Ponce De Leon Case Study

1.

Adam has reasonable grounds for civil law action against Henry, however, that does not mean he will be successful. Adam’s case falls under the tort of malicious prosecution, which means Adam has to prove the four main criteria. The four main criteria include; charges being laid, charges being later withdrawn or dismissed, no reasonable or probable grounds for charges being laid, and improper motive for laying charges. In the case Henry calls the police and makes a report that he saw his neighbour driving well under the influence, this results with charges being laid against Adam when the officer arrests him. When the officer arrest Adam he proceeds with a breathalyzer test which proves that his alcohol level is over the limit, which

leads to reasonable grounds for being detained. The charges placed against Adam were later dismissed because the breathalyzer was not processed into evidence correctly. Lastly, Henry had phoned the police to report Adam because he had previously disputed with him about paying for a fence. Henry had a malice reason for reporting Adam, and had intentionally waited for Adam to get into his car after having a few drinks.

Based on the facts of the case, Adam will be unable to substantiate that the charges laid against him were doing so unreasonably. “Henry is aware that Adam is a heavy drinker and drives his car after a few drinks,” moreover, “the breathalyzer results clearly showed that Adam was impaired.” Therefore, the police officer had probable cause for charging Adam with impaired driving. In addition the criteria, of charges being dismissed, were only met because of a technicality on the part of a “break in the chain of custody of the breathalyzer results.” Had the evidence been processed correctly, the charges would have remained. Adam does not have any remedies because the charges had not caused him any monetary loss, nor did it result in any pain and suffering.

2.
Yes, Ponce De Leon does have grounds for civil action against Arturo, and will most likely be successful in his case.

The tort that would apply in this circumstance is passing off because Arturo had ordered a shipment of boots that were similar to those featured in a Ponce De Leon’s Paris fashion show, in addition, he placed posters that he took from the fashion show in efforts to sell his boots at a local flea market. Ponce De Leon is a “popular designer” that is well known, so there could have been public confusion about the authenticity of the boots. If Ponce De Leon goes to trial the court may order Arturo to pay punitive, pecuniary, and non-pecuniary damages for using Ponce De Leon’s well-known brand to misguide the public into purchasing boots, and for the inconvenience of the court

fees.

3.

A) Kidkare owes a duty of care to Owen because as a business, which deals with children, it is their responsibility to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the children under their care. James also owes Owen a duty of care. As a care provider James is accountable for any children in his group. James should have taken better care to ensure that Owen was in fact joining his older brother’s group, or at the very least, calmed Owen down and have him remain in his own age group.

Kidkare and James Lerner do not owe Owen’s mother, Deborah, a duty of care. Deborah was told on countless events that “caring for Owen on day trips was a challenge for staff and raised safety concerns” which should have resulted in Deborah considering looking for different day care providers. Deborah had chosen to keep her son in the daycare, even though she had enough knowledge that the day care was not working under the capability to address her son’s unique situation. She therefore could have taken the effort to place her son in an environment that accommodates his needs, the fact that she disregard their warning and continued to have her son remain in the day care, meant that she acknowledged any possible negative outcomes. As for James Lerner, he also does not owe a duty of care to Deborah because her agreement to have Owen in daycare was with Kidkare, and not their employees. According to the Anns test, one of the criteria of proving duty of care, is whether or not the parties were working in close

proximity of each other. James’ job only requires him to care for Owen. Kidkare and James both have a standard of care to Owen because their profession is to care for children, which means that they are held to a higher standard.

b) The actions of Kidkare and James Lerner were the cause in fact of Deborah’s job loss. The only reason Deborah had lost her job was because of the chain of events leading up to her son being left alone. James Lerner had not performed his job requirements based on protocol, and did not ensure the safety of Owen. The negligence of Kidkare and James Lerner caused Deborah trauma, triggered an anxiety disorder, and resulted in financial loss.

c) Legally, Kidkare and James Lerner were not the cause in law of Deborah’s job’s loss. Deborah had made the choice to miss so many days of work, which later caused unemployment. Her pervious boss had made accommodations due to her situation. When her new boss was hired, she demonstrated that she was unreliable, and began taking even more sick days off. Deborah made the argument that her time off was due to stress caused by Kidkare’s negligence. Although Deborah brought up the fact the KidKare caused her to be stressed, overall being a single mother, raising a child with special needs and having to deal with everyday situations will cause a predisposition to stressful situations regardless of KidKare’s actions. It is her responsibility to put herself in circumstances that are not toxic to her wellbeing. Deborah would have a hard time proving to a court that Kidkare was the legal cause of her anxiety, and job loss when she bares so much responsibility. Moreover, there is evidence that shows she agreed to have Owen remain in KidKare even after they informed her that Owen was providing too much trouble. Finally, James Lerner was only acting on the instructions that were given to him by Owen’s mother. She had told the staff to send Owen to his brother’s daycare group if Owen begins acting out.