
Here, Paula’s phone was taken by Walter for he believed it to be his own; however, he
did not communicated that with her. It is an intentional act of tort.
Therefore, Walter has not committed any crime, but an unintentional tort.
Question no 3
To ascertain as to whether a crime or a tort has been committed by the mugger.
In accordance to the USA Criminal Law, a gun drawn out in public, whether or not
pointing at any person, without any probable apprehension or justifiable reason is considered
illegal (Pound, 2018). A proper license is firstly necessary to keep a gun and then it requires
sufficient reason for the person to draw the gun out in public. Therefore, without such factors, it
would considered a criminal offence.
In this case, the mugger was about to attack Walter as the mugger has drawn his gun out
in public. A police offer spotted the mugger and seized him before he could hurt Walter. No sign
of injury was seen on Walter, fortunately.

4BUSINESS LAW
Therefore, the mugger can be held to have committed a crime, but not a tort as he could
not hurt Walter.

5BUSINESS LAW
Reference List
Adar, Y. (2013). Comparative negligence and mitigation of damages: two sister doctrines in
search of reunion. Quinnipiac L. Rev., 31, 783.
Levine, L. C., Vetri, D., Vogel, J., & Gassama, I. J. (2016). Tort law and practice. Carolina
Academic Press.
Pound, R. (2018). Criminal justice in America. Routledge.