Possible tort claims that Patty can make against Cash Mart
There are some tort claims that Patty Plaintiff can make against Cash Mart. Firstly, Patty is wrongfully accused of shoplifting and detained at the back of the store without any tangible evidence. Her only wrongdoing was walking hurriedly towards the exit door of the store. For that matter, Patty can sue Cash Mart for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. These are forms of intentional torts.
Notably, an intentional tort occurs when a person or entity engages purposefully in any activity that creates damage to the other (A tort claim). In this scenario, the security guard is at fault because he makes wrong assumptions and perceptions about Patty. He locks Patty without checking if she has shoplifted. Moreover, he makes a false conclusion without going through the security cameras to ascertain if Patty stole.
Similarly, Patty can sue Cash Mart for threatening her with a jail sentence. While at the back of the store, the security officer issues threats that if she attempts to get out, she will be sent to jail. Additionally, Cash Mart wasted a whole one hour of Patty’s time. When Patty realizes that she couldn’t get her favorite product, she remembers that she had an important appointment. She is at risk of missing a meeting that perhaps involved money. She can sue for financial compensation from Cash Mart.
Was Gerry negligent when he hit the golf ball that injured Patty?
Negligence cases are never deliberate, however, occurs when carelessness takes center stage. By any means, Gerry is very much negligent when hitting his golf ball. On other previous encounters, he hardly breaks his new driver. But on this day an error occurs and an accident follows. Additionally, Gerry is aware that behind his backyard, there is a store that has human activity. As such, he should have been careful not to use excessive strength that could break his driver. His golf ball ends up hitting and almost killing Patty. Consequently, she can sue for negligence. She is knocked unconscious, an incident that endangers her life.
Does Patty have a right to privacy when using Acme Corporation’s email system?
Patty has violated the company’s policies when she informs her mother of her injuries using the company’s email system. From the company’s guidelines, the email system is strictly for official duties and not relaying information to non-entities. Essentially, Patty has no right to privacy because her supervisor has noticed the information sent to the mother. Supervisors review companies’ email system and any personal communication are easily seen.
Can Patty be legally fired from her job for making negative comments about her boss and her company on social media?
With the rise of social media, many companies have enacted social media policies in a bid to tame vile personal opinion. Social media platforms also act as brands that must be jealously protected. So when Patty uses her personal computer and social media page to post disparaging comments about her boss and the corporation, she is tarnishing the image of the boss and the company as a whole. If the company’s policies dictate sacking for such bad conducts, then she can be legally fired.
This is a gross violation of the company’s policies and utmost disrespect to the boss and the company. Structures within the organization can be used to solve disagreements without necessarily parading them on social media for the world to see.