Please let me know if you are not able to see the attachment files on Additional

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now

Please let me know if you are not able to see the attachment files on Additional material. It should be 3 files.
<
This is a discussion assignment which you should read the article named “Vosberg v. Putney” and answer 2 questions asked about the article for almost half page. Also, there is student comment on the article which you should give your idea about what you think on the student comment. (participating in the discussion and student comment.)
<
<
Question 1. What do you think about the way we handle proving torts? Is breaking them into elements helpful or harmful? In Vosberg, we saw that one judge thought that “intention to do harm” should be an element of assault and battery, but eventually the court decided that was impractical. Take a look around the internet and see what people say about the elements of different torts. See if you agree with them or disagree. Would you include something else? Would you leave some things out? What might be the effect of changing the elements of a tort? Half Page
<
<
Question 2. We all read Vosberg v. Putney. Now, what do we think about the question of intent? Can you come up with a new definition of the word “intent” that helps to explain the result of this case? Can you think of sometimes that this definition could be helpful or harmful? What does this mean for us in a medical context? Is intended outcome useful or harmful to a discussion of who should be held responsible in medicine when something goes wrong? Half Page
<
<
<
<
Also, there is student comment on the this article which you should give your idea about what you think on the student comment. (participating in the discussion and student comment.) and give your comment on the student’s comment for minimum of 75 words.
<
Student Comment 1: Cambridge dictionary defines intent as being determined to do or achieve something. In law, the concept of intent means a determination to execute a specific act or act in a particular manner for a particular reason; an objective, or design; or a determination to utilize a particular method to achieve a particular goal. In the case of Vosberg v. Putney, we do not know the motive of the defendant when he kicked the plaintiff. However, the defendant did have an intention to kick the plaintiff. The kick was a wrongful act. Therefore, the defendant had liability for the injury. <
I think of the case Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road where the definition of intent could be harmful. In the case Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road, the platform guard did not have the intention to do harm to Mrs. Palsgraf as he just gave a push to help Harry. However, his action caused harmful consequences. Because of his unintentional act, Mrs. Palsgraft was no longer able to work and provide for her family. She could not receive any compensation from the Long Island Rail Road also. <
In the healthcare field, the definition of intent is not useful. The reason is most healthcare providers do not have the intent to harm the patients. Every healthcare procedure has its own danger. Every healthcare professional always tries their best not to harm patients but incidents will happen. In those situations, in order to determine who should be held responsible, we need to focus on other aspects rather than intention. <
<
<
<
Student comment 2: In my opinion, intent is the will to do something to get a result. In this case, and in any case, if there is no physical evidence of intent, it is tough to prove it. It is impossible to go inside the person’s mind and know what they thought when they did something. In the case of Vosbergn v. Putney, the unlawfulness of the action was found because of the place where the action took place (the classroom). However, whether there was intent or not is so hard to say. It is intangible, in my opinion, no one can really decide that for sure. I think that without physical evidence, intent is not useful for a case because it would be based on opinions.
<
<
In medicine, I think intent is also not useful unless physical evidence of ill intent is found against a health professional. I do not believe that health care workers, in their right mind, would ever intend to hurt a patient or to make a mistake.
<
<
<
Student comment 3: After reviewing this case, my definition of intent has definitely changed. I believe that doing any unlawful action instantly makes the intent unlawful. Therefore the act of striking another person makes the intent illegal and therefore the person performing the act consequences of such action.
<
<
Obviously, this definition is helpful in determining cases of battery. I can not currently think of a place where this definition would be a negative as it seems to help in any case of determining intent.
<
<
In a medical context, intended outcome is very useful information, especially if it comes down to the wrong procedure being ordered, or performed.
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
This is a discussion assignment which you should read the article named “Garratt v. Dailey and Fisher v. Carousel Motor Hotel” and answer the question asked about the article for about half page. Also, there is student comment on the article which you should give your idea about what you think on the student comment. (participating in the discussion and student comment.) for 75 words minimum.
<
<
Question 1. What do we think about the results in Garrett v Daly? What about kids and torts. How responsible should little people be for their actions? Is there a logical argument why children should be held responsible for their intentional acts while denied the rights of citizens? Does this mean that we have to let kids drink and vote if we want to hold them accountable? Or is there something broader happening here? Half Page
<
<
Student comment 1: I think it is hard to hold children responsible for their actions. We have to rely not only on intention to determine the liability but also on the severity of the action and the age of the defendant. I do realize that U.S law usually goes easy when the defendants are minors. For example, there was no charge filed when an eight years old boy in Connecticut bullied and threw a fireball into a six years old boy, Dominick Krankall, causing Krankall to suffer second and third-degree burns. Or a California minor was sentenced to five months to youth camp for admitting two felony counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and one felony count of a hit-and-run when running a car into a mother and her 8-month-old boy. However, with the development of technology and the internet, children today are far more developed in comparison to children twenty or thirty years ago. In my opinion, if we cannot hold the children responsible, we must hold their parents responsible, at least in finance. <
<

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now