DEMAND LETTER

Confidential and Personal

Attorney Leffler,

Katie Miller has retained our professional legal services regarding her civil assault and battery
claims against your client Steve Trapp. Our firm only agreed to take such case because Miller
has solid and meritorious claims for assault and battery. The claims in this matter is very serious
and would definitely subject your client Trapp to extensive monetary damages.

The purpose of this letter is to make a good faith effort in settling this matter as an favorable
alternative for both parties. Our client Miller would like this matter to be resolved as soon as
possible and it would be favorable to your client to avoid a judgement against him subjecting
him to pay our client monetary damages determined by the jury. This letter will show your
clients clear liability in relation to our clients claims of damages.

Statement of Facts
1. Trapp does not recall even touching Miller.
2. Trapp is a famous and well-respected musician
3. Trapp generously
4. Trapp looked at Miller and yelled, get out of my way little punk or Ill beat the hell out of you.
5. Trapp pulled so hard on Miller by grabbing her cellphone in front of the crowd

Liability

An actor is subject to liability to another for the tort of battery if he or she acts intending to cause
a harmful or offensive contact, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact and a harmful or
offensive contact results. To prevail on a civil battery claim, the plaintiff must show that he or
she did not consent to (or give apparent consent to) the defendant's contact. Horton v. Suzuki
Consent and apparent consent are relevant to whether there was in fact a harmful or offensive
contact. Id.

In Horton, the plaintiff may have consented to a certain amount of harmful or offensive contact
during his karate instruction. Id. Nothing in the record, however, indicates that Horton
consented to being struck on the cheek by his instructor after class had been dismissed. Id.
Suzuki also argues that he is not liable for battery because he did not intend to harm or offend
Horton. Id. In Franklin, for a plaintiff to prevail on a battery claim, it is sufficient that defendant
intended to cause a contact that turned out to be harmful or offensive. Id.

Here, your client intended to cause a contact that turned out to be harmful or offensive when he
yelled, get out of my way little punk or Ill beat the hell out of you. Miller did not consent to such
touch by your client. A jury can also infer that he intended to cause an imminent apprehension
of such contact by his words. Therefore, liability is clear regarding our clients claim for battery
because your client intended to cause such apprehension or contact by his words he conveyed
at the concert to Miller.

Another issue of liability in regards to our clients claim is her humiliation and indignity claim in
regards to the battery committed by your client. The jury found in Polk v. Eugene that Eugene
forcibly dispossessed plaintiff of his dinner plate and shouted in a loud and offensive manner
that Polk could not be served there, thus subjecting Polk to humiliation and indignity and $3,000
in punitive damages. It has been long settled that actual physical contact is not necessary to
constitute a battery. Under the facts in Polk the court had no difficulty in holding that the
intentional grabbing of Polks place constituted battery. Id.

Here, Miller was definitely humiliated when your client pulled so hard on her in front of the
crowd. Furthermore, Trapp has been her idol since since started playing with the Revengers so
her humiliation was suffered to a great extent.

Although there may be no direct touching your client act still constitutes a battery, In Riley, this
court held that the snatching of an object from ones hand constituted a battery. Riley v. Adams
(Franklin Sup. Ct. 1960) In Riley, the court explained that to constitute a battery, it is not
necessary to touch the plaintiffs body or even his clothing. Id.

Here, Trapp grabbed the phone out of Millers hand with such a force to cause her to dislocate
her shoulder. Such a contact is sufficient in establishing a battery and imposing such liability.

An actor is subjected to liability for assault if he acts intending to cause a battery of imminent
apprehension of a battery and the plaintiff is well-founded apprehension of an imminent battery.
Brown v. Orr The court in Brown stated that words alone cannot constitute an assault. Id.
However, they may give meaning to an act, and when taking together, they may create a
well-founded fear of an imminent battery. Id

Here, the words that Trapp will beat the hell out of you and by raising his arm rise to the level
significant enough to put Miller in real apprehension of a battery or apprehension of such. Based
on the words, Trapps conduct of shouting such threats, and raising his arm at her caused
well-founded apprehension of an imminent battery.

Based on the asserted liability above, Trapp will be liable to Miller for battery because of his
words, conduct, and action which in aggregation caused assault as well as the requisite intent
for being held liable for a battery.

Demand
Our client has been suffering from pain and suffering, and has incurred $5,000 in medical bills
as a result of your clients negligence. If this case gets submitted before a jury Miller will be
entitled to compensatory damages which include her medical expenses, lost wages, and pain
and suffering. These damages are recoverable based on the asserted liability above and are
mandatory. Punitive damages will likely be impose on your client as well if the case gets
submitted to a jury because your client Trapps conduct was outrageous and ill intended. As of
now, Miller missed a week of work, and had to replace the cellphone your client damaged in the
amount of $500.

In the spirit of negotiating in good faith we will be willing to settle this claim for $__________.
In particular, we are seeking $_________ for compensatory damage, and $_________ for
punitive damages.

In accordance with the laws of Franklin, a response to this offer must be submitted to our
attention by March 7, 2016. This will give you considerable amount of time to evaluate the legal
merits presented in this demand. If no offer is received by March 7, 2016 we will consider the
offer void and will pursue with litigation of this matter.

Signed ________________ Date___________

TIMOTHY HOWARD

[SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Stuart, Parks & Howard

Attorneys at Law
1500 Clark Street
Franklin City, Franklin 33007

MEMORANDUM

To: Timothy Howard, Partner

From: Examinee
Date: February 23, 2016
Re: Katie Miller

INTRODUCTION

You have asked me to write this brief memorandum setting forth my recommendation of the
specific amounts along with the rationale for these amounts for each category. For intentional
torts like assault and battery, a plaintiff may seek two kinds of damages: compensatory and
punitive. Horton v. Suzuki The following discussion will provide such rationale in regards to the
recoverable compensatory and punitive damages our client may recover.
 DISCUSSION

I. Compensatory Damages
Compensatory damages may include medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Id.
Pain and suffering includes physical pain as well as mental suffering such as insult and
indignity, hurt feelings, and fright caused by the battery. Id. Mental suffering may be inferred
from proof of fright caused by a sudden, unprovoked, and unjustifiable battery. Id. There is no
mathematical formula for assessing the value of pain and suffering; that determination is left to
the sound discretion of the trier of facts. Compensatory damages are mandatory. Polk v.
Eugene Once liability is found, the jury is required to award compensatory damages in an
amount appropriate to compensate the plaintiff for his loss. Id.

In Horton, the plaintiff suffered a cut on the inside of his mouth which became infected, and for
which he incurred only $1,500 in medical expenses. Id. The court properly found that Suzuki
committed battery and awarded Horton $7,500 in compensatory damages: $1,500 for medical
expenses and $6,000 for pain and suffering. Here, our clients medical expenses are $5,000
and she would likely recover such amount based on the cases above and the merits of this
case. Therefore, I strongly recommend that our client to recover $5,000 in medical expenses for
her compensatory damages, and $50,000 for her pain and suffering.

II. Punitive Damages

It has been long established in Franklin that punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that
is outrageous because of the defendants evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of
others. Polk v. Eugene Punitive damages are awarded in the jurys discretion to punish the
defendant for his outrageous conduct and to deter him and others from similar conduct in the
future. Id. In assessing punitive damages, the trier of fact can properly consider (a) the
character of the defendants act, namely whether it is of the sort that calls for deterrence and
punishment; (b) the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or
intended to cause; and (c) the wealth of the defendant.

In Polk v. Eugene,the jury found that Eugene acted with an evil motive and a reckless disregard
of Polks rights and feelings. The jury awarded $3,000 in punitive damages to the plaintiff. The
punitive damages awarded were only three times the amount of compensatory damages and
within the State Farm v. Campbell guideline. The facts in the demand show such liability against
Trapp and entitlement to Miller for punitive damages.

Based on the legal analysis above and the facts alleged in the demand letter, I believe that
$6,000 would be sufficient in recovery for compensatory damage, and $18,000 (three times
compensatory) for punitive damages.