MGMT1601 Tort Assignment: Case Analysis and Damages Evaluation

This assignment analyzes three scenarios involving tort law, including negligent and intentional torts. The student identifies and defines the torts in each case: a doctor's preemptive surgery, a neighbor's property encroachment, and an amusement park's extended operating hours. The assignment outlines arguments that could be raised by both parties involved in each case. It then evaluates the potential damages in each scenario, concluding that the doctor would not be liable for damages, the neighbors would pay for the land used, and the amusement park owner would pay for the business affected. The assignment references relevant legal sources to support the analysis.

MGMT1601 Tort Assignment

Table of Contents
Identification and definition of tort............................................................................................3
Arguments which can be raised by both the parties...................................................................3
Evaluation of Damages..............................................................................................................4
References..................................................................................................................................5

Identification and definition of tort
In present scenario as Dr. No has removed ‘useless organ’ as a preemptive measure to save
the need of surgery in future; but as a doctor it was his duty to ask the patient before
conducting such operation. The decision has resulted in negligent tort as the act was not
conducted with intention to harm patient. Further, the action of neighbour Jack and Jill will
be referred as intentional tort as they have built garage twelve inches over the property line.
Even though it does not affect the property use but it was duty of Jack and Jill to construct
garage within their own property. Further, extension of hours till midnight has affected the
business of Mrs. X due to amusement noise. The specified act can be referred as negligent
tort as the owner of amusement park is required to consider other nearby business while
performing its operations.
There is a specific code of conduct which is necessarily to be followed by every individual in
order to comply with legal duty of public to take action in a manner to reduce the risk of
harm to others (Grant, 2016). However, failure to comply with specified standard is known as
Negligence tort (Levine, Vetri, Vogel and Gassama, 2016 ). Intentional tort refers to act
conducted by an individual purposely in order to cause injury or damage to another person
(Graziano, 2018 ).
Arguments which can be raised by both the parties
In situation relating to operation done by Dr. No, argument can be raised by Mrs. X that it
was legal duty of doctor to attain her permission before proceeding for operation. On the
other side doctor can claim that his act was a preemptive measure to save future needs
relating to surgery. Thus, specifications provided by the doctor are appropriate and Dr. No
will not be claimed for any damages. Mrs. X can make argument against Jack and Jill that

they have used her property and same is not legal conduct. Further, she could claim damages
as well as demand to reconstruct garage within his own property limits. In case of issue
relating to extension of time of amusement park, Mrs X can claim against the owner that his
conducts had affected his business; thus either he should reduce operating hours or reduce the
noise. The owner on the other side could also claim that reducing hours would affect his
business, thus he cannot do same. The final decision will be in favour of Mrs. X as all the
variant of negligent tort i.e. duty, breach, cause and harm does exist and his act will be
proven as negligent tort (Luntz, and etal. 2017).
Evaluation of Damages
No damages will be paid by Dr. No as his conduct did not result harm to the plaintiff. In
another situation damages will be paid by Jack and Jill equivalent to cost of twelve inches of
land which belong to Mrs. X. Lastly damages will be paid by owner of amusement park in
form of claim made for conducting action to affect the business of Mrs X.

References
Grant, G.M., (2016). Judging gender in tort thresholds. Griffith Law Review, 25(1), pp.104-
128.
Graziano, T.K., (2018). Comparative Tort Law: Cases, Materials, and Exercises. Routledge.
Levine, L.C., Vetri, D., Vogel, J. & Gassama, I.J., (2016). Tort law and practice. Carolina
Academic Press.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G. & Harder, S.,
(2017). Torts: cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.