Carefully consider the arguments for each side and the likely outcome. Explain in proper essay or legal analysis style (this will depend on the nature of question being asked) what the major issues are in each case, what legal contract principles would be argued for each side, and what a judge would probably ultimately decide.

Tort questions.

1. A seven-year-old boy followed his dog into Mr. Howe's backyard. The boy fell into a large hole dug by Mr. Howe in preparation for a tree that had been ordered. The boy broke his arm in the fall. At the hospital a doctor employed there for four years treated the boy. The doctor did not set the boy's arm because he failed to see on the x-ray any indication that the arm was broken. The arm healed improperly. When the boy kept complaining, his parents took him to the family doctor that discovered the break. The boy had his arm re-broken so that it could be set properly. On these facts, discuss the following:

a) Was the boy a trespasser? If so, does this mean that the owner of the land did not owe the boy a duty of care? b) Do we look to case law developed over hundreds of years to discover the applicable principles, or is there subsequent legislation? c) Did the doctor owe a duty of care to the boy? If so, what is the standard of care owed? Is it the same as that of a family doctor? d) Is the hospital solely liable for any harm suffered to the boy by the treatment by the doctor? e) Could the court hold the boy partially responsible for his injuries? If they did, what would be the consequence with respect to the finding of fault or award of damages? f) What if the boy suffered from a rare bone disease and there was little likelihood that the break would heal properly, if at all, with the result that the boy lost the use of his arm?

2. Beth and Alan had just left an expensive jewelry store in the Eaton's Center when they were stopped by the store detective who told them he was going to detain them until a police officer came to charge them with theft of a pair of emerald and diamond earrings. Beth was upset; felt compelled to wait and did wait. Alan, however, just walked away and left the shopping center. It turned out that the jewelry was still in the glass case in the store and not on Beth or Alan. On these facts, explain whether the following statements are true.

a) The detective had a reasonable belief that a theft had been committed and therefore cannot be sued. b) The detective wanted to hold them both and therefore, both Beth and Alan can sue him for nuisance. c) There was no crime committed and therefore, both Beth and Alan can sue him for false imprisonment. d) Beth could successfully sue both the store detective and the jewelry store-owner.