GOVT280
Legal Analysis of Self-Defense Nightmare Scenario
Jordan Israel
Undergraduate Totrs, L29214654,GOVT280-03
GOVT280
Introduction
In this case study we're faced with several incidents in a self defense class where a "real-world"
learning experience went horribly wrong. Actions by the instructor, the actor, Jack Bond, Christie
Steeple and several others caused injuries and even the death of one student. In this particular
paper, the tort law liability of all parties is going to be analyzed based on legal ideas of negligence,
battery and responsibility of care. Additionally, it will evaluate possible damages and potential
claims. Is Steeple a Successful Bond Claimant?
Claims:
Christie Steeple might achieve success in a negligence and battery claim against Jack Bond.
Steeple admitted being willing participants in the simulated attack, but Bond did not brief the
class properly about the exercise, which led to Steeple suffering unintended physical injury. Under
negligence doctrine, a plaintiff has to establish a duty of care, establish that defendant breached
that responsibility and the breach was detrimental (Dobbs et al., 2020). Below, Bond had been
responsible for the safety of his students and anybody doing the exercise, including Steeple. By
concealing the nature of the exercise, Bond created an unbalanced environment where Steeple
broke an arm as students reacted in unison as if she was a genuine attacker.
Steeple also could file a battery suit against Bond, claiming she didn't consent being harmed
during the exercise. Battery is when an individual intentionally would make damaging or offensive
contact with someone else without their knowledge (Restatement (Second) of Torts, 1965).
Steeple, while willing to act in the scenario, did not agree to actually suffer any injuries, which
might be admissible in her situation. Might Steeple Win a Case Against Eagen? Steeple may also
bring a battery suit against Bob Eagen. Eagen, convinced Steeple was truly trying to kill Bond,
whipped her on the floor and also broke her arm. Battery requires intentional injury or anoxious
contact, and Eagen evidently injured Steeple.
GOVT280
The big issue is if Eagen can present a claim of self-defense, stating he believed Steeple was a
threat to Bond. In self-defense, a person could invoke reasonable force to defend himself or any
other from imminent danger. Nevertheless the force needs to be proportional to the threat. One
might argue that Eagen broke Steeple's arm simply because his response was extreme since
Eagen essentially broke Steeple's arm. Steeple's battery claim against him would likely achieve
success in case a court decides that Eagen used too much force in those circumstances (Prosser
1and1 Keeton, 1984).
Is Lark Successful In Any Cases Against Knight/Bond? Larry Lark could sue Kelly Knight for battery.
Battery as stated earlier is contact with intention to be damaging or offensive. Knight didn't intend
to hit Lark but meant to exert force (the pen) on Steeple and instead hit Lark. With transferred
intent doctrine, Knight's will to harm Steeple is given to Lark, thereby liable for the injury although
it was accidental (Prosser 1and1 Keeton, 1984). Lark also might have a negligence claim against
Bond.
As teacher, Bond was tasked with keeping his pupils safe throughout the workout. His inability to
alert the class of the upcoming attack and the attendant threat resulted in a situation where a
pupil (Knight) acted fearlessly, leading to Lark to be injured. Liability for Lark's injuries might be
based on Bond's carelessness in coordinating and supervising the exercise.
Do Any of the Students Who Fled into Corners Have Successful Claims and Against Whom?
Those students who hid in fear and endured weeks of counseling might sue Bond for negligent
infliction of emotional distress (NIED). To establish NIED, plaintiffs must show they were subject to
considerable emotional distress because of the defendants negligence and the distress was
reasonably expected (Dobbs et al., 2020). It might be also considered negligent that Bond didn't
disclose the nature of the exercise and the panic it created among students. With such powerful
emotional responses from the students, a judge could determine Bond's action was responsible
GOVT280
for their distress. However for any NIED claim to be successful, the students will also need to
show their emotional distress was serious enough to justify compensation. Their accounts of
extensive counseling may be a signal of the level of their distress and therefore support their
claims.
Who Makes What Claims About Sandy Slep?
Sandy Slep's death presents tough legal problems, especially as to causality and predictability.
Slep's family may sue Bond for wrongful death based on his bad preparation of the exercise which
resulted in her death. In a wrongful death claim, the party should establish the wrongful behavior
of the defendant was the direct cause of death (Dobbs et al. 2020). Below, Bond's inability to alert
students about the fake attack led to Slep running from the building and getting hit by a car. A
crucial question in this particular argument might be whether Slep's death was a foreseeable
result of Bond's behavior.
While students might panic during an attack, it may be harder to show that Slep's escape from the
building and her death had been reasonably predictable results. In case the court rules that
Bond's negligence precipitated her death, Slep's family may win in its wrongful death lawsuit.
Claims: Damages In case Bond, Eagen and Knight win their claims, they'd be entitled to
compensatory damages, designed to compensate the wrongd parties. If physical injuries had
occurred - like Steeple and Lark - damages would pay for medical bills, pain and suffering and lost
wages, in case any. For the students going through psychological distress, damages would consist
of counseling and therapy expenses and any emotional damage incurred. In the wrongful death
lawsuit against Sandy Slep, the family might seek both economic and noneconomic damages.
Economic damages would cover funeral costs and any bequests Slep may have provided to her
family. Injuries: Noneconomic damages might pay for the psychological distress of her family after
her untimely death.
GOVT280
Conclusion
The "Self-Defense Nightmare" situation offers a helpful framework for analyzing tort law
principles including negligence, battery and duty of care. The inability of Bond to oversee the
exercise left the door open to dozens of possible lawsuits -- which range from neglect to wrongful
death. Steeple and Lark will probably prevail in their claims against Bond, Eagen and Knight, while
the students in emotional distress may also have claims. Lastly, the unfortunate death of Sandy
Slep might result in Bond getting sued for wrongful death in case a court found his neglect was
the immediate cause.
References
Dobbs, D. B., Hayden, P. T.,Bublick, E. M. (2020). Torts and the Law (2nd ed.) West Academic.
Prosser, W. L.,Keeton, P. (1984). Keeton and Prosser on the Law of Torts (5th edition).
West Publishing Co. (Second) Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965).
