Need someone to FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS FULLY EXPLAIN. PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS AN USE EXPLANATIONS!! Details please Please be sure that you are discussing all of the things required by law to make a

Law Paper

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Instructor

Date

Law Paper

Civil assault is one of the possible tort claims that Paula can make against Cash Mart. Paula is assaulted by being closed in a room for some time without having committed any unlawful act. She is also threatened of being put to jail if she dares to leave the enclosed room without permission from the officer. So, she is put in a state of a dilemma on what could happen next, yet she has not broken any law. For such loyal customers, panic takes the best part that day because of someone else’s mistake. Generally, she is personally assaulted following the false allegations and perceptions of theft.

Another tort claim that is revealed in the scenario is wrongful claims on property. Wrong claims of shop uplifting are placed on Paula. Just like any other royal customer, Paula is only purposed for a laptop purchase and that is all. However, to meet another appointment she has, she has to leave the store and hurriedly leave. Consequently, she is accused of stealing which is not even in her idea. She feels hurt by this false accusation and the time wasted for her. Indeed, meeting the time for the prior appointment is hard. Finally, it is realized that the claims placed on her are wrong and not valid.

For the assault claim, the common element is the fear of safety. This is where a person is not comfortable with the state of his or her security because of some factors. The element was experienced by Paula when she was under custody. She did not know what would happen to her. Fear had taken the best part of her. Concerning the wrongful claims on the property, the common element is illegally possessing property or showing damages. Paula did not show any of these elements whereby the plaintiff apologized for the wrongful assumptions and claims.

As depicted in the scenario, it is true that Geoffrey was negligent when he hit the golf ball that resulted in Paula’s injury. Intentionally, Geoffrey wanted to break out of his new driver without determining the consequences that could be brought by his action. He should have first determined the likelihood of interference with the public policy if he fulfilled his intention. If it interfered with the public policy, he should not have gone ahead and executed it. Therefore, it can be deduced that Geoffrey was negligent when he hit the golf ball that injured Paula.

The following are some common elements of negligence that can be related to the scenario discussed above:

Duty. The defendant owes a duty to act with reasonable care to avoid physically injuring other people. Geoffrey owed Paula a duty of safety. Suffering injuries at the expense of Geoffrey’s negligence deserved a legal action. Next, the causation element exists whereby it is examined if the plaintiff’s injuries are caused by the defendant. In this case, the entire injuries were caused by the defendant.

Another key element is a breach. This occurs where the defendant owed a duty but failed to fulfill it. In the scenario above, there is a breach because Geoffrey knew that he has a duty to play in ensuring the safety of the other people; but did not fulfill it. Finally, damages are another element that details the monetary loss suffered by the plaintiff. In the scenario, the suffered injuries by Paula can be approximated in monetary terms.