DEFENDANT’S WORKSHEET FOR TRIAL
Fred Brookson, a lifelong resident of Klamath Falls, Oregon, has hired your firm to file suit against Wendell Carter for injuries sustained as a result of an incident that occurred in southern Oregon. About three months ago, Brookson and his wife, Ellen, from whom he is now separated, participated in a demonstration concerning recent acts of violence against doctors practicing in a local abortion clinic. The demonstration occurred on a wharf extending into the Coos River. A group of people, including Wendell Carter, gathered around the demonstrators and began to heckle them. The two groups exchanged remarks and eventually, the hecklers threw rocks and bottles at the demonstrators. When Carter threw a rock that struck and injured Ellen, Fred became angry and approached Carter. Carter said he regretted injuring Ellen because he had been aiming at Fred. The two men exchanged heated remarks. Then, without any provocation, Carter pulled out a knife, screamed, and lunged at Brookson, intending to stab him. As Brookson jumped back to avoid being injured, he almost bumped into an unidentified demonstrator. The demonstrator, who apparently thought he was being attacked, struck Brookson several times and seriously injured him. Both Brooksons required hospital treatment. Fred Brookson \’s medical expenses exceeded $75,000; his estranged wife\’s expenses were approximately $2,000. Both have lost weight, exhibit chronic anxiety, and have periods of severe insomnia.
Carter grew up in California but has spent the last three years attending college and living with his brother in Oregon. Plaintiff’s attorney believes it best to bring this action in federal district court.
1332. Diversity of Citizenship;
Amount in Controversy; Costs
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,00.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between …
(1) citizens of different States…
NOTE TO STUDENTS: (2,3 &4) have been intentionally omitted.
Jansen v. McLeavy (1987)
Mabel Jansen brought suit against the defendant for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress after the defendant\’s car ran a stop sign and killed her young son. She witnessed the accident from her front yard. The jury awarded her $175,000 for the defendant\’s negligence in causing the death of her son and $250,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant appeals only the latter award, and we reverse.
For intentional infliction of mental distress, proof of four elements is required to establish the cause of action: (1) the conduct of the defendant must be intentional toward the plaintiff; (2) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) there must be a causal connection between the defendant\’s conduct and the plaintiff\’s mental distress; and (4) the plaintiff\’s mental distress must be extreme and severe. On this appeal, the defendant vigorously argues that the first element has not been met. The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress requires some evidence that the defendant intended to inflict the emotional distress on the plaintiff. Although Jansen\’s mental distress was great, the driver did not intend to cause that distress. While some jurisdictions have allowed recovery in similar circumstances on a theory that the defendant\’s conduct made it probable that mental suffering would result, we will continue to require intentional infliction in this state.
Powers v. Locke (1989)
While plaintiff Anthony Powers and defendant James Locke were waiting in line to board a school bus, Locke shoved Powers in an effort to take his place in line. Powers fell through a glass door and suffered multiple injuries. Powers sued Locke for battery. The trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of Powers.
A defendant commits battery when he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff or a third person, and thereby causes a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff. Because battery is intended to protect a person\’s body from intentional and unwanted contact, its protection extends to anything so closely connected with the person\’s body as to be regarded a part of it, but it does not extend to contact that is legally consented to or otherwise privileged. One who commits battery is liable for no more than nominal damages unless the person contacted proves actual harm.
Locke\’s argument that the evidence does not support a finding that he intended to cause injury to Powers is without merit. The tort of battery requires only that the defendant intend the contact that caused the harm, not the harm itself. Here, the evidence is uncontroverted that Locke intended to shove Powers. Locke also argues that Powers consented to the battery by agreeing to engage in a \”shoving match\” with Locke. Because the evidence presented at trial is conflicting on this issue, a directed verdict was improper. Reversed and remanded.
I\’m considered to be the Defendant Carter , that I have to answer these 6 questions below according to their case as if it was mine.
LEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING:
1. What three most important points should you, the defendant(carter), include in your opening statement? State briefly why they are important to your case.
2. List the three most important witnesses to your case and briefly state why they are important to your case.
3. List the three most important pieces of evidence you will introduce at trial and briefly state why they are important to your case/what each will prove. HINT: EVIDENCE = STUFF/THINGS. NOT PEOPLE.
4.You have been given the following statute/legal cases to work with:
1332. Diversity of Citizenship
Jansen v. McLeavy (1987)
Powers v. Locke (1989)
Which one is the strongest for your side? State the law and elements and apply them to the facts of your case( Carter). For example, in XXXXXX, the law is _________________. The first element is __________ and applies to our case because ___________________, etc.)
5. You have been given the following statute/legal cases to work with:
1332. Diversity of Citizenship
Jansen v. McLeavy (1987)
Powers v. Locke (1989)
Which one is the weakest for your side (carter)? State the law and elements and state why they are not helpful to the facts of your case. For example, in XXXXX, the law is _________________. The first element is __________ and does not apply to our case because ___________________, etc.
6. What evidence, law, fact, etc. in favor of the other side is the most damaging to your case(carter) ? Why?
Additional points to know and to remember:
Court cases are underlined or in italics. Statutes are in italics.
Your memo must be presented academically and free of grammatical errors.