Dina fact must be proven. The case

Dina DuVallAssignments& Exams Course: Torts& Personal Injury: PLG-101-1801 Assignment: Assignment 1 – based on classes 1 and 3  Assignment#1 Please read the following case: Watson v. Dixon, 130 N.

C. App. 47, 51 (N.C. Ct. App.1998).The case is available here:http://nationalparalegal.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

edu/uploads/118130_N_C__App__47__51.pdfThen,please answer, in one to two paragraphs each, each of the following questions:  1) What were the essentialfacts of that case?AnswerTheCase of Watson v. Dixon, 130 N.C.

App. 47, 51 (N.C. Ct. App.1998) the appeal overview stated, Sarah Joan Watson, Plaintiff, experiencedsexual harassment in the workplace by Bobby Dixon’s verbal lewd remarks.

  Sarah Joan Watson did not promote BobbyDixon’s undesirable physical touch and with other inappropriate conduct over aseries of several months.  Sarah alsoreported such conduct (on several occasions) to her employer and no action wastaken.  Accountability and responsibilityof the employer should have been in a series of immediate interviews. by allparties involved and to pursue disciplinary action (bullet points affectedsubject matter).  ·        EmotionalDistress·        EmploymentHarassment·        JudgmentNOV·        Ratificationby Employer·        Damagesand Remedies·        Punitivedamages·        VicariousLiability by Employer·        Relationshipto Award Against Employee 2)      Whatare the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under NorthCarolina law?AnswerUnder the North Carolina law, it’s stated that claimspertaining to a negligent infliction of emotional distress includes litigation specifics must provereasonable within the listed items 1) Defendants conduct is deemed negligent,2) the incident at hand is reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff hadexperienced emotional distress, such conduct is in fact must be proven.

 The case does in fact state a usual procedure and will involve plaintiff(s), employee(s) and will also be applicable tothe employer(s).  Within all states theelements required in torts include the negligence of the defendant and in the emotional injury toward the plaintiff.  The main elements for the Durham CountySuperior Court in North Carolina are the listed Elementsof intentional infliction pertaining to emotional distress·        ReasonableApprehension·        Immediate·        Battery,which is harmful or offensive contact 3) How were the elements ofintentional infliction of emotional distress applied to that case?  In other words, explain why the courtconcluded that there was enough evidence to establish intentional infliction ofemotional distress.

Please do not worry aboutor discuss the negligent retention issue. We’re only interested in theintentional infliction of emotional distress elements of this case.AnswerAllof the applicable elements were expressed in this case of Sarah Joan Watson,Plaintiff v.

Bobby Dixon and Duke University, Defendants.  The trial did not side for the defendants andon claiming for the plaintiff for intentional infliction of emotional distress againstthe employee of Duke University.  Thedefendant employer did not ague the harassment where defendants resisted onlythat the extreme and outrageous element of plaintiff’s claim was not met.Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidencetends to show that defendant Dixon began to harass Watson approximately onemonth from the date she began work; he frightened and humiliated her with cruelpractical jokes, which escalated to obscene comments and behavior of a sexualnature, which then escalated to unwanted touching of her person, finallyculminating in veiled threats to her personal safety; this behavior continuedvirtually unchecked for some seven or eight months; several of her coworkerstestified that plaintiff appeared emotionally upset while at work; andplaintiff eventually suffered a nervous breakdown.  ·        ForeseeabilityRule·        Zone ofDanger Rule·        ImpactRule·        Compliesto the impact ruleComplies to the zone of danger rule, or the “foreseeability”rule in order for it to be valid: Foreseeability Rule – The defendant must have been able to reasonably foresee that his or her actions would have caused the emotional distress (followed by most states). Zone of Danger Rule – The plaintiff was in a specific “zone of danger” and at risk of physical harm, causing fear.

Impact Rule – Defendant’s negligent act had at least a minor impact on the plaintiff, causing injury (very few states follow this). An IRAC-style essay is NOT necessary for thisassignment.