In multimedia, watch the video "Woman Slaps Man, Rejects Advances." Then compose an analysis of any intentional torts present in the video. If you find that an intentional tort was committed, please indicate who committed the tort, the criteria for that tort to be successful, and how the actor's actions fit the requirements of the tort. https://youtu.be/WBflMuarvk4

According to the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell, "common intentional torts are battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress."
Here we definitely have a battery by the man against the woman. The elements of battery are (1) harmful or offensive, (2) contact, and (3) without consent. The woman is clearly offended by the man's "familiarities" in caressing her cheek and repulses his overture forcefully. With battery, the contact need not be harmful. If someone spits on a purse being held by a woman, that could be a battery. The contact must have been intentional; if the man had had a seizure and had touched the woman involuntarily, that would not be a battery.
However, when the woman slaps the man, was that also a battery? It was intentional and harmful contact, but in being so familiar, did the man consent to the possibility that he might be rejected with a slap, or did he waive his right to complain? An argument can be made for either battery or not against the man.
We may also have an assault, but only if the man intended that the woman fear or feel threatened by his contact. According to LII, assault "is generally defined as intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." A successful argument would show that the woman felt some fear or apprehension as the man moved forward to complete his contact. Again, there are arguments for and against.
We should also consider the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), not only by the man against the woman, but also by the woman against the man, because the woman tells the man she "once ruined a man's career," which implies she could also ruin his if she chose. According to the LII, the elements of IIED are that (1) the defendant acts, (2) does so outrageously, (3) the act is done for the purpose of causing harm so severe that it affects the plaintiff's mental health, and (4) the plaintiff's mental health is so affected by those acts. Here, the woman has indeed acted, but it is not clear that the other elements have been met. Likewise, the man appears to be aggressively flirting, but it would be hard to prove that he intended to cause mental harm to the woman.
A good law school answer to this question will go through all of the elements of battery, assault, and IIED and explain why the elements have or have not been met. But because the question asks about "intentional torts," an excellent answer would also briefly address the other intentional torts (false imprisonment, trespass to land and chattels) and why they do not apply in this case.

What is the significance of the ointment gift from Haymitch in The Hunger Games?

At this point in the plot, Katniss has been trapped in a tree by the Careers with a tracker jacker nest over her head. She has been badly burned and does not have much hope of escape or survival in her precarious situation. During the anthem, Katniss tries to saw the limb which holds the tracker jacker nest but doesn't quite finish before the anthem's conclusion. She slides back to her fork in the tree when she finds a gift: the ointment.
This is significant because it gives her hope in a couple of ways. First, she had begun to feel that Haymitch had given up on her. Now she is certain that he is outside the arena fighting for her and with her, securing gifts on her behalf. Second, it provides insight that she has a base of support outside the arena. This ointment is almost miraculous; it heals injuries on contact almost immediately. When Katniss rubs it on her wounds, it "transform[s] all the angry red patches to a soft baby-skin pink" and helps her leg wound as well, though that one takes a bit more medicine because it burned deeper.
Katniss realizes the extreme cost of such medicine and knows that "many sponsors have contributed to buy this one tiny pot." Since it provides her the physical ability to continue in the games, it is "priceless" to Katniss.

What is the purpose of the Sigemond and Heremod digressions?

The poet uses Sigemond and his killing of the dragon as a positive comparison with Beowulf even though the results of their respective fights are vastly different—Sigemond kills his dragon and takes the dragon's hoard whereas Beowulf kills the dragon and saves his kingdon, but dies in the process. The main point of the Heremod digression, however, is to point up the difference between a bad king, who fell victim to "floods of sorrow" and betrayed his duties as king, and Beowulf, who has already shown his ability to protect his people and his stronghold (Heorot). A secondary but perhaps equally important reason for the digression is to discuss kingship. Even though Beowulf's fight with Grendel appears as the centerpiece of the poem—the action that readers remember—it is just one episode in the long life of a king who ultimately is known and loved for having created a powerful and peaceful kingdom for the Geats and who dies protecting his people from evil (the dragon).
https://www.owleyes.org/text/beowulf/read/xiii

When was King Lear originally performed and published?

The first known performance of King Lear was on St. Stephen's Day (26 December) in 1606. It was first published in 1608, and also appears in the First Folio of 1623, a collection of 36 of Shakespeare's plays entitled Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies, edited by Shakespeare's colleagues John Heminges and Henry Condell.

What were impacts of Berlin conference on Europe?

There were two Berlin conferences that had impacts on European history. The more significant of the two occurred from 1884 to 1885. It dealt with the division of Africa into spheres of influence, occupation, and colonization. The second, far smaller one, took place in early 1954 and it attempted to determine the fate of occupied Germany and Austria after World War II (1939–1945).
Fourteen nations met at the first conference in Berlin. The fate of Africa was determined largely by four of the nations: Germany, France, Britain, and Portugal. These were the main colonial powers in Africa. Belgium and Italy would eventually colonize parts of Africa. The result of the conference was a disaster for Africa. The continent was divided arbitrarily in ways that did not reflect its ethnic or linguistic differences. African nations did not regain their sovereignty until after World War II.
After the defeat of Germany in 1945, that nation and Austria were divided into zones of occupation between America, Britain, France, and the USSR. In 1954, these four nations tried to agree on the political fate of occupied Germany and Austria. However, because of the Cold War, there was no agreement. This second conference ended in stalemate.

Describe the encounter between Beowulf and Grendel's mother.

Following the death of her son, Grendel's mother attacks Herot, kills Esher, and flees with her son's claw. Beowulf follows the monster to the entrance of her lair, which is at the bottom of a dangerous, monster-infested lake. He proceeds to put on woven mail armor to protect him from Grendel's mother's claws and leaps into the lake with Unferth's sword named Hrunting. Grendel's mother then grabs onto Beowulf and drags him into her underwater lair, which is actually a battle hall.
Beowulf initially strikes Grendel's mother's head with Hrunting, which does not harm the monster at all. He then throws away his ineffective sword and proceeds to fight Grendel's mother with his bare hands. The two engage in a long struggle, and Beowulf begins to tire. When Beowulf stumbles, Grendel's mother manages to stab him with a knife, but his chain-mail saves his life.
Beowulf then spots a magical ancient sword from the days of the giants on the wall of the battle hall and uses it to kill Grendel's mother by striking her in the neck with the sword. After Beowulf kills Grendel's mother, he proceeds to decapitate her and swims to the surface of the lake.

Why does Marian hide the apple?

Marian hides the apple before entering the old ladies' home. This tells us an awful lot about what kind of person she is. For Marian is a very selfish individual. She only visits old ladies' homes and similar institutions to gain points as a Campfire Girl. She doesn't turn up at these places out of the goodness of her heart or because she wants to help people, but simply to gain credit for being charitable. Her selfish motivations are reflected in the act of hiding the apple. Marian doesn't want to share the apple with any of the ladies in the home. They're already taking enough of her time; she'll be damned if they're getting any of her food as well.
The impurity of Marian's intentions is illustrated further when she emerges from the old ladies' home after a truly uncomfortable experience there. Marian retrieves her hidden apple and takes a large bite out of it. Just as Eve in the Garden of Eden sinned by eating of the Tree of Knowledge, so Marian has sinned through her selfishness and lack of concern for any of the old ladies at the home.