Civil Liability Analyzing Legal Scenarios in Tort Law Assignment

Assignment Task

Case 1

Wilbur needed a quadruple bypass to clear significant blockages in the arteries of his heart. While in the hospital on the day in which his surgery was scheduled to take place, he met with his surgeon Dr. Singh, who reviewed what would take place during the surgery and the expected post-surgery care. While meeting with Dr. Singh, Dr. Janucz also stopped by to meet with Wilbur. Dr. Janucz is an anesthesiologist and spoke to Wilbur about the general anesthetic that she would

be administering in advance of and during the surgery. Once the doctors were finished speaking with Wilbur, they stepped out into the hallway. Wilbur heard Dr. Singh say to Dr. Janucz “You better not screw up this time! I don’t want to lose another patient.” Dr. Janucz said “Don’t be such worrywart! Everything will be fine.” This made Wilbur rather nervous. When he was wheeled into the operating room, both Drs. Singh and Janucz were present. Wilburr said that he was very worried about the surgery and both doctors told him that everything should work out fine.

Dr. Janucz correctly administered the general anesthetic at the beginning of the surgery. Her role was to constantly monitor Wilbur’s condition and level of sedation during the entire procedure and adjust the anesthetic as necessary. Unknown to Dr. Singh, who was performing the bypass, Dr. Janucz started daydreaming about an upcoming vacation and was trying to decide if she really wanted to go to the resort with her partner or if it would be better to go by herself. This daydreaming distracted her for about half an hour. During that period, adjustments that should have been made to the anesthetic were not made. Dr. Singh noticed that Wilbur’s condition was starting to deteriorate and alerted Dr. Janucz. Dr. Janucz came out of her daydream and immediately realized that she had failed to properly monitor the level of anesthetic being administered to Wilbur. She saw that Wilbur was in perilous condition as a result and tried to correct her mistake but was unable to do so in time. Shortly thereafter, Wilbur went into cardiac arrest. Efforts were made to restart his heart, but they ultimately proved unsuccessful. As a result of a hospital autopsy, it was determined that Wilbur’s cause of death was directly related to the improperly administered anesthetic.

Wilbur’s family consulted a lawyer as they want advice as to what legal options are open to them. Please advise Wilbur’s family on the following points:

1. What tort(s) apply on these facts? Explain in detail the applicable tort(s) and why the facts of this case fit within the selected tort(s).
2. Who are the proper defendants and why?
3. What arguments would the defendant(s) make to try and avoid liability?
4. What is the likely outcome of this case and why?
5. Would the result be different if it was established that Janucz did not have professional liability insurance? Why or why not?

Case 2

In celebration of the end of the school year, you held a party at your home. You invited fifty of your closest friends. You provided alcohol and food for the party and many of your guests also brought alcohol and food contributions. You recently completed the world-famous Business Law class in the Dhillon School of Business at the University of Lethbridge. You found the course to be very helpful and one of the best you have taken thus far in your post-secondary education. The course also alerted you to the risks involved in holding parties at your home. As a result, you took special precautions. First, all guests were required to give you their car keys upon arrival which you put in a safe place. Second, you monitored alcohol consumption as best you could. Third, before you gave someone their keys back you assessed to the best of your ability their sobriety and only gave the keys back to drivers you believed were sober. Three incidents occurred that night that pose civil liability concerns for you.

Incident 1 – One guest, Ahmed, went out onto your back deck where part of the party was being held. He was obviously drunk. He lost his balance and fell against the deck railing. The deck railing was in poor condition and gave way causing Ahmed to fall ten feet to the ground below. Had the deck railing being in good condition, it would not have given way and he would not have fallen off the deck. Ahmed broke an arm and a leg because of the fall.

Incident 2 – Another guest, Ryan, seemed perfectly sober to you when he asked for his keys at the end of the night. Unbeknownst to you, his blood alcohol was three times the legal limit and his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol. On his way home, he drove through a red light and struck another vehicle that was lawfully in the intersection. The collision caused serious injuries to the occupants of the other vehicle. Ryan was injured as well but survived.

Incident 3 – You left the party for half an hour to go the grocery store to get more snacks for the party. During the time you were gone, a very drunk guest named Peter searched around and found where you hid the keys. He got the keys to his vehicle and drove away. He caused a motor vehicle collision and killed the other driver. Peter survived.

Answer the following questions:

1. Does Ahmed have a cause of action against you and if so, what is the cause of action? There may be more than one. Explain in detail.
2. The people injured by Ryan plan to sue him for negligence. The question that you must address is whether they also have a claim in negligence against you. Do they have such a claim against you? Explain in detail.
3. Does the estate of the person killed by Peter’s negligence have a claim against you? If so, for what tort? Explain in detail.
4. For each of these three cases, explain whether you have a valid defence and if so, why? Make sure to answer each case separately as the answers may vary depending on the case.

Case 3

Ned Flanders decided that he would raise chickens in his backyard in Calgary. He applied to the City of Calgary for one of the limited number of licences that were being offered to the public for this purpose. He was successful in obtaining a license. He followed every requirement perfectly and was the proud owner of three hens. Every aspect of Ned’s backyard chicken run and chicken raising was in full compliance with the City of Calgary bylaw.

Shortly after Ned began his new chicken adventure, a family (Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their darling six-year-old twins Britney and Whitney) bought the home next door. When they purchased the home, they were unaware that Ned was raising chickens. One day, Britney started screaming in their home. Her parents managed to calm her down and eventually she told them that she was peering through the fence and saw chickens in Ned’s backyard. Britney has a deathly fear of chickens ever since she had a bad batch of Chicken McNuggets from McDonalds and got sick. Even saying the word “chicken” will make her scream and run down the block. It didn’t help that Whitney dressed as a chicken last Halloween and scared Britney within an inch of her life. Britney has been to see a psychologist. Her fear of chickens is real though not rational.

Considering this situation, Mr. and Mrs. Smith baked a pecan pie and went over to Ned’s house to give it to him. Ned was very pleased with the pie. Who wouldn’t be? As Ned was tucking into a big piece of pie, the Smiths explained Britney’s unusual fear of chickens and asked if Ned would consider getting rid of his chickens so their little darling could rest more easily. Ned swallowed some pie, had a drink of milk, looked up at the ceiling, and gave their request his full consideration. Finally, he said, “Look, you seem like nice people and this pie is really good, but I was here first, keeping chickens is perfectly legal, and your

daughter’s fear seems a little irrational to me. I will not get rid of my chickens.” The Smiths were disappointed but not surprised.

The Smiths began a campaign of retaliation against Ned that consisted of the following:

1. They frequently lit backyard campfires and made sure the smoke blew directly into Ned’s backyard, forcing him go into the house to get away from the smoke.
2. They played loud music late at night that annoyed
3. Whenever they picked up after their dog, they threw the dog waste over the fence into Ned’s backyard.

Ned had done nothing wrong legally, ethically, or morally. Nonetheless, he has become the victim of months of unacceptable behavior from the Smiths as outlined above. There is no way Ned is moving or getting rid of his chickens. He has come to you for advice. Please advise Ned on the following questions:

1. What cause(s) of action are open to Ned? Explain in
2. What remedies should he seek?
3. What defences, if any, are open to the Smiths to Ned’s claims?
4. Can the Smiths make Ned get rid of his chickens? If so, on what basis?
5. What is the likely outcome of this case and why?

Case 4

Natasha is a university student with big ambitions and a healthy sense of self who longs to have an impact on the world. In addition to her university studies, she is also trying to be a social media influencer. She has all the latest social media applications and accounts and records many TikTok videos wherein she shares her opinions about various things in the naïve belief that her opinions matter to other people. She currently has twelve loyal and devoted followers. Over the course of a week, Natasha posted several TikTok videos to her account in which she told her viewers what she thought. In particular, she said the following:

1. Harvey Weinstein [search his name if you do not know who he is] is a sexual predator and she hopes that he will never be released from
2. Fendi has really dropped the ball in its manufacturing of high-end fashion items. The quality of its products is noticeably inferior compared to its competitors. Further, it uses sweatshop labour and pays its workers very little. She recommended that her followers avoid buying Fendi products. All these statements are false.
3. The last Black Panther movie, starring Chadwick Boseman, was excellent but it had terrible sound editing.
4. The Calgary Flames is a terrible hockey team and pays its players far more than they are worth.
5. Rogers Wireless (a Canadian corporation) charges too much money for its wireless services, provides poor coverage, and is too powerful for the good of Canadians.
6. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has a rather partisan and uninformed view of the government’s role in controlling the spread of COVID.

After learning that you have taken the world-famous Business Law class in the Dhillon School of Business at the University of Lethbridge, Natasha has come to you for advice. One of her followers suggested that she might want to dial down her opinions in her TikTok videos as she might get in trouble.

Please advise Natasha as to following:

1. What is defamation?
2. Regarding the six statements noted above, does Natasha have potential liability for defamation for any of the statements? If so, for which statements and why?
3. For which statements does Natasha not have potential liability for defamation and why not?
4. What advice would you offer Natasha moving forward?

Note: The foregoing six statements may test different legal principles regarding defamation. Analyze them carefully and apply relevant case law.

Case 5

You and your friend Daisy frequently discuss investments and get-rich quick schemes. Daisy showed you a letter addressed to him from his financial advisor, Raymond James LLC. The document recommended that Daisy invest in a cannabis company called “HighasaKite 2022.” Daisy said that he plans on investing $10,000.00 as soon as possible. He was sure that this stock was a winner and that its value will only go up. “You can’t go wrong!” You were very interested in this investment but didn’t have any money to invest. You paid your dear sweet mother a visit and told her that you needed funds to pay for your next year at the University of Lethbridge. You assured her that you would pay her back within six months. She transferred $10,000.00 into your bank account for the express and sole purpose of paying for your university needs. As soon as you were able to access the funds, you promptly invested $10,000.00 in HighasaKite 2022. Two days later, HighasaKite 2022 was suspended for insider trading, the stock price plummeted, and you lost almost all your investment.

You were not able to pay the money back to your mother within six months and she learned the truth of what had occurred. You are no longer her favourite child. Answer the following questions:

1. Do you have a cause of action against Raymond James LLC and if so, for what? Discuss in detail.
2. Do you have a cause of action against your friend Daisy and if so, for what? Discuss in detail.
3. Does your mother have a cause of action against you and if so, for what? Discuss in detail.
4. Discuss any defences Raymond James LLC, Daisy, and you may
5. What is the likely outcome of these potential cases and why?

This Law have been solved by our PhD Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient in providing a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, the UK, and the US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well-trained to follow all marking rubrics and referencing styles.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.