This study source was downloaded by 100000900559687 from CourseHero.com on 09-10-2025 02:02:40 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/251460581/Copy-of-Activity-Duty-and-Breach-of-Duty-Assignmentdocxpdf/
Research Paper: Self-Defense Nightmare
Megan Boisvert (Stumpner)
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
GOVT 280: Undergraduate Torts
Jennifer Riedthaler Williams
May 8, 2025
Self –defense Nightmare 2
Introduction:
A tort is a civil wrongdoing that has caused injury to a person, whether intentional or
negligent (Esposito, 2024). Tort law features different perspectives on its purpose. One of the
viewpoints emphasizes economic efficiency and risk allocation, which promotes careful behavior
by making the defendant responsible (Esposito, 2024). The corrective justice viewpoint is to
compensate the victims. In the self-defense nightmare, there are potential claims on Bond,
Steeple, Knight, Eagen, Lark, and the other students, particularly negligence, intentional torts,
and the concept of proximate cause.
Scenario:
Jack Bond is a self-defense instructor at a local community recreation center. He wants
his students to have a real-life experience without their consent. Bond hires Steepe to come to the
community center one night and begins yelling at Bond, saying he is a " no good man" and is
"going to get what he has coming to him." She starts to choke him.
Before Bond could show the class how to protect themselves, student Knight, who was
new to the class, ran to help her instructor. She attempted to stab Steeple with a pen to protect
Bond, but she had a bad aim and missed and stabbed Lark in the leg. Another student, Eagen, has
been taking a self-defense class for a couple of months and used a technique he was taught. He
threw Steeple to the ground, and she broke her arm.
The other students of the class did not know how to respond to the staged attack, so they
hid in the corners, crying and screaming. Unfortunately, one of the students fled the building
after she believed it was a real attack, and she ended up getting hit by a car, which killed her.
Self –defense Nightmare 3
Steeple VS Bond
Steeple could have a successful claim against Bond based on negligence. To have a
successful negligence claim, the injured party (Steeple) must establish that the defendant (Bond)
owed a duty of care, which was breached, causing an injury. In the self-defense scenario, Bond,
as the self-defense instructor, is responsible for ensuring that the learning environment is safe for
his students and guests. Bond failed in his duty of care by failing to inform students of the
exercise, leading them to panic and be confused about what was happening. Also, Bond did not
tell his students about the planned real-life attack, which could be considered a lack of informed
consent. Steeple and the students were unaware that the staged event would involve risks; this
could be regarded as a breach of trust and could support Steeple's claim, as she sustained a
broken arm during the incident due to Eagen's actions. Bond could be found negligent for putting
Steeple in a dangerous situation and not taking reasonable precautions to protect Steeple and the
students. His actions were unreasonable, as he set up a dangerous scenario for a learning
experience.
Steeple VS Eagen
Steeple could have a viable claim for intentional tort against Eagen. Eagen's physically
throwing Steeple to the ground can be considered battery. Battery is the deliberate infliction of
harmful or offensive contact with another person. Eagen used physical force, which resulted in
Steeple's injury, and it indicates a clear intent to intervene in what he thought was a real attack.
Eagen's actions were not justified as self-defense because Steeple did not directly threaten him.
Lark VS Knight
Lark could have a successful claim against Knight for his injuries sustained under the
transferred intent doctrine. The transferred intent doctrine is a legal principle that applies when
Self –defense Nightmare 4
someone intends to harm one person but accidentally harms another (Transferred intent). With
the evidence provided, it is concluded that the transfer of intent doctrine can be used. Knight
planned to stab Steeple but missed and accidentally stabbed Lark in the leg instead.
Lark VS Bond
Lark could have a claim against Bond for negligence for the same reasons as covered in
the Steeple's case above. Bond's failure to properly prepare and inform his students of the
planned real-life attack which led directly to the chaos that caused Lark's injury.
Students who fled into the Corners
Students who fled into the corners could have valid claims against Bond, based on the
infliction of emotional distress. Under the recent tort law, such infliction can occur intentionally
or recklessly. In this instance, Bond's actions may be considered reckless. For an act to be
regarded as reckless intent, "the defendant must act in deliberate disregard of the emotional
distress that he knows he is very likely to cause the plaintiff". Bond stated that he feared the
students might not know how to react to what they thought was an attacker. Some of the students
who fled in panic required months of intensive counseling, which helped the students claim
emotional distress that was caused by Bond's choices and his decision to proceed with the
planned attack without informing them.
Sandy Slep Claims
There can be claims against Bond and against the school or the company that employs
him. They could be held liable for Sleps' tragic death. Slep's family can argue that her death is
due to Bond's negligence in conducting the fake attack without informing the students. His
negligence led to a foreseeable risk of harm. The emotional distress caused by the threat
triggered Sleps' fight-or-flight response, which resulted in the fatal accident. It may be
Self –defense Nightmare 5
challenging to establish that Bond's actions were the cause of Slep's death, but it can be argued
that if she had not been subjected to the staged attack, she would not have fled the building in
fear. The employer of Bond could be held responsible under the Vicarious Liability Doctrine. It
is a legal principle where one party is held accountable for the actions of another with whom
they have a special relationship (Vicarious liability). If Bond acted within his employment scope,
the school could also be liable for his negligent actions.
Damages and Justifications
In successful tort claims, different types of damages can be awarded. One type that can be
awarded is compensatory damages, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and
suffering (Webdev, 2025). The other type of damage is punitive damages, which can also be
awarded to the injured party in cases of gross negligence (Webdev, 2025). Steeple could seek
compensatory damages to cover her medical treatment and pain. Lark might pursue damages for
his physical injuries.
Emotional distress caused by the incident. Students experiencing emotional trauma may
seek damages to cover the costs of the psychological counseling needed to recover. In the case of
Sandy Slep, her family could file a wrongful death claim to pursue damages that reflect the loss
of a loved one, which may include funeral expenses and loss of companionship.
Conclusion
This scenario," Self Defense Nightmare," illustrates many tort claims that were conceived
from Bond's negligence and not informing his students, which resulted in multiple injuries,
including the death of Slep. Christie Steeple has claims against Bond and Eagen, while Larry
Lark may have claims against Knight and Bond. The students who hid in the corner may pursue
claims against Bond for emotional distress. For Slep's death, there could be claims against Bond
Self –defense Nightmare 6
and the institution. Each claim falls on the duty of care, breach, causation, and harm,
underscoring the importance of responsible conduct in educational settings.
References
Edward, J. S. (2016). Tort Law (sixth).
Esposito, J. (2024, March 8). What is tort law?. ILR.
https://instituteforlegalreform.com/blog/what-is-tort-law/
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.-c). Transferred intent. Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/transferred_intent
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.-e). Vicarious liability. Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vicarious_liability
Webdev. (2025a, January 2). Calculating damages in negligence cases. The Knowles Group.
Self –defense Nightmare 7
https://www.theknowlesgroup.org/blog/calculating-damages-in-negligence-cases/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
