Tort Law Cases

Presented are four separate cases that have been argued and settled in a court of law. Each of these cases represent a different kind of tort, a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, which can be either intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another (Hill & Hill n.d.). The torts are as listed, intentional, criminal, negligence, and liability as presented in the four researched cases.

State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff

When a person violates another person’s legal rights deliberately it is considered an intentional tort (Mayer et al. n.d.). Intentional torts are when someone is assaulting someone, trespassing on a person private property, false imprisonment of an individual or individuals, invasion of someone’s privacy, or if a person conducts fraudulent behavior and the deliberate violation contains an act to bring harm as a consequence of those actions (Mayer et al. n.d.). The presented case is an example of an intentional tort case.

On January 29, 1952 in L.A. California at the Supreme Court of California, the plaintiff Mr. Kobzeff, the president of the State Rubbish Collectors Association, states that the defendant Mr. Siliznoff was collecting trash in an area that the association covered and demanded that Mr. Siliznoff give the association back payment for services that he rendered to Acme; a business in the associations service area. The plaintiff filed to collect payment from the defendant on promissory notes after the defendant had not paid on the said promissory notes. Defendant claims he was verbally threatened by the plaintiff and was told if he did not join the association he would be beaten up and his business ruined and counter sued stating intentional infliction of menta...

... middle of paper ...

...ourt case was reversed and the judgment went in favor of the defendant stating that the purchaser’s breach of warranty, the cause of this action, and the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a verdict against the appellant. Judge request verdict be returned in favor of the defendant. There was no proof to show that there was any material defect or problems with the workmanship in the glass of the automobile in question and the injury the plaintiff received was not of proximal cause and makes the case invalid. There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Works Cited

State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff, 240 P. 2d 282 (Cal.1952)

People v. Watson, 637 P. 2d 279 (Cal. 1981)

People v. Watson, 677 Cal. App. Supp. 22 (Super. Ct. Cal. 1980).

Darling v. Charleston Hospital, 211 N.E. 2d 253 (Ill. 1965)

Baxter v. Ford, 35 P. 2d 1090 (Wash. 1934)