For Your Data Andrews V. Peters Example Brief
November 21, 2020
Edit
Andrews v. Peters
330 S.E.2d 638
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
-(D) sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court.
-The courtroom granted the (P's) motion for a novel trial.
-A jury verdict was awarded inwards her favor for express damages.
-The verdict denied (D's) combined motions to vacate its novel trial order, together with failed to fully gear upwards forth the reasons for such order.
FACTS:
-(P) was injured when (D) came upwards behind her together with tapped the dorsum of her correct human knee alongside the front end of his correct knee, causing her human knee to buckle.
-She roughshod together with dislocated her kneecap, together with sued (D) for intentional gear upwards on together with battery.
-A jury returned a verdict for (P) together with awarded damages; withal (P) filed a motion for a novel trial alleging an inadequate verdict.
RULES
-The intent alongside which tort liability is concerned is non necessarily a hostile intent, or a wish to produce whatsoever harm. Rather it is an intent to convey most a outcome which volition invade the interests of around other inwards a means that the police forbids.
-The (D) may survive liable although intending nix to a greater extent than than a good-natured practical joke, or honestly believing that the human activeness would non hurt the plaintiff, or fifty-fifty though seeking the plaintiff's ain good.
-A (D's) liability extends, equally inwards most other cases of intentional torts, to consequences which the (D) did non intend, together with could non reasonably select foreseen, upon the obvious footing that it is ameliorate for unexpected losses to autumn upon the intentional wrongdoer than upon the innocent victim.
CONCLUSION: The courtroom vacated the orders of the trial court, which granted (P) a novel trial inwards her personal injury activeness against (D), together with denied (D's) motions to vacate its novel trial social club together with gear upwards forth the amount it deemed necessary to forbid a minute trial. The courtroom remanded the representative to the trial courtroom for additional findings of fact on its determination granting (P's) novel trial motion.
---
Interested inwards learning how to acquire the overstep grades inwards your police schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?
330 S.E.2d 638
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
-(D) sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court.
-The courtroom granted the (P's) motion for a novel trial.
-A jury verdict was awarded inwards her favor for express damages.
-The verdict denied (D's) combined motions to vacate its novel trial order, together with failed to fully gear upwards forth the reasons for such order.
FACTS:
-(P) was injured when (D) came upwards behind her together with tapped the dorsum of her correct human knee alongside the front end of his correct knee, causing her human knee to buckle.
-She roughshod together with dislocated her kneecap, together with sued (D) for intentional gear upwards on together with battery.
-A jury returned a verdict for (P) together with awarded damages; withal (P) filed a motion for a novel trial alleging an inadequate verdict.
RULES
-The intent alongside which tort liability is concerned is non necessarily a hostile intent, or a wish to produce whatsoever harm. Rather it is an intent to convey most a outcome which volition invade the interests of around other inwards a means that the police forbids.
-The (D) may survive liable although intending nix to a greater extent than than a good-natured practical joke, or honestly believing that the human activeness would non hurt the plaintiff, or fifty-fifty though seeking the plaintiff's ain good.
-A (D's) liability extends, equally inwards most other cases of intentional torts, to consequences which the (D) did non intend, together with could non reasonably select foreseen, upon the obvious footing that it is ameliorate for unexpected losses to autumn upon the intentional wrongdoer than upon the innocent victim.
CONCLUSION: The courtroom vacated the orders of the trial court, which granted (P) a novel trial inwards her personal injury activeness against (D), together with denied (D's) motions to vacate its novel trial social club together with gear upwards forth the amount it deemed necessary to forbid a minute trial. The courtroom remanded the representative to the trial courtroom for additional findings of fact on its determination granting (P's) novel trial motion.
---
Interested inwards learning how to acquire the overstep grades inwards your police schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?