Practice BLAW 060 EXAM 1

Claude, a creditor seeking to collect a debt, calls Dianne and demands payment in a rude and insolent manner. When Dianne says that she cannot pay, Claude calls Dianne a deadbeat and says that he will never trust her again. Dianne sues Claude for defamation. Will she win? Why?

1. Defamation. In order for Dianne, a private plaintiff, to win a defamation case she must prove four things. A. There was a defamatory statement -a statement insinuating facts that are likely to harm the plaintiff's reputation. • He insinuated fact when he called her a deadbeat. This is likely to harm someone's reputation (if heard by others). B. The defamatory statement must be false. • There is nothing false about what he said, she didn't make the payment. So this element fails. C. The defamatory statement was intentionally/purposefully false or negligently (think carelessly) false. • Because there isn't anything false about what he said, and because most of what he said about not trusting her is an opinion, she would fail to prove this element. D. The defamatory statement must be communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. • There is insufficient evidence to prove this element because Claude only told her, the plantiff. Because she cannot prove all the elements of her defamation claim, she loses.

A "reasonable person standard" does not apply to children since they do not have the judgment, intelligence, knowledge, or experience of adults.

FALSE

A defendant will be liable for all harm that can be traced back to the defendant's negligence.

FALSE

A person who falls asleep while driving would not be liable for any resulting injury since it would be an unavoidable accident

FALSE

A tornado lifts Brett's properly constructed house from Brett's land and deposits it on Jeff's land. Jeff sues Brett for trespass on real property. He has a strong chance of proving his case.

FALSE

A violation of a statute constitutes negligence per se regardless of whether the injured party is a member of the class

FALSE

An ordinary person standard determines whether allegedly negligent conduct resulted in a breach of a duty of care

FALSE

By law, bystanders are always required to help others in peril

FALSE

Chip, a creditor, seeking to collect a debt, calls Teddy and demands payment in a rude and insolent manner. When Teddy says that he cannot pay, Chip calls Teddy a deadbeat, and says that he will never trust Teddy again. Teddy has a great claim for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

FALSE

Dave is drunk on the public street. Tim takes his photograph in that condition. If Dave sues Tim for intrusion, he has an excellent chance of winning his case

FALSE

Deontological theories assess good and evil in terms of consequences of actions

FALSE

Deontological theories assess good and evil in terms of the consequences of actions

FALSE

Deontology, the 18th century philosophy of Immanuel Kant, is based on the idea that we are always morally obligated to do what is best for the individual.

FALSE

Dwight drives his automobile very close to the curb for the purpose of frightening Meredith, a pedestrian on the nearby sidewalk. Meredith is put in fear of her bodily safety but is otherwise unharmed. Meredith has a great claim for the tort of battery.

FALSE

Fred locks Georges, a tall and athletic young man, in a room with an open window at a height of four feet from the floor and from the ground outside. Georges cries over the confinement. Georges has a very strong case for the tort of false imprisonment.

FALSE

Goodwill, in the context of business ethics, is an implicit agreement among all members of the business community to cooperate for social benefits

FALSE

If a raccoon gets loose from a cage and harms someone, the owner can escape liability that he took great care to keep the animal confined.

FALSE

Integrity, in the context of business ethics, can best be described as the quality of being morally right or justifiable.

FALSE

Josh, intending to frighten Brett, discharges a pistol behind his ear. Brett, who is deaf and blind, does not hear the pistol, and does not discover what has happened until someone tells him later. Brett has a strong claim for the tort of Assault.

FALSE

Kyle makes a telephone call to customer service but is unable to get his problem solved. In the course of an altercation with the customer service operator, Kyle calls her a "dumb woman" and a liar. Because all of the conversations with the company are recorded, her supervisor hears the conversation. She is not punished or reprimanded in any way, but she suffers severe emotional distress, broods over the incident, is unable to sleep, and is made ill. She has a great claim the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

FALSE

Michael drives an automobile through a city street. Being engrossed in conversation with Ryan, he does not see Pam, a pedestrian, who, seeing Michael's car approaching, steps aside. The mudguard brushes Pam's coat and the wheels splash mud in Pam's face. Pam has a great claim for the tort of battery.

FALSE

A statute requires all vessels traveling on the Great Lakes to provide lifeboats. One of Winston Steamship Company's boats is sent out of port without a lifeboat. Perry, a sailor, falls overboard in a storm so heavy that had there been a lifeboat, it could not have been launched. Perry drowns. Is Winston liable to Perry's estate in a claim for negligence? Why?

In order to prove negligence, Perry's estate must prove 5 things: 1) Duty of care, 2) breach of duty of care, 3) injury to plaintiff or plaintiff's property, 4) actual cause, and 5) foreseeability/zone of danger. 1. In this case there was a duty of care established by statute, so this is a negligence per se scenario. There are three steps to establish a duty by negligence per se. There must be a clearly defined statute, the statute must have been intended to prevent the type of harm the defendant's act or omission caused, and the plaintiff must be a member of the class of persons the statute or regulation was intended to protect. Here the statute clearly stated that the craft was supposed to have a life boat. Life boats are obviously supposed to help prevent drowning. And the people on the boat were the class of people that were supposed to be protected by the statute. 2. The duty of care was breached when there was no life boat. 3. Perry was killed, so there was definitely an injury. 4. There is no factual cause here because, as stated by the problem, the harm would have occurred even if they had the lifeboats. So the breach of duty of care is not what actually caused the injury. 5. It is foreseeable that people on the boat could drown if there is no lifeboat to save them. So they are within the zone of danger. Because Perry's estate cannot prove step 4, the case will be lost.

Joan would be able to sue on 4 different torts: invasion of privacy tort, intrusion tort, public disclosure of private facts tort, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Invasion of privacy tort includes the recognition that an individual has the right to privacy. In this situation Joan did not get her right to privacy from Carol. Joan's privacy was invaded the second carol came into the room. For this tort to be satisfied we need to prove that Carol unlawfully intruded into a private area (Joan's room), disclosed private facts about Joan to the public, publicly put Joan in a false viewpoint for the public, and use appropriation for the Carol's advantage. Even though Carol knew that Joan did not want her to come into the room, she still did. The room was a private area for Joan and Carol intruded. Carol did this for her own gain, to have a good story about this rare disease. Even though Carol would be able to get information for her article it will not necessarily reflect Joan in a good light. Carol could write badly about the rare disease and how people need to stay away from Joan when in fact that information is not true. Carol took advantage of Joan being stuck in her private room while being treated for the rare disease for her own advantage, a good story. This proves that Joan can sue for this tort. The room should be an area Joan feels safe. This is where the intrusion tort comes into play. To satisfy this tort we have to prove that Carol intentionally invaded the private affairs of Joan, is offensive to a reasonable person, involves a private matter, and caused mental anguish or suffering. Carol busted into the room and intruded on Joan while she was being treated for the rare disease she has. Joan expected that the room would be secluded from other people/public but Carol intentionally intrudes for her benefit, the story. This tort has to be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Especially with the fact that Joan is dealing with a rare disease this is highly offensive. So imagine that Joan had private hospital records on the table beside her and Carol caught sight of information about her rare disease. The rare disease is a private matter that should not be publicized. Carol does not have authorization to look at this information and could cause more harm with the information of the records. When the story that Carol published, Joan could suffer from fear that friends/family will start avoiding her in fear of the disease. Joan would suffer from mental anguish in fear of what would happen when the word gets out. This tort is satisfied and Joan can sue. Now that Carol has caught sight of Joan's private health records, she plans to write the best story about it and make it public. This is where the public disclosure of private facts becomes involved. To satisfy this tort, there has to be a public disclosure concerning private facts, that would offend the normal person, was not of interest to the public, and was published disregard for their truth. Carol went in for a story about the disease and was determined to have the best store whether it was legal or not. Health records are private information and is highly offensive to the average person if it were to be publicized. Carol intentionally publicized the health records even though Joan had the expectation that the information would remain confidential. Carol disclosed private facts in her story to the public. She was so concerned about getting a story that it did not matter whether it was true or false. Even then a rare disease is not that interesting of a story to barge into a private room for a story. Therefore, this tort is satisfied, allowing Joan to sue. And to bounce off of the publicized private information, Joan could also sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To satisfy this tort, Carol must act intentionally or recklessly, it was conducted in an extreme and outrageous manner, and was the cause for severe emotional distress. Carol intentionally went into Joan's room even after Joan said no to the interview. Even after Joan said no to the interview Carol still recklessly intruded on Joan. It was outrageous conduct because the way Carol acted to get the story and photos was inappropriate, especially after Joan said no and objected. So with Carol coming in and intentionally barging into Joan's private space this freaked Joan out and now she is crying hysterically and has started having bad nightmares. Joan even freaks out when anyone, including doctors, come into her room. This proves that Joan can sue for this tort.

NA Joan, a patient confined in a hospital, has a rare disease that is of great interest to the public. Carol, a television reporter, requests Joan to consent to an interview. Joan refuses, but Carol, nonetheless, enters Joan's room over her objection and photographs her. Joan brings a suit against Carol. Joan would like to sue for 4 different torts.

A blind person will be held to the standard of care of the reasonable blind person rather than that of the reasonable sighted person for purposes of determining negligence.

TRUE

Alex locks Sam in a room, although Sam could still get out if she crawled through an oil-filled tube that would surely ruin her clothing. Sam cries over the confinement. Sam has a strong claim for false imprisonment.

TRUE

Brody points a loaded pistol at Bruce's face and says, "Smile you son of a...." Before he can finish his sentence, Sarah knocks the pistol from his hand. Brody runs away. This was lucky for Bruce, because he was so shocked he did not have time to react. Bruce now wants to sue Brody for assault. He has an excellent claim for assault.

TRUE

Bronco Billy, an expert knife thrower, intending to frighten and impress Antoinette, who is leaning against a wall as she waits for her turn in the port-a-potty, throws a knife toward her not intending to hit her. Antoinette, though suspecting Billy's intention to just frighten her, does not share Billy's perfect confidence in his marksmanship and is put in apprehension of being struck by the knife. Antoinette has a great claim for assault.

TRUE

Compliance, in terms of business ethics, generally refers to the extent to which a company conducts its business operations in accordance with applicable regulations, statutes, and laws.

TRUE

Damages awarded in excess of normal compensation to punish a defendant for serious civil wrong are known as punitive damages

TRUE

Ferris, while hunting birds on a public pond, fires shot across Cameron's land close to the surface. The shot do not come to rest on Cameron's land, but fall into another public body of water on the other side of it. Cameron sues Ferris for Trespass on real property. He has a strong change of proving his case.

TRUE

For purposes of intentional torts, a person can have the intent to cause harm if the harm is substantially certain to occur even if he or she doesn't desire that such harm occur

TRUE

In applying the reasonable person standard, the court takes into account a person's physical, but not mental handicaps

TRUE

It is possible for legal acts to be immoral

TRUE

The ultimate result of the White v. Samsung case you read was positive for White because this court decided that the district court had improperly rejected her claim.

TRUE

Ty is playing golf. Danny, his caddie, is inattentive and Ty becomes angry. Intending to frighten but not to harm Danny, Ty aims a blow at him with a golf club which he stops some eight inches from Danny's head. Owing to an error of the club maker from whom Ty has just bought the club, the rivet which should have secured the head of the golf club is defective, though Ty could not have discovered the defect without removing the head. The head of the club flies off and strikes Danny in the eye, damaging the eye permanently. Danny has a great claim for the tort of battery.

TRUE

Under comparative negligence, the court apportions damages between parties in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence it finds against them.

TRUE

Utilitarian notions underlie cost-benefit analysis

TRUE

When applying the ethical framework we use in this class, the "business ethics checklist", it is important to discuss whether each alternative (1) could potentially violate any criminal statute AND (2) could possibly lead to civil liability.

TRUE

Alexis is an actress, noted for her beauty. Bubba Bread Company, seeking to advertise its bread, publishes in a newspaper a photograph of Alexis, under the caption, "Get that Beautiful Figure by Eating More of Bubba's Rye and Whole Wheat Bread." If Alexis were to sue, which intentional tort would give her the best chance of success? a. Appropriation b. Trespass on Personal Property c. Intrusion d. Defamation

a. Appropriation

What was the name of the intentional tort at issue in the White v. Samsung case? a. Common law right of publicity b. Defamation c. Malicious Prosecution d. Intrusion

a. Common law right of publicity

If there is a statute that defines how an individual should or should not act in a given situation, then the concept of ________ will allow a court to adopt the statute as the standard of conduct/duty of care.

a. Res Ipsa Loquitur b. Superseding Cause c. Negligence Per Se d. Last Clear Chance e. Licensee

Southern Bronzetones is the most popular tanning salon in town. Donna is a frequent customer. One day, being unreasonably careless, Donna spilled a bottle of slippery tanning oil on the floor. In the dimly lit salon, the clear oil was virtually invisible on the floor. Donna told the manager about the spilled oil, but the manager, who was frazzled from a busy day dealing with several malfunctioning tanning beds, neglected to clean it up or do anything about it. An hour or so later, Peter, a new customer, came along. He slipped on the oil and fell, leaving him with a broken arm and serious back injuries. Assume Peter sues Donna for negligence. Which of the following is the most correct analysis regarding the element of actual causation/factual causation in this case? a. The element is met because, but for Donna having spilled the tanning oil and the manager not cleaning it up, Peter would not have been injured. b. The element is not met because Peter was a foreseeable plaintiff. c. The element is met because Donna can be construed to have intended to injure Peter. d. The element is not met.

a. The element is met because, but for Donna having spilled the tanning oil and the manager not cleaning it up, Peter would not have been injured.

Under which ethical system would it be ethical to compel a few citizens to undergo painful or fatal medical tests in order to develop cures for the rest of the world? a. Utilitarianism. b. Ethical fundamentalism. c. Distributive justice. d. Libertarianism.

a. Utilitarianism.

In the White v. Samsung case, which party is the plaintiff? a. White b. Samsung c. Deutsch d. Goodwin

a. White

An action for negligence consists of five elements, each of which the plaintiff must prove. These elements include: a. injury b. res ipsa loquitur c. a reasonable person d. All of the above

a. injury

Mary's car was parked just outside the east door of the Civic Center. When she tried to exit, three ominous-looking gang members were blocking that door. She called the police who arrested the three for loitering. If Mary brings suit against them for false imprisonment: a. she will lose if there was another exit she could have used. b. she will lose because she was not harmed by the confinement. c. she will win even if there was another way out because she was, in effect, being confined to the Civic Center. d. she will win because they were blocking her passage to her car

a. she will lose if there was another exit she could have used.

Which of the following statements regarding a negligence case is correct? a. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was the factual cause of her injury even if the injury was not foreseeable b. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was both the factual cause of her injury as well as a foreseeable injury c. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act created a foreseeable danger even if it was not the factual cause of her injury d. a plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant's act either created a foreseeable danger or that the act was the factual cause of her injury

b. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was both the factual cause of her injury as well as a foreseeable injury

Ashley wrote a defamatory letter regarding Brian which she mailed to Brian, but which she did not show to anyone else. a. Ashley has committed the tort of slander. b. Ashley has committed the tort of libel. c. Ashley has committed neither libel nor slander, because there has been no publication of the letter.

c. Ashley has committed neither libel nor slander, because there has been no publication of the letter.

Mark is out sailing in his boat one evening when he hears a young girl crying for help in the middle of the river. Which of the following is true? a. Mark MUST help the girl or he will be liable for negligence b. Mark must help the girl ONLY if he knows her c. Mark MUST help the girl if he is the girl's uncle. d. Mark MUST help the girl if he begins to rescue her and increases her danger

d. Mark MUST help the girl if he begins to rescue her and increases her danger

Tina invites Harry into her apartment. Harry commits trespass to real property if he: a. Only if he enters the apartment with fraudulent intent. b. Harms the apartment in any way. c. Makes disparaging remarks about Tina to others. d. Refuses to leave when Tina asks him to go.

d. Refuses to leave when Tina asks him to go.

In which of the following situations would a landowner have liability to a trespasser? a. Where the landowner has rigged up a trap to injure anyone coming onto the property without permission. b. Where a landowner next to a nursery school has an unfenced swimming pool and one of the children falls into the pool. c. Where a trespasser trips over some lawn furniture in an unlighted backyard. d. Two of the above, (a) and (b)

d. Two of the above, (a) and (b)

Oscar has a place on his land where he piles trash. The pile has been there for three months. John, a neighbor of Oscar and without Oscar's consent or knowledge, throws trash onto the trashpile. Oscar learns that John has done this and sues him. What tort, if any, has John committed? Explain.

A person is liable for trespass to real property if he/she intentionally causes a thing or a third person to be placed on the land of another. The facts indicate that he threw trash on someone else's land. There is no evidence that this was an accident, therefore it was an intentional act. By throwing trash on someone else's land he has caused a "thing" to be placed on the land of another. So yes, the trespass to real property claim will be successful

Packer and Gabe walked into the Rusty Krab Tavern and sat on stools at the bar. After a few drinks, Gabe and Packer got into an argument. Gabe said, "Packer, you're a bucket of slime, and I hope you die a painful, horrible death." Packer left to use the restroom, and while he was gone, Gabe noticed that another bar patron, Jan, left a lit cigarette on Packer's stool. When Packer came back from the restroom, Gabe thought about warning Packer, but Gabe decided against it. Packer sat on the lit cigarette and received painful burns. Packer sued Gabe for negligence. Which of the following statements is most correct regarding Packer's negligence case against Gabe? a. Packer cannot recover because he cannot establish damages flowing from having sat on the cigarette, since merely "painful" injuries are not sufficient to establish damages in a negligence case. b. Packer cannot recover because he cannot establish that Gabe had a duty to act, and duty is a necessary element of a negligence case. c. Packer can recover. d. Packer cannot recover because he cannot establish that Gabe's failure to warn Packer of the cigarette is a but-for cause of Packer's injury, and actual causation is a necessary element of a negligence case.

b. Packer cannot recover because he cannot establish that Gabe had a duty to act, and duty is a necessary element of a negligence case.

Pat and Sally started a charcoal fire for sally's backyard barbecue and left it uncovered. Then Sally went into the kitchen to make hamburger patties. While Sally was inside, Pat backed up to catch a football and hit the grill, knocking the coals onto his feet. In a pure comparative negligence state, who is liable? a. Sally is liable for ALL of Pat's injuries b. Sally is liable for Pat's injuries in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence found against her c. Sally is not liable for any of Pat's injuries d. Sally is liable for Pat's injuries only if Pat was more negligent than Sally

b. Sally is liable for Pat's injuries in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence found against her

In the White v. Samsung Case, which party "won" the case when it was originally before the district court? a. White b. Samsung c. Goodwin d. Eastwoody

b. Samsung

Carl threw a bomb into the office of his insurance agent, intending to kill the agent because the company had disallowed his claim. The agent wasn't in the building, but the bomb seriously injured his secretary, who was working in the office. a. Carl cannot be liable to the secretary for any torts because he did not intend to hurt her. b. The intent to harm the agent is transferred to the secretary who can sue Carl for her injuries with an intentional tort cause of action c. Carl has committed a crime, but he is not liable for any torts d. Carl has committed the tort of intrusion

b. The intent to harm the agent is transferred to the secretary who can sue Carl for her injuries with an intentional tort cause of action

Claudia's baby daughter Karynne is snatched from her arms at the grocery store. The kidnapper threatens to drop the baby if the store does not hand over the contents of the vault. Claudia may: a. trip the kidnapper, because she is limited to nonlife-threatening force. b. shoot the kidnapper, since she can protect the baby in the same way as she can protect herself. c. not seriously harm the kidnapper, since she is not in danger. d. only call the police, since she cannot take the law into her own hands.

b. shoot the kidnapper, since she can protect the baby in the same way as she can protect herself.

Phil slips and falls in WallMart and is injured. Phil files a suit against WallMart for $50,000. If the jury determines Phil is 20 percent at fault and WallMart is 80 percent, under a contributory negligence doctrine, Phil would recover: a. $25,000 b. $40,000 c. $0 d. $50,000

c. $0

Southern Bronzetones is the most popular tanning salon in town. Donna is a frequent customer. One day, being unreasonably careless, Donna spilled a bottle of slippery tanning oil on the floor. In the dimly lit salon, the clear oil was virtually invisible on the floor. Donna told the manager about the spilled oil, but the manager, who was frazzled from a busy day dealing with several malfunctioning tanning beds, neglected to clean it up or do anything about it. An hour or so later, Peter, a new customer, came along. He slipped on the oil and fell, leaving him with a broken arm and serious back injuries. Assume Peter sues Southern Bronzetones for negligence. Which of the following is the most correct analysis regarding the element of breach of the duty of care in this case? a. The element is met because the spilled oil is the only cause of Peter's injuries. b. The element is met because the injury took place on Southern Bronzetones' premises, and companies are responsible for all injuries that happen on their premises. c. The element is met because Peter was an invitee, and Southern Bronzetones has a duty to warn of or make safe any known or reasonably knowable, concealed dangerous conditions. Southern Bronzetones knew about the condition with regard to the oil, because Daisy informed the manager. The condition was dangerous because it could hurt someone (as it did). And it was concealed because with dim lights, the clear oil was virtually invisible. d. The element is not met because Southern Bronzetones owed Peter no duty.

c. The element is met because Peter was an invitee, and Southern Bronzetones has a duty to warn of or make safe any known or reasonably knowable, concealed dangerous conditions. Southern Bronzetones knew about the condition with regard to the oil, because Daisy informed the manager. The condition was dangerous because it could hurt someone (as it did). And it was concealed because with dim lights, the clear oil was virtually invisible.

The White v. Samsung case you read was written by which court? a. California Court of Appeals b. District Court c. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit d. United States Supreme Court

c. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

If a statute is found to be applicable to a fact situation, then the courts will hold that an unexcused violation of that statute which causes an injury to another is: a. strict liability b. res ipsa loquitur c. negligence per se d. assumption of the risk

c. negligence per se

Arnie negligently stopped his car on the highway. Beth, who was driving along, saw Arnie's car in sufficient time to attempt to stop. However, Beth negligently put her foot on the accelerator instead of the brake and ran into Arnie's car a. Arnie's contributory negligence will prevent his recovery from Beth in all jurisdictions b. Beth had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and will bear legal responsibility for it c. Arnie has assumed the risk of the accident d. Because both parties were negligent, in a state that follows the comparative negligence doctrine, both parties will share the liability for their injuries

d. Because both parties were negligent, in a state that follows the comparative negligence doctrine, both parties will share the liability for their injuries