In order to properly address the pertinent legal issues to the parties, it is important to break up the potential tort liability to each individual party. This paper will be broken up into the potential torts faced by the intruder, Sharon & Daryl, and Spring Field Arms Apartments. This way, each party will have a clear understanding of where they may in fact be liable.
The Intruder:
The intruder will be potentially liable for burglary. Additionally, the intruder is also potentially liable for battery and assault charges based on the injuries sustained by Sharon & Daryl who were arguably combating the intruder by self defense. Each of these potential torts will be carefully analyzed in order to ascertain the different theories of liability.
The next offenses that the Intruder could be guilty of are larceny or assault and battery. What is likely to be shown in the case at hand is that the burglar obviously was planning on taking some of the private property of Sharon. However, where the challenge lies is proving the potential assault and battery. The reason that this is challenging is that Sharon and Daryl clearly were in the position to defend themselves against force, thus, it has to be shown that the Intruder committed an assault or a battery.
Assault is classically defined as any intentional act in which a person is put in the position to fear that they are about to experience physical harm, (Bergman, P., 2016). The key element of proving an assault claim is the intent to put the other in the imminent fear that immediate harm will come to them, (Bergman, P., 2016). It will have to be shown that the Intruder put Sharon in this kind of imminent fear. Thus, a determination will have to be made with the facts if this theory applies. In order to prove battery, it has to be shown that a harmful and offensive contact occurred that was no consented by Sharon, (Bergman, P., 2016). This is likely to be proven quite easily because there is some evidence in the facts that the Intruder did strike Sharon and Daryl due to the injuries they endured.
Sharon & Daryl:
When considering the potential liability of Sharon & Daryl, it is important to focus on Daryl. The reason for this is that Daryl was acting within the scope of his employment. There is a doctrine pertaining to Respondeat Superior that holds the company liable if the agent was acting within the scope of their employment. This could make Spring Field Arms Apartments liable if it could be shown that Daryl used more force than was warranted by the situation.
If Daryl came to Sharon’s aide and helped her against the Intruder who was committing an assault or battery, the reason for this is that Daryl would be able to transfer Sharon’s self defense claim to make him not liable through the doctrine of transferred intent, (Doctrine of Transferred Intent, 2016). This would then not make Spring Field Arms Apartments not liable for the damages that Daryl potentially caused to the Intruder when he came to Sharon’s aide during the scope of his employment, (Doctrine of Transferred Intent, 2016).
In order for this theory to work under Respondeat Superior, it would have to be shown that Sharon was entitled to use self defense. Many jurisdictions have differing legislation on when self defense is warranted. Given that this was was a break in and there was some evidence of a struggle, it is likely proving an assault or battery will not be difficult; however, it will take a determination of the facts in order to determine whether there was in fact an assault and battery sufficient to satisfy the statute. Since we see what appears to have transpired in Sharon and Daryl’s defense to defend the apartment and themselves, it is highly likely that the Spring Fields Arms Apartments will not be liable under Respondeat Superior due to the Doctrine of Transferred Intent. This will be an enormous help to the case of the Spring Fields Apartment Building because employers can be at a major risk when they are hiring personnel. Employers are particularly at risk when they have legal issues that stem from their employees being negligent or committing felonies.
Pertaining to Sharon’s rights, Sharon could make the argument that Spring Fields Arms Apartments would be liable for not properly protecting her in her unit. However, this argument would be very far-fetched because under the leasing agreement, the apartment building does not necessarily have the responsibility if there is an Intruder unless there is evidence that the apartment building hired that person, which is highly unlikely. Thus, the apartment building really does not have any liability to Sharon.
For instance, had Daryl decided not to help Sharon in the scope of his employment for the apartment building, then it is highly likely that Sharon could recover against the apartment building for negligence; however, in order to do that she would have to prove that there was a duty, it was breached, and the damage was caused by that breach of duty. In this particular case, it would be difficult to establish this because Daryl did hear Sharon’s scream and did decide to try to come to her rescue.
In general, the apartment building has to be careful to ensure that their property is properly secured. They should ideally be instilling security provisions that are required from their residents to prevent break ins. Given that break ins are something that are a freak accident based on an Intruder’s intent, it is difficult to anticipate them; however, it is the duty of the apartment building to try to prevent these incidents as much as possible. For example, Sharon could argue that the apartment building should have had security forces guarding the property and that was negligence. This could be argued but it would he a difficult case to prove.
What is important to understand about this situation is that the apartment building is likely only going to be liable if it can be shown that Sharon was not entitled to self defense against the Intruder’s assault or battery. If this charge fails, then the apartment building could be liable against the Intruder for the medical expenses that were caused by their employee Daryl. The Defense will try to argue that there was no transferred intent and thus, the entire liability of the apartment building is going to ride on whether the transferred intent doctrine can be successfully applied.
In general, employers have to be quite careful about how they educate their employees because their employee’s actions can cause them legal liability. This is often forgotten and neglected in the hiring screening process. Particularly with residential properties, the employees have to be prepared for a potential break in and how to respond to that so that the apartment building is not liable. This is done through proper employee training in order to minimize liability. If more employers do this, they will find that they will be surprisingly less liable when these unfortunate incidents arise and will have more protection for their business overall.
References
Bergman, P. (2016). Assault, Battery, and Aggravated Assault. Nolo. Retrieved from: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/assault-battery-aggravated-assault-33775.html/.
Burglary. (2016). National Paralegal. Retrieved from: http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/againstHome/Burglary.asp/.
Burglary – Elements of the Offense. (2016). LawJRank. Retrieved from: http://law.jrank.org/pages/4930/Burglary-Elements-Offense.html/.
Doctrine of Transferred Intent. (2016). National Parallegal College. Retrieved from: http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/torts/againstProperty/transferredIntent.asp/.
Understanding Respondeat Superior. (2016). Hofsra University. Retrieved from: https://people.hofstra.edu/Daniel_J_Greenwood/Courses/Torts/RespondeatSuperior.htm/.
