Cindy PC5 Brief

Cindy PC5 Brief - Application : The defendant killed a...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cindy Lourcey vs. Charles Scarlett intentional infliction of emotional distress. post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and emotional harm. unable to work and lost earning. Issue : Can the plaintiff (Cindy Lourcey) recover from emotional distress inflicted by the defendant (estate of Charles Scarlett)? Rule : Intent is the desire to cause certain consequences or the substantial certainty that those consequences will result from one's behavior. Negligence as failure to use reasonable care, with harm to another party occurring as a result.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Application : The defendant killed a person in front of the plaintiff. The defendant continued by committing suicide. The defendant had no intent of causing any harm to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not shot, and was not threatened of being shot. Conclusion : No, the plaintiff cannot recover from the defendant for emotional distress. The defendant had no intent or understanding his behavior would harm a bystander. The defendant is not liable for negligence as no actual harm was caused to the plaintiff....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/28/2012 for the course BLAW 280 taught by Professor Ng during the Spring '11 term at CSU Northridge.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online