https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 1/18
LEG300
Preview: LEG300 : Tort Law
Course Guide
Prerequisites
Course Description
Instructional Materials
An in-depth study of the legal aspects of civil wrongs, remedies for those wrongs, and personal injury
law. Students acquire skills in analyzing cases related to intentional torts, negligence, defamation,
product liability, damages, and vicarious liability. In addition, students examine the development of
common law and efforts to reform tort law including “no fault” legislation and caps on monetary
awards.
Required Resources
Arthur Best. 2018. Basic Tort Law: Cases Statutes and Problems. Wolters Kluwer 5th edition
textbook available at https://www.strayerbookstore.com
Court Listener. 1990. Battocchi v. Washington Hosp. Center, 581 A.2d 759 (D.C. 1990).
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2075889/battocchi-v-washington-hosp-center/
Supplemental Resources
Cornell Law School. No date. Legal Information Institute. http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/get_the_law
FindLaw. No date. Learn About The Law. http://public.findlaw.com/
Ⓒ2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
NOTE: The links in this document do not function. Please refer to your course to view/download
linked content.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 2/18
Course Learning Outcomes
Weekly Course Schedule
Week 1 - To Do List
Learn: Read Chapters 1 and 2 from Basic
Tort
Law:
Cases
Statutes
and
Problems.
Learn: Review this week's PowerPoint presentations and notes.
Discuss: Introduce yourself and complete the discussion, Intentional Torts.
Week 2 - To Do List
Learn: Read Chapters 2 and 3 from Basic
Tort
Law:
Cases
Statutes
and
Problems.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2003. Theories of the Common Law of Torts.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tort-theories/
Analyze the circumstances that constitute liability for negligence.
1
Determine the role of burden of proof in a negligence trial.
2
Examine the roles of intent, consent, and offensive contact as determinants of
battery.
3
Evaluate the difference between the licensee and invitee classification.
4
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 3/18
Week 2 - To Do List
Learn: Review this week's PowerPoint presentations and notes.
Discuss: Complete the discussion, Negligence.
Week 3 - To Do List
Learn: Read Chapters 4 and 5 from Basic
Tort
Law:
Cases
Statutes
and
Problems.
Learn: Review this week's PowerPoint presentations and notes.
Assignment: Complete the assignment, McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc.
Discuss: Complete the discussion, Interpreting and Applying Legal Cause.
Week 4 - To Do List
Learn: Read Chapters 6 and 7 from Basic
Tort
Law:
Cases
Statutes
and
Problems.
Learn: Review this week's PowerPoint presentations and notes.
Assignment: Complete the assignment, Alternative to the But-For Test.
Discuss: Complete the discussion, Defenses.
Week 5 - To Do List
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 4/18
Week 5 - To Do List
Learn: Read Chapter 8 from Basic
Tort
Law:
Cases
Statutes
and
Problems.
Learn: Review this week's PowerPoint presentation and notes.
Discuss: Complete the discussion, Employee Defenses.
Week 6 - To Do List
Learn: Read Chapter 9 from Basic
Tort
Law:
Cases
Statutes
and
Problems.
Learn: Review this week's PowerPoint presentation and notes.
Assignment: Complete the assignment, The Tort of Battery.
Discuss: Complete the discussion, Malpractice.
Week 7 - To Do List
Learn: Read Chapters 10, 11 and 12 from Basic
Tort
Law:
Cases
Statutes
and
Problems.
Learn: Review this week's PowerPoint presentations and notes.
Discuss: Complete the discussion, Doing Good Deeds.
Week 8 - To Do List
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 5/18
Week 8 - To Do List
Learn: Read Chapters 13 and 14 from Basic
Tort
Law:
Cases
Statutes
and
Problems.
Learn: Review this week's PowerPoint presentations and notes.
Assignment: Complete the assignment, Invitee or Licensee?
Discuss: Complete the discussion, Strict Liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities.
Week 9 - To Do List
Learn: Read Chapter 15 from Basic
Tort
Law:
Cases
Statutes
and
Problems.
Learn: Review this week's PowerPoint presentation and notes.
Discuss: Complete the discussion, Remedies.
Week 10 - To Do List
Learn: Read Chapters 16 and 17 from Basic
Tort
Law:
Cases
Statutes
and
Problems.
Learn: Review this week's PowerPoint presentation and notes.
Discuss: Complete the discussion, Alternatives to Litigation.
Week 11 - To Do List
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 6/18
Week 11 - To Do List
Discuss: Complete the discussion, Looking Back.
Grading Scale
Participation Total Points % of Grade
Discussion Participation 550 55%
Assignment Total Points % of Grade
Week 3 Assignment - McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc. 110 11%
Week 4 Assignment - Alternative to the But-For Test 110 11%
Week 6 Assignment - The Tort of Battery 110 11%
Week 8 Assignment - Invitee or Licensee? 120 12%
Totals 1000 100%
Final Course Grade
Points Percentage Grade
900 - 1000 90% - 100% A
800 - 899 80% - 89% B
700 - 799 70% - 79% C
600 - 699 60% - 69% D
0 - 599 59% and below F
Unique Course Features
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 7/18
Grading Scale Notation
Please consult the University Catalog and your academic advisor to determine the final grade needed
in this class to satisfy your specific degree conferral requirements.
Assignments
Week 3 Assignment - McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc.
Summary
Click the linked activity title to access this assignment.
Text
Instructions
Read McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc. – 826 F.2d 1554 (7th Cir. 1987), on page 114 of your textbook.
Write a 2–3 page paper in which you:
Explain the innkeeper’s duty in this case.
Summarize the trial court’s decision and the reasoning that determined whether the innkeeper
was liable for negligence.
Speculate whether the innkeeper likely would be held liable for breach of duty under the
following changed circumstances. Discuss one of the two following hypothetical scenarios.
If guest, McCarty, had locked the sliding glass door before she left her room for dinner
and the meeting; and if the intruder had pried open the lock to gain entrance, assaulted
her, and fled.
If shortly after guest, McCarty, had returned to her room from dinner, she opened her door
when she heard a knock without looking through the peephole. She thought that it was
her supervisor whom she promised to give a revised version of the speech. Instead, it
was a male colleague, whose advances she had rejected at dinner. The colleague
pushed through the open door, assaulted her, and fled.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please
refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your
professor for any additional instructions.
The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is:
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 8/18
Analyze the circumstances that constitute liability for negligence.
Scoring Guide
Explain the innkeeper’s duty in this case. 30 %
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
explained the
innkeeper’s duty
in this case.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
explained the
innkeeper’s duty
in this case.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
explained the
innkeeper’s duty
in this case.
Competent
Competently
explained the
innkeeper’s duty
in this case.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
explained the
innkeeper’s duty
in this case.
Summarize the trial court’s decision regarding
innkeeper negligence, if any. Explain how the
court arrived at that conclusion. 30 %
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
summarized the
trial court’s
decision
regarding
innkeeper
negligence, if
any. Incompletely
explained how
the court arrived
at that
conclusion.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
summarized the
trial court’s
decision
regarding
innkeeper
negligence, if
any. Insufficiently
explained how
the court arrived
at that
conclusion.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
summarized the
trial court’s
decision
regarding
innkeeper
negligence, if
any.
Satisfactorily
explained how
the court arrived
at that
conclusion.
Competent
Competently
summarized the
trial court’s
decision
regarding
innkeeper
negligence, if
any. Competently
explained how
the court arrived
at that
conclusion.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
summarized the
trial court’s
decision
regarding
innkeeper
negligence, if
any. Thoroughly
explained how
the court arrived
at that
conclusion.
Speculate whether the innkeeper likely would
be held liable for breach of duty under the
stated changed circumstances. 30 %
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 9/18
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
speculated
whether the
innkeeper likely
would be held
liable for breach
of duty under the
stated changed
circumstances.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
speculated
whether the
innkeeper likely
would be held
liable for breach
of duty under the
stated changed
circumstances.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
speculated
whether the
innkeeper likely
would be held
liable for breach
of duty under the
stated changed
circumstances.
Competent
Competently
speculated
whether the
innkeeper likely
would be held
liable for breach
of duty under the
stated changed
circumstances.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
speculated
whether the
innkeeper likely
would be held
liable for breach
of duty under the
stated changed
circumstances.
Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting
requirements. 10 %
Unacceptable
More than eight
errors present.
Needs
Improvement
7–8 errors
present.
Satisfactory
5–6 errors
present.
Competent
3–4 errors
present.
Exemplary
0–2 errors
present.
Week 4 Assignment - Alternative to the But-For Test
Summary
Click the linked activity title to access this assignment.
Text
Overview
Read the article, Battocchi v. Washington Hosp. Center, 581 A.2d 759 (D.C. 1990).
Because of the use of forceps during his delivery, baby Adam received permanent brain injuries.
The attending physician, Dr. Cohn, diagnosed the baby’s position as face down, while, in fact the
baby was face up. When babies are face up, the use of forceps is inappropriate. The forceps
slipped off the baby’s head twice while Dr. Cohn attempted to deliver the baby. Later, another
physician, Dr. Brady, was called, but did not check the baby’s position and used forceps to deliver
the baby. The parents claimed that both doctors negligently used forceps by applying too much
pressure to the baby’s head, causing brain injuries. The parents settled with Dr. Cohn; only Dr. Brady
was a defendant at trial.
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 10/18
Instructions
Please read “Alternatives to the But-for Test” starting on page 200, which is used to test legal
causation in a negligence case.
Write a 2–3 page paper in which you:
Describe the theory of multiple sufficient causes as an alternative to the but-for test.
Decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant traditionally has the burden of proving the
defendant’s conduct was a factual cause of the plaintiff’s harm.
Describe the effect of the Court granting the plaintiff’s motion to shift the burden of proof
regarding causation to Dr. Brady.
Describe whether Dr. Brady’s burden of proof regarding his innocence is made difficult by the
fact that Dr. Cohn settled outside of court without admitting fault.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please
refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your
professor for any additional instructions.
The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is:
Determine the role of burden of proof in a negligence trial.
Scoring Guide
Describe the theory of multiple sufficient
causes as an alternative to the but-for test. 22
%
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
described the
theory of multiple
sufficient causes
as an alternative
to the but-for test.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
described the
theory of multiple
sufficient causes
as an alternative
to the but-for test.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
described the
theory of multiple
sufficient causes
as an alternative
to the but-for test.
Competent
Competently
described the
theory of multiple
sufficient causes
as an alternative
to the but-for test.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
described the
theory of multiple
sufficient causes
as an alternative
to the but-for test.
Decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant
traditionally has the burden of proving the
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 11/18
defendant’s tortious conduct was a factual
cause of the plaintiff’s harm. 23 %
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
decided whether
the plaintiff or the
defendant
traditionally has
the burden of
proving the
defendant’s
tortious conduct
was a factual
cause of the
plaintiff’s harm.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
decided whether
the plaintiff or the
defendant
traditionally has
the burden of
proving the
defendant’s
tortious conduct
was a factual
cause of the
plaintiff’s harm.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
decided whether
the plaintiff or the
defendant
traditionally has
the burden of
proving the
defendant’s
tortious conduct
was a factual
cause of the
plaintiff’s harm.
Competent
Competently
decided whether
the plaintiff or the
defendant
traditionally has
the burden of
proving the
defendant’s
tortious conduct
was a factual
cause of the
plaintiff’s harm.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
decided whether
the plaintiff or the
defendant
traditionally has
the burden of
proving the
defendant’s
tortious conduct
was a factual
cause of the
plaintiff’s harm.
Describe the effect of the Court granting the
plaintiff’s motion to shift the burden of proof
regarding causation to Dr. Brady. 22 %
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
described the
effect of the
Court granting
the plaintiff’s
motion to shift
the burden of
proof regarding
causation to Dr.
Brady.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
described the
effect of the
Court granting
the plaintiff’s
motion to shift
the burden of
proof regarding
causation to Dr.
Brady.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
described the
effect of the
Court granting
the plaintiff’s
motion to shift
the burden of
proof regarding
causation to Dr.
Brady.
Competent
Competently
described the
effect of the
Court granting
the plaintiff’s
motion to shift
the burden of
proof regarding
causation to Dr.
Brady.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
described the
effect of the
Court granting
the plaintiff’s
motion to shift
the burden of
proof regarding
causation to Dr.
Brady.
Describe whether Dr. Brady’s burden of proof
regarding his innocence is made difficult by
the fact that Dr. Cohn settled outside of court
without admitting fault. 23 %
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 12/18
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
described
whether Dr.
Brady’s burden
of proof
regarding his
innocence is
made difficult by
the fact that Dr.
Cohn settled
outside of court
without admitting
fault.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
described
whether Dr.
Brady’s burden
of proof
regarding his
innocence is
made difficult by
the fact that Dr.
Cohn settled
outside of court
without admitting
fault.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
described
whether Dr.
Brady’s burden
of proof
regarding his
innocence is
made difficult by
the fact that Dr.
Cohn settled
outside of court
without admitting
fault.
Competent
Competently
described
whether Dr.
Brady’s burden
of proof
regarding his
innocence is
made difficult by
the fact that Dr.
Cohn settled
outside of court
without admitting
fault.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
described
whether Dr.
Brady’s burden
of proof
regarding his
innocence is
made difficult by
the fact that Dr.
Cohn settled
outside of court
without admitting
fault.
Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting
requirements. 10 %
Unacceptable
More than eight
errors present.
Needs
Improvement
7–8 errors
present.
Satisfactory
5–6 errors
present.
Competent
3–4 errors
present.
Exemplary
0–2 errors
present.
Week 6 Assignment - The Tort of Battery
Summary
Click the linked activity title to access this assignment.
Text
Instructions
Read pages 15–39 of your textbook.
Write a 2–3 page paper in which you:
Define the tort of battery.
Determine whether a person must intend to cause harm or offensive contact for it to be
considered battery.
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 13/18
Provide the standard or definition of offensive
contact.
Conclude whether being subjected to vapor from e-cigarettes is an actionable cause for
battery, based on offensive contact. Determine whether it would matter if the supervisor
exhaled in the employee’s face.
Explain whether the supervisor would have a defense of consent if the employee never
complained because the employee was afraid of being terminated if a complaint were made.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please
refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your
professor for any additional instructions.
The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is:
Examine the roles of intent, consent, and offensive contact as determinants of battery.
Scoring Guide
Define the tort of battery. 18 %
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
defined the tort
of battery.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
defined the tort
of battery.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
defined the tort
of battery.
Competent
Competently
defined the tort
of battery.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
defined the tort
of battery.
Determined whether a person must intend to
cause harm or offensive contact for it to be
considered battery. 18 %
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
determined
whether a person
must intend to
cause harm or
offensive contact
for it to be
considered
battery.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
determined
whether a person
must intend to
cause harm or
offensive contact
for it to be
considered
battery.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
determined
whether a person
must intend to
cause harm or
offensive contact
for it to be
considered
battery.
Competent
Competently
determined
whether a person
must intend to
cause harm or
offensive contact
for it to be
considered
battery.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
determined
whether a person
must intend to
cause harm or
offensive contact
for it to be
considered
battery.
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 14/18
Provided the standard or definition of
offensive contact. 18 %
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
provided the
standard or
definition of
offensive
contact.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
provided the
standard or
definition of
offensive
contact.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
provided the
standard or
definition of
offensive
contact.
Competent
Competently
provided the
standard or
definition of
offensive
contact.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
provided the
standard or
definition of
offensive
contact.
Conclude whether being subjected to vapor
from e-cigarettes is an actionable cause for
battery, based on offensive contact.
Determine whether it would matter if the
supervisor exhaled in the employee’s face. 18
%
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
concluded
whether being
subjected to
vapor from e-
cigarettes is an
actionable cause
for battery,
based on
offensive
contact.
Incompletely
determined
whether it would
matter if the
supervisor
exhaled in the
employee’s face.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
concluded
whether being
subjected to
vapor from e-
cigarettes is an
actionable cause
for battery,
based on
offensive
contact.
Insufficiently
determined
whether it would
matter if the
supervisor
exhaled in the
employee’s face.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
concluded
whether being
subjected to
vapor from e-
cigarettes is an
actionable cause
for battery,
based on
offensive
contact.
Satisfactorily
determined
whether it would
matter if the
supervisor
exhaled in the
employee’s face.
Competent
Competently
concluded
whether being
subjected to
vapor from e-
cigarettes is an
actionable cause
for battery,
based on
offensive
contact.
Competently
determined
whether it would
matter if the
supervisor
exhaled in the
employee’s face.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
concluded
whether being
subjected to
vapor from e-
cigarettes is an
actionable cause
for battery,
based on
offensive
contact.
Thoroughly
determined
whether it would
matter if the
supervisor
exhaled in the
employee’s face.
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 15/18
Explain whether the supervisor would have a
defense of employee consent if the employee
never complained because he was afraid of
being terminated if he did complain. 18 %
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
explained
whether the
supervisor would
have a defense
of employee
consent if the
employee never
complained
because he was
afraid of being
terminated if he
did complain.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
explained
whether the
supervisor would
have a defense
of employee
consent if the
employee never
complained
because he was
afraid of being
terminated if he
did complain.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
explained
whether the
supervisor would
have a defense
of employee
consent if the
employee never
complained
because he was
afraid of being
terminated if he
did complain.
Competent
Competently
explained
whether the
supervisor would
have a defense
of employee
consent if the
employee never
complained
because he was
afraid of being
terminated if he
did complain.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
explained
whether the
supervisor would
have a defense
of employee
consent if the
employee never
complained
because he was
afraid of being
terminated if he
did complain.
Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting
requirements. 10 %
Unacceptable
More than eight
errors present.
Needs
Improvement
7–8 errors
present.
Satisfactory
5–6 errors
present.
Competent
3–4 errors
present.
Exemplary
0–2 errors
present.
Week 8 Assignment - Invitee or Licensee?
Summary
Click the linked activity title to access this assignment.
Text
Instructions
Read Knorpp vs. Hale – 981 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. App. 199.), starting page 506 in the textbook.
Write a 2 –3 page paper in which you:
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 16/18
Suggest whether it would be more advantageous to Amanda to be classified as a licensee or
as an invitee in her negligence lawsuit. Provide a rationale for your suggestion.
Describe how the defendant would rebut Amanda’s classification as either a licensee or as an
invitee.
Describe the duties of care that a landowner owes to both licensees and invitees.
Identify which level of care is higher for the owner or occupiers of land.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please
refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your
professor for any additional instructions.
The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is:
Evaluate the difference between the licensee and invitee classification.
Scoring Guide
Suggest whether it would be more
advantageous to Amanda to be classified as a
licensee or as an invitee in her negligence
lawsuit. Provide a rationale for your
suggestion. 22 %
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
suggested
whether it would
be more
advantageous to
Amanda to be
classified as a
licensee or as an
invitee in her
negligence
lawsuit.
Incompletely
provided a
rationale for your
suggestion.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
suggested
whether it would
be more
advantageous to
Amanda to be
classified as a
licensee or as an
invitee in her
negligence
lawsuit.
Insufficiently
provided a
rationale for your
suggestion.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
suggested
whether it would
be more
advantageous to
Amanda to be
classified as a
licensee or as an
invitee in her
negligence
lawsuit.
Satisfactorily
provided a
rationale for your
suggestion.
Competent
Competently
suggested
whether it would
be more
advantageous to
Amanda to be
classified as a
licensee or as an
invitee in her
negligence
lawsuit.
Competently
provided a
rationale for your
suggestion.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
suggested
whether it would
be more
advantageous to
Amanda to be
classified as a
licensee or as an
invitee in her
negligence
lawsuit.
Thoroughly
provided a
rationale for your
suggestion.
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 17/18
Describe how the defendant would rebut
Amanda’s classification as either a licensee or
as an invitee. 23 %
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
described how
the defendant
would rebut
Amanda’s
classification as
either a licensee
or as an invitee.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
described how
the defendant
would rebut
Amanda’s
classification as
either a licensee
or as an invitee.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
described how
the defendant
would rebut
Amanda’s
classification as
either a licensee
or as an invitee.
Competent
Competently
described how
the defendant
would rebut
Amanda’s
classification as
either a licensee
or as an invitee.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
described how
the defendant
would rebut
Amanda’s
classification as
either a licensee
or as an invitee.
Describe the duties of care that a landowner
owes to both licensees and invitees. 22 %
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
described the
duties of care
that a landowner
owes to both
licensees and
invitees.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
described the
duties of care
that a landowner
owes to both
licensees and
invitees.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
described the
duties of care
that a landowner
owes to both
licensees and
invitees.
Competent
Competently
described the
duties of care
that a landowner
owes to both
licensees and
invitees.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
described the
duties of care
that a landowner
owes to both
licensees and
invitees.
Identify which level of care is higher for the
owner or occupiers of land. 23 %
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
https://atlas.strategiced.com/app#offering/9226618/course/8652562/preview/courseguide 18/18
© 2020 Strategic Education, Inc.
Unacceptable
Did not submit or
incompletely
identified which
level of care is
higher for the
owner or
occupiers of
land.
Needs
Improvement
Insufficiently
identified which
level of care is
higher for the
owner or
occupiers of
land.
Satisfactory
Satisfactorily
identified which
level of care is
higher for the
owner or
occupiers of
land.
Competent
Competently
identified which
level of care is
higher for the
owner or
occupiers of
land.
Exemplary
Thoroughly
identified which
level of care is
higher for the
owner or
occupiers of
land.
Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting
requirements. 10 %
Unacceptable
More than eight
errors present.
Needs
Improvement
7–8 errors
present.
Satisfactory
5–6 errors
present.
Competent
3–4 errors
present.
Exemplary
0–2 errors
present.
Ⓒ 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary
information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed
written permission of Strayer University.
