Chapter 5Torts

Chapter 5Torts

22

§1: Basis of Tort Law§1: Basis of Tort Law

Doing business today involves risks, both legal and financial.

A tort is a civil injury designed to provide compensation for injury to a legally protected, tangible or intangible, interest.

There are intentional and unintentional (negligence) torts.

33

§2: Intentional Torts Against Persons and Business Relationships

§2: Intentional Torts Against Persons and Business Relationships

The person committing the tort, the Tortfeasor or Defendant, must “intend” to commit the act. Intend means:Tortfeasor intended the consequences of her act;

orShe knew with substantial certainty that certain

consequences would result.

44

Types of Intentional TortsTypes of Intentional Torts

Assault and Battery.False Imprisonment.Infliction of Emotional Distress.Defamation.Invasion of Privacy.Business Torts.

55

AssaultAssault

Intentional, unexcused act that:Creates a reasonable apprehension of fear, orImmediate harmful or offensive contact.

NO CONTACT NECESSARY.

66

BatteryBattery

Battery is the completion of the Assault:Intentional or Unexcused.Harmful, Offensive or Unwelcome.Physical Contact.

77

Defenses to Assault & Battery

Defenses to Assault & Battery

Consent.

Self-Defense (reasonable force).

Defense of Others (reasonable force).

Defense of Property.

88

False ImprisonmentFalse Imprisonment

The Intentional confinement or restraint.

Of another person’s activities.

Without justification.

Merchants may reasonably detain customers if there is probable cause.

99

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

An intentional act that is:Extreme and outrageous, thatResults in severe emotional distress in another.

Most courts require some physical symptom or illness.

1010

DefamationDefamation

Right to free speech is constrained by duty we owe each other to refrain from making false statements.Orally breaching this duty is slander; breaching it in print or media is libel.

1111

DefamationDefamation

Gravamen of defamation is the “publication” of a false statement that holds an individual up to hatred, contempt or ridicule in the community.

Publication requires communication to a 3rd party.

1212

Defamation-Damages [1]Defamation-Damages [1]

Damages for Libel.General Damages are presumed; Plaintiff does

not have to show actual injury. General damages include compensation for

disgrace, dishonor, humiliation, injury to reputation and emotional distress.

1313

Defamation-Damages [2]Defamation-Damages [2]

Damages for Slander.Rule: Plaintiff must prove “special damages”

(actual economic loss).Exceptions for Slander Per Se (loathsome

disease, business improprieties, serious crime, non-chaste).

1414

Defamation-DefensesDefamation-Defenses

Truth is generally an absolute defense.

Privileged (or Immune) Speech.Absolute: judicial & legislative proceedings.Qualified: Employee Evaluations.

1515

Defamation-Public FiguresDefamation-Public Figures

Public figures exercise substantial governmental power or are otherwise in the public limelight.To prevail, they must show “actual malice”: statement was made with either knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

1616

Invasion of PrivacyInvasion of Privacy

Every person has a fundamental right to solitude freedom from public scrutiny.Use of Person’s Name or Likeness.Intrusion on Individual’s Affairs or Seclusion.Publication of Information that Places a Person

in False Light.Public Disclosure of Private Facts.

1717

AppropriationAppropriation

Use of another’s name, likeness or other identifying characteristic for commercial purposes without the owner’s consent.

1818

FraudFraud

Fraudulent misrepresentation involves intentional deceit:Misrepresentation of material fact;Intent to induce another to rely;Justifiable reliance by innocent party;Damages as a result of reliance;Causal connection.

1919

Wrongful InterferenceWrongful InterferenceTort that interferes with a contractual relationship.

Occurs when:Defendant knows about contract between A and B; Intentionally induces either A or B to breach the

contract; andDefendant benefits from breach.

2020

Wrongful InterferenceWrongful Interference

With a Business Relationship occurs when:Established business relationship;Tortfeasor, using predatory methods, causes

relationship to end; andPlaintiff suffers damages.

Bona fide competitive behavior is a defense to this tort.

2121

§3: Intentional Torts to Property

§3: Intentional Torts to Property

Trespass to land occurs when a person, without permission:Physically enters onto, above or below the

surface of another’s land; orCauses anything to enter onto the land; orRemains, or permits anything to remain, on the

land.

2222

Intentional Torts to Property [2]

Intentional Torts to Property [2]

Trespass to personal property is the Intentional interference with another’s use or enjoyment of personal property without consent or privilege.Disparagement of Property.Slander of Title or Quality.

2323

§4: Negligence§4: Negligence

Tortfeasor does not intend the consequences of the act or believes they will occur.

Actor’s conduct merely creates a foreseeable risk of injury. Analysis:Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care;Defendant breached that duty;Plaintiff suffered legal injury;Defendant’s breach caused the injury.

2424

Duty of CareDuty of Care

Defendant owes duty to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable risks that Defendant knew or should have known about.Courts use reasonable person standard (jury) to determine whether duty exists.

2525

The consequences of an act are legally foreseeable if they are consequences that typically occur in the course of event. Whether an act is foreseeable is generally considered a matter of fact determined by the reasonable person standard (jury).

Duty of Care: ForeseeabilityDuty of Care: Foreseeability

2626

Duty of CareDuty of Care

Duty of care varies, based on the Defendant’s occupation, relationship to Plaintiff.Professionals may owe higher duty of care based on special education, skill or intelligence. Breach of duty is called professional malpractice.

2727

Injury and DamagesInjury and Damages

To recover, Plaintiff must show legally recognizable injury.Compensatory Damages are designed to reimburse Plaintiff for actual losses.Punitive Damages are designed to punish the tortfeasor and deter others from wrongdoing.

2828

CausationCausation

Even though a Tortfeasor owes a duty of care and breaches the duty of care, the act must have caused the Plaintiff’s injuries.Causation in Fact, andProximate Cause.

2929

Causation in FactCausation in Fact

Did the injury occur because of the Defendant’s act, or would the injury have occurred anyway?

Usually determined by the “but for” test, i.e., but for the Defendant’s act the injury would not have occurred.

3030

Proximate CausationProximate CausationAn act is the proximate (or legal) cause of the injury when the causal connection between the act and injury is strong enough to impose liability. Foreseeability of injury is an important factor. Think of proximate cause as an unbroken chain of events.

3131

Defenses to NegligenceDefenses to Negligence

Assumption of Risk.

Superceding Intervening Cause.

Contributory or Comparative Negligence.

3232

Assumption of RiskAssumption of RiskPlaintiff has adequate notice and understanding of the risks associated with an activity.He knowingly and willingly engages in the act anyway.Plaintiff, in the eyes of the law, assumes the risk of injuries that fall within the scope of the risk understood.

3333

Superceding CauseSuperceding Cause

A unforeseeable, intervening act that occurs after Defendant’s act that breaks the causal relationship between Defendant’s act and Plaintiff’s injury relieving Defendant of liability. If the intervening act was foreseeable, however, Defendant may be liable for Plaintiff’s injuries.

3434

Contributory Negligence [1]Contributory Negligence [1]

Under common law, if Plaintiff if any way caused his injury, he was barred from recovery.Most states have replaced contributory negligence with the doctrine of comparative negligence. The operative concept in comparative negligence is that one cannot recover from another for any injuries one has caused to oneself.

3535

Comparative NegligenceComparative Negligence

In determining liability, the amount of damages a Plaintiff causes to herself are subtracted from the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff, and only the remainder is recoverable from the Defendant. However, if Plaintiff is more than 50% liable, she recovers nothing.

3636

Special Negligence DoctrinesSpecial Negligence Doctrines

Res Ipsa Loquiter.

Negligence Per Se occurs when Defendant violates statute that causes injury to Plaintiff:Statute sets out standard of care.Plaintiff is member of class intended to be

protected by statute.Statute designed to prevent Plaintiff’s injury.

3737

Special Negligence StatutesSpecial Negligence Statutes

“Danger Invites Rescue” Doctrine.

Good Samaritan Statutes.

Dram Shop Acts.

3838

§5: Cyber Torts§5: Cyber Torts

Who should be liable for online defamation?Communications Decency Act shields online providers from liability. Zeran v. America Online (1997).

Piercing Veil of Anonymity—ISP’s can disclose personal info if ordered by a court.Liability for SPAM.CompuServe v. Cyber Promotions (1997).

Liablility for computer virus?

3939

Case 5.1: Roach v. Stern (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

FACTS:Roach (“Debbie Tay”) was a guest on The Howard Stern

Show on which she discussed her purported sexual encounters with female aliens.

After Tay’s death, her sister had Tay’s body cremated and gave a portion of the remains to Tay’s friend, Chaunce Hayden.

Hayden later appeared on Stern’s show and the participants in the program handled and joked about Tay’s remains.

Tay’s brother and sister sued Stern for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Court dismissed the case and Plaintiffs appealed.

4040

HELD: REVERSED. FOR TAY/PLAINTIFFS.“[T]o impose liability for the tort of

intentional infliction of emotional distress, the conduct complained of must be:

• so outrageous in character, and • so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible

bounds of decency, and • to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly

intolerable in a civilized community.” In this case, the plaintiffs sufficiently

pleaded a cause of action, including the element of outrageous conduct.

Case 5.1: Roach v. Stern (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

4141

5.2: Tiberino v. Spokane County(Invasion of Privacy)

FACTS:Tiberino worked for Spokane County, Washington.

According to county policy, the employer could monitor all e-mail and county equipment was not for personal use.

Tiberino was later discharged for unsatisfactory work performance related to her use of e-mail for personal matters and threatened to sue the county.

The media asked ex-employer for copies of the e-mail.

Tiberino sued the county to stop the release. The court refused to stop it. Tiberino appealed.

4242

HELD: REVERSED. FOR TIBERINO.Although Tiberino’s e-mail messages were

“public records,” that they were exempt from public disclosure as personal information.

“[T]he public has an interest in seeing that public employees are not spending their time on the public payroll pursuing personal interests. But it is the amount of time spent on personal matters, not the content of personal e-mails or phone calls or conversations, that is of public interest.”

5.2: Tiberino v. Spokane County(Invasion of Privacy)

4343

5.3: Martin v. WalMart Stores(Duty of Care)

FACTS:While shopping at Wal-mart, Martin slipped on

some loose shotgun shell pellets next to a display of the shells in the main aisle (“action alley”) and fell. At the time, the department was understaffed.

Martin suffered permanent injuries. to his legs and feet that doctors diagnosed as permanent.

Martin sued Wal-Mart and the jury found for Martin. Wal-mart appealed. seeking damages. The jury found in his favor, and the court denied Wal-Mart’s motion for a directed verdict. Wal-Mart appealed.

4444

HELD: AFFIRMED. FOR MARTIN.Eight Circuit held this case involved the self-

service store exception to the traditional slip-and-fall rule.

A self-service store has notice that certain dangers arising through customer involvement are likely to occur and has a duty to anticipate them.

Here, Wal-Mart had constructive notice of the pellets on the floor in the main aisle because it was foreseeable that merchandise would spill.

Wal-Mart owed duty of care to maintain sufficient staffing and protect the aisles.

5.3: Martin v. WalMart Stores(Duty of Care)

4545

Case 5.4: Palsgraf v. Long Island RR(Foreseeability and Proximate Cause)

FACTS:Man carrying a unmarked package tried to

board a moving train from a crowded station platform, railroad employees on the train and the platform tried to help him.

The man dropped his package, which contained fireworks, and it exploded, causing scales on the platform to fall on Mrs. Palsgraf, injuring her.

Palsgraf sued. Court held for Palsgraf. Railroad appealed.

4646

HELD: REVERSED. FOR RAILROAD.The question before the appellate court was as follows:

Does the duty of care extend only to those who may be injured as a result of a foreseeable risk, or does it extend also to a person who is outside the zone of danger and whose injury could not reasonably have been foreseen?

The railroad was not negligent toward her because “[n]othing in the situation gave notice ” of the risk to Palsgraf.

The conduct of the railroad employees may have been negligent to ward the man with the package, but it was not a wrong in relation to Palsgraf who was standing far away.

Case 5.4: Palsgraf v. Long Island RR(Foreseeability and Proximate Cause)