CL727 - Mod 7 Assignment .docx - Interoffice Legal...

This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 8 pages.

Interoffice Legal MemorandumTo:Senior PartnerFrom:Associate S. Cody FarrerDate:October 29, 2021Re:Randall Scott: Potential Emotional Distress Claim------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ANALYSISEven though Mr. Stanley’s actions may have been extreme or outrageous and certainlyresulted in obvious distress to our client Mr. Scott, it is likely the facts of this case do not rise tosupport the element of Intent for IIED.InAmmon v. Welty, Ky.App., 113 S.W.3d 185, 188 (2002)the courts found that theshooting of a family’s dog did not amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress in partbecause no evidence of intent existed.The plaintiff: 1) did not shoot dog in presence of family;2) had not made positive identification of dog's owner; and 3) there was no evidence that plaitedintended to inflict emotional harm on family.Presence of The FamilyNo member of the Scott family was present at the time of the shooting as it occurred onMr. Stanley’s property and only became known to the family after the fact.As inAmmonwherea warden shot the family dog at a pound.
Positive Identification of The Dog’s OwnerThe facts set forth that Mr. Stanley believed the dog to be a coyote and therefore wouldnot have identified the dog as belonging to the Scott family.Similar toAmmonas the family’sowners could not be found at at the time by the county or warden.Evidence of Intent or Reckless Behavior Towards the Scott’sMr. Stanley’s actions had no intent and were not reckless in a manner that would havereasonably been assumed would cause the Scott’s or anyone else emotional distress.As inAmmon v. Weltyit is likely the court would find Mr. Stanley lacked intent.2
Did you proofread your work before submitting it?Are you struggling with writing skills?If so,contactthe Academic Support Center from course resources.Module 7 Assignment RubricAssignmentCriteriaLevel IIILevel IILevel INot PresentCriteria 1Level III Max PointsPoints: 10Level II Max PointsPoints: 7Level I Max PointsPoints: 3Not Present0 PointsFollowsDirectionsMeets all of thefollowing:Completes thecorrect taskUses only theAmmon caseas precedentStays withinscope bywriting theAnalysissection onlyLimits theanalysis to theissue of “intent”Includes thecompletedchecklistMeets some of thefollowing:Completes thecorrect taskUses only theAmmon caseas precedentStays withinscope bywriting theAnalysissection onlyLimits theanalysis to theissue of “intent”Includes thecompletedchecklistMeets few ofthe following:Completesthe correcttaskUses onlythe Ammoncase asprecedentStays withinscope bywriting theAnalysissection onlyLimits theanalysis tothe issue of“intent”Includes thecompletedchecklist

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 8 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
NoProfessor
Tags
Logic, Max Points

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture