Why is this mоnument unusuаl? Apоdemus. CC-BY-SA 2.5.
At the bаse оr entry level оf the federаl cоurt system аre 94 _____.
Dr. Stevens, а surgeоn, recоmmends thаt his pаtient, Laura, undergо a minor laparoscopic procedure to remove her gallbladder. A laparoscopic procedure uses a small camera and instruments to allow for the smallest and most precise possible cuts. He assures Laura that the surgery is minimally invasive, involves small incisions, and has a quick recovery time. Laura consents to the laparoscopic surgery. Once in the operating room, Dr. Stevens discovers unexpected complications that make the laparoscopic approach impossible. Dr. Stevens therefore decides to proceed with an open surgery, which involves a large incision and significantly longer recovery time. Dr. Stevens believes this is in Laura's best interest and completes the surgery accordingly. After the surgery, Laura is upset to learn about the open procedure and the resulting scar. She sues Dr. Stevens for battery and assault. Which of the following is most accurate regarding Dr. Stevens's liability?
It is Hаllоween weekend. “Nightfаll Mаnоr,” a pоpular haunted house attraction, advertises itself as “the most terrifying experience in the state.” Evan, a 20-year-old college student, buys a ticket online. When he arrives, he sees a large sign at the front entrance that states "Nightfall Manor is designed to frighten and disturb. You consent to being exposed to sudden scares, simulated emergencies, and intense psychological experiences. You voluntarily assume all risks of emotional distress arising from your participation." Evan reads the sign, which is impossible to miss given its placement and large lettering, as he waits to enter the haunted house. Inside the haunted house, Evan walks through several rooms featuring actors dressed as monsters, loud noises, strobe lights, and fake blood. Although startled a few times, he laughs and says loudly to other guests at the haunted house “this is not scary at all; it's lame!” Near the end of the attraction, the lights suddenly turn on in a hallway. An actor dressed in normal clothes approaches Evan with a serious expression and asks, “Are you Evan Miller?” Surprised, Evan says yes. The actor responds, “You need to come with me. There’s been an emergency.” The actor escorts Evan into a small office area away from the main path. Another employee, who is also dressed normally, closes the door. The first actor tells Evan, in a solemn tone, that the haunted house has just received a call from a local hospital reporting that Evan’s parents were killed in a car accident on their way to pick him up. The employee adds that staff are “trying to get more details.” Evan becomes visibly shaken. He begins to cry, hyperventilate, and repeatedly asks for more information. The employees remain serious and do not break character. They tell him they are “doing everything they can.” Approximately 20 minutes pass while Evan remains in the office, extremely distressed. At one point he says he needs to leave immediately to go to the hospital. As Evan reaches for the door, the first employee starts laughing and says, “Relax, man. It’s all part of the show. Your parents are fine. We just wanted you to see how real we could make it, and that our show is definitely not 'lame.'” The lights flicker, spooky music resumes, and another actor ushers Evan back into the final room of the haunted house. Evan is furious and shaken. For several weeks afterward, he experiences nightmares, anxiety, and difficulty concentrating in class. He avoids Halloween events and reports feeling panicked whenever he receives phone calls from unknown numbers. He does not seek medical treatment but tells friends that the experience was “the worst 20 minutes of my life.” Evan files a tort lawsuit against Nightfall Manor. Analyze whether Evan has a strong prima facie Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim against Nightfall Manor, and whether Nightfall Manor has a strong consent defense against this claim. In drafting your analysis, be sure to attempt the following for each issue:(i) State the relevant legal issue and your conclusion (ii) State the relevant legal rule or rules for resolving the issue.(iii) Directly apply the rule or rules to the facts. (iv) Analogize or distinguish at least one relevant case.(v) Offer the best counter-argument to your analysis.