Full Answer Section

1. Breach of Duty: The defendant’s conduct must have fallen below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in that situation. This means the defendant did something that a reasonably prudent person would not have done, or failed to do something that a reasonably prudent person would have done. ¹  

   1. law.justia.com

   law.justia.com
   • Example in a Business Setting: If the grocery store employee knew about a spill in the aisle but failed to clean it up or put up a warning sign, that would be a breach of their duty of care. If a toy manufacturer designs a toy with small parts that could easily be swallowed by a child, that would be a breach of their duty of care.

2. Causation: The defendant’s breach of duty must have actually caused the plaintiff’s harm. There are two aspects to causation:

   • Actual Cause (Cause-in-Fact): The “but for” test is often used. “But for” the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff would not have been injured.

     • Example in a Business Setting: If a customer slips and falls on the spill in the grocery store, “but for” the store employee’s failure to clean it up, the customer would not have been injured.

   • Proximate Cause (Legal Cause): The harm to the plaintiff must have been a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence. It can’t be too remote or far-fetched.

     • Example in a Business Setting: It’s foreseeable that a spill in a grocery aisle could cause someone to slip and fall. However, if the customer then gets up, runs out of the store, and is hit by a car, that’s probably not a foreseeable consequence of the store’s negligence (unless there are other contributing factors).

3. Damages: The plaintiff must have suffered actual harm or losses that are legally recognizable. This can include physical injuries, property damage, emotional distress, lost wages, and medical expenses.

   • Example in a Business Setting: The customer who slipped and fell in the grocery store can recover damages for their broken leg, medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost wages from missing work.

Franky Fraud’s Torts:

Franky Fraud has committed several torts:

1. Trademark Infringement: By using the name “Michael Jordan’s Spaghetti Sauce” and Michael Jordan’s image without permission, Franky is infringing on Michael Jordan’s trademark rights. This is a form of unfair competition.

2. False Advertising: The claim that the sauce will extend your life ten years is a false and misleading statement, which is illegal under consumer protection laws.

3. Product Liability (Negligence or Strict Liability): The razor blades in the sauce make it a defective product. If someone is injured by a razor blade, Franky could be liable for negligence (if he was careless in his manufacturing process) or strict product liability (which holds manufacturers liable for defective products regardless of fault). The presence of the razor blades is a breach of the duty of care he owes to consumers and has caused harm.

4. Potentially, Fraud: If Franky intentionally put the razor blades in the sauce, knowing they would cause harm, he could be liable for fraud. This would require proof of intent to deceive and cause harm. The false life extension claim could also be considered fraud if he knew it wasn’t true.

It’s important to note that these are just potential torts. Whether Franky is actually liable would depend on the specific facts of the case and would need to be determined in court.