Assignment 1-Final.docx - ASSIGNMENT 1 Setoki Buka...

  • No School
  • AA 1
  • 7

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 7 pages.

ASSIGNMENT 1 Setoki Buka 2004004587
Image of page 1

Subscribe to view the full document.

QUESTION 1 Fact After his presentation at the rugby workshop, Meli returned to his hotel room and decided to pull a practical joke on his roommate, Tuimaba and in the process pointing the laser beam at his eyes. Consequently, Tuimaba lost his eyesight. Issue Can Meli’s action which caused Tuimaba to lose his eyesight be considered battery by law? Does pointing a laser beam at an individual constitute physical contact? Rule The three requirements for a battery charge to stand in court are: a. It should caused as a result of an intentional or negligent act of the defendant. b. There must be physical interference (touch) to the plaintiff’s body. c. There is lack of consent on the part of the plaintiff. Application In determining whether there is a case to answer, the following findings are stated: a. In pointing the laser beam at Tuimaba’s eye, Meli’s action may not have been intentional to cause harmful physical interference. However, the omission of the act on his part to ensure beam does not strike Tuimaba’s eye is considered in this. It must also be noted that the practical joke was premeditated so there was time for Meli to consider Tuimaba’s safety. Meli’s omission of that act led to the damage to Tuimaba’s eyes. b. There was physical interference to Tuimaba body (eye) through the laser beam originating from the laser pointer held by the defendant. Case Law - Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications [1994] The “Smoke in the Face Case”. With refence to the “Smoke in the Face Case”, the court held that the battery charge is actionable irrespective of its triviality or if damage is nominal whereby defendant intentionally blew tobacco smoke at the plaintiff’s face. There was no physical contact, however the smoke originated from the defendant. Similarly, in this case, there was no physical contact made by Meli but he held the laser pointer from which the beam originated and caused the damage. Furthermore, in the case of Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications of 1994, the court using a rule from the Ohio Administrative Code (R.C. 3704.01(B) and 5709.20(A); Ohio Adm. Code 3745-17) from the Supreme Court established the elements of a battery. The Supreme Court defined the defined offensive contact as one which offends an individual’s reasonable sense of dignity. The Supreme Court further defined tobacco smoke as a “particulate matter,” that has necessary properties to make contact. Based on this definition, the same could be interpreted for the laser beam that caused the damage.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
  • Fall '19

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern

Ask Expert Tutors You can ask 0 bonus questions You can ask 0 questions (0 expire soon) You can ask 0 questions (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes