Task:

Read the following two scenarios and explain for each scenario, all the torts that have been committed, any arguments that can be used as a defence or to limit liability, and likely liability which will be imposed on each of the parties.

Scenario 1

Ramos, a local politician, read a newspaper article by Bronsky, an influential columnist writing in the evening paper, in which Bronsky mistakenly associated Ramos with some well-known people recently charged with illegal drug distribution. Bronsky had been given the information by a reliable source who had given him accurate information in the past, but the source had Ramos, the politician, mixed up with another person of the same name.

Unaware that an honest mistake had been made, Ramos was so infuriated by the article that he immediately went to the newspaper and forced his way into the building where Bronsky worked, kicked in the door to his, went over the desk, pointed his finger at him and yelled, “If you weren’t such a rotten little runt, I’d smash your face in.”

In a panic, Bronsky grabbed a heavy paperweight off his desk and when Ramos had his head turned as the other people in the office rushed in, Bronsky hit him over the head with the weight. Ramos was seriously injured.

Scenario 2

James was operating his cabin cruiser with his family a kilometre off the coast when he needed to go below to prepare a meal. He left his 12 year-old son to drive the boat. While James was below, the cruiser struck a small dark-cloured rubber dinghy which contained Ned, a driver in a wetsuit; who was resting between dives that he had been making in the area.

There were no marker buoys and the dinghy was difficult to see in the swells. (Ned’s diving companions had taken their boat to the nearest settlement to refill their tanks.) Ned suffered a leg injury in the collision. As soon as James heard the screams, he came up from below, stopped the boat and rescued Ned. It was clear that Ned leg was broken. James took Ned as quickly as possible back to the town, where Ned was immediately transferred to the local hospital.

Ned was admitted and examined by Dr. Green. The doctor noted and treated Ned for a broken ankle, but failed to notice that the leg had also been injured above the knee where a small bone protruded from the skin. Because of this failure the wound became infected and it became necessary to amputate the leg. Green was not a surgeon and so gave clear instructions to Dr. Blade, the local surgeon as to what was required.

In the operating room Blade got mixed-up and amputated the wrong leg. When the error was discovered, Blade then amputated the correct leg. Ned then sued the owner of the boat, his son who was driving at the time of the accident, Dr. Green, Blade and also the hospital for the injuries he suffered.

Scenario 1:

Torts Committed:
1. Defamation: Bronsky mistakenly associated Ramos with illegal drug distribution, which could harm Ramos' reputation.
2. Assault: Ramos kicked in the door, went over the desk, pointed his finger at Bronsky, and threatened to smash his face in.

Arguments for Defence/Limiting Liability:
1. Mistake of Fact: Bronsky had been given information by a reliable source, but the source had Ramos mixed up with another person of the same name. Bronsky can argue that he acted in good faith based on the information he received.
2. Self-Defence: When Ramos forced his way into the building and threatened Bronsky, Bronsky felt threatened and reacted in self-defence by hitting Ramos over the head with the paperweight.

Likely Liability:
- Ramos: Ramos may be liable for assault and could face legal consequences for his actions.
- Bronsky: Bronsky may not be liable for defamation due to the mistake of fact and may have a valid defence of self-defence against the assault claim. However, the extent of liability will depend on the legal jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case.

Scenario 2:

Torts Committed:
1. Negligence (James): James left his 12-year-old son to drive the boat, which resulted in a collision with Ned's dinghy.
2. Negligence (James): James failed to provide proper supervision while leaving the helm unattended.
3. Negligence (Dr. Green): Dr. Green failed to properly diagnose and treat the leg injury, which led to an infection and the need for amputation.
4. Medical Malpractice (Dr. Blade): Dr. Blade amputated the wrong leg initially, demonstrating negligence in the surgical procedure.

Arguments for Defence/Limiting Liability:
1. Contributory Negligence: Ned's lack of proper markers on the dinghy and the difficulty in spotting it in the swells could be argued as contributing to the collision.
2. Mistake/Oversight: Dr. Green can argue that the missed injury above the knee was an unintentional oversight.
3. Honest Mistake: Dr. Blade can argue that amputating the wrong leg was an honest mistake, but it should have been corrected immediately.

Likely Liability:
- James (owner of the boat): James may be liable for negligence in leaving his son unsupervised at the helm, resulting in the collision with Ned's dinghy.
- James' son (driver of the boat): Liability may depend on the laws regarding the age at which a person can legally operate a boat without supervision.
- Dr. Green: Dr. Green may be liable for negligence in failing to diagnose and treat the leg injury properly. The extent of liability will depend on the specific evidence presented.
- Dr. Blade: Dr. Blade may be liable for medical malpractice for amputating the wrong leg initially. The subsequent correct amputation may mitigate liability but not absolve it entirely.
- Hospital: The hospital may be held liable for the negligence of its staff members, including Dr. Green and Dr. Blade, depending on the specific legal jurisdiction and evidence provided.