A tort action is an act of commission or omission that results in a legal injury for which a remedy can be instituted. The case has a number of tort actions that include slander and negligence.
Slander is defined as a written publication of an unjustified false statement against an individual. The statement must have a potential to lower the plaintiff’s reputation from a rational person’s perspective.
For an act to be considered as slander, the statement must have been false, referred to the plaintiff, defamatory in nature, and published in a written form. In the case, Raul published a false statement on a sign. The statement claimed that SureCo Company was stealing from its customers, a statement that is not true and yet taints the company’s image (Miller and Jentz, 2010).
Plaintiff and defendant
The potential plaintiff in the tort case is the SureCo Company. This is because the company is the victim of the defamation. The defendant is Raul who published a defamatory statement (Miller and Jentz, 2010).
Elements of slander that constitutes the plaintiff’s claim
The actions of Raul satisfy the essential elements of a slander. The first element is the publication of a false statement. Raul published a claim that the company is stealing from its customers. This statement is false because the company did not engage in any of such activities. Actions of the agent that constituted misrepresentation of facts were illegal and did not bind the company. The written statement was further defamatory (Miller and Jentz, 2010).
The possible defense that Raul can use is justification of the statement or an offer of apology for the statement. Justification of the statement would involve proof that the company has been involved in an activity of stealing from its customers. Raul can similarly apologize to the company and use the apology as a defense (Miller and Jentz, 2010).
The case is most likely to be resolved in favor of SureCo. This is because the circumstances of the case satisfy elements of a slander. The possible defenses are also not strong enough, based on the facts of the case.
Another tort action in the case is negligence. Negligence is defined as a breach of duty of care that leads to legal injury (Miller and Hollwell, 2010).
Plaintiff and defendant
The plaintiff in the case would be Raul who was shot in the eye. The defendants would be the boss and SureCO Inc. SureCo would be a possible defendant on the ground that the boss acted on her capacity as an agent for the interest of the company (Miller and Hollwell, 2010).
Elements of negligence
For a case to be considered as negligence, the defendant must have owed the duty of care to plaintiff. That duty of care must have been breached leading to damage. Generally, every person owes a duty of care to his or her neighbor. Consequently, the boss owed a duty of care to Raul who was in her environment. The duty of care was breached by shooting in the direction of the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff was shot in the eye leading to injury (Miller and Hollwell, 2010).
Possible defense in the case include the doctrines of contributory negligence and ‘volenti non fit injuria’. Under contributory negligence, the defendant can claim that the injury occurred only because the plaintiff demonstrated in front of the company’s premises. Similarly, arguments that the plaintiff should have been aware of against him would constitute ‘volenti non fit injuria’ (Miller and Hollwell, 2010).
The case is likely to be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. This is because the defendant used excessive force apart from strong evidence for negligence.
Miller, R., and Hollwell, W. (2010). Business Law: Text & Exercises. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Miller, R., and Jentz, G. (2010). Business Law Today: The Essentials. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.