Tort and John

Then, please answer, in one to two paragraphs each, each of the following questions:

1) 1) What were the essential facts of that case?

2) 2) What are the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under North Carolina law?

3) 3) How were the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress applied to that case? In other words, explain why the court concluded that there was enough evidence to establish intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Please do not worry about or discuss the negligent retention issue. We’re only interested in the intentional infliction of emotional distress elements of this case.

John owns a zinc mine. Dana owns a zinc mine next door. John is mining zinc from underneath his own property. Unbeknownst to him, as he is mining, he and his employees cross the area under the border between his land and Dana’s so that John is mining beneath Dana’s land.

After doing this for a week, Dana tells John that he is beneath her land. John realizes she is correct and immediately stops his mining activities.

Dana sues John for trespass to land.

1) John claims that he is not liable for trespass to land because he did not conduct any activity that is above ground on Dana’s land. Based on the courseware and your own knowledge of tort law, explain why John is correct or incorrect. There is no need to cite any cases for this question.

2) John next claims that he is not liable for trespass to land because he did not intentionally mine under Dana’s land. Please find and cite a single case from Kentucky that is very comparable to our case.

3) In 2-3 paragraphs, discuss that Kentucky case and relate to the case to our case. In other words, tell me what the court should rule in John’s case based on the case you found and explain the connection.