Kathy's Death-trap Party-Pad In the case "THE PARTY" many legal outcomes are possible. Firstly Kathy Pawluck, is entitled to sue on the grounds of trespass to reputation. Under this tort Kathy can pursue a Defamation lawsuit against the student editor of DSAC bulletin for Libel, (written) publishing a false statement about her in the DSAC bulletin, which was detrimental to her reputation. Under the three part test that may be conducted: (a) Was it false? (b) Was it published? (c) Was it detrimental? For the editor to make such a comment of "positive proof now exists that Kathy is engaged in fraudulentÃ¢ÂÂ¦." He did not have qualified privilege to make these malicious false statements. Kathy may also hold DeVry Canada Inc. for vicariously liable for the actions of the editor.
As for the party that took place at Kathy's house, Keith, Peter and Alan can sue her for being negligent in her social setting.
By not tightening the banister or fixing the exposed light socket, Kathy is very much demonstrating the idea of negligence Even though Kathy may have been unintentional in causing injury to Alan, who in turn injured Peter, according to the thin skull rule- Kathy must take her victim as she finds them. As well all three individuals(Alan, Peter and Keith) must prove to the courts that Kathy is negligent under general rule: 1. That the Defendant owed them a duty of care.
2. That the Defendant breached that duty.
3. That the Defendant conducts caused damage.
Another test that can be used to help courts "establish the standard for measuring acceptable behaviour is the concept of the reasonable person test"(Yates, pg 75) This test will allow the courts to see if the actions taken by Allan to save Keith from falling were reasonable or not.