Download - Chapter 10 Business Torts
![Page 1: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
Chapter 10 Business Torts
Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment
MARIANNE M. JENNINGS
7th Ed.
![Page 2: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• A tort is a civil wrong that is an interference with someone’s person or property such that injury results.
• Latin Word Tortus: means “crooked, dubious, twisted”.
What is a Tort?What is a Tort?
![Page 3: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Tort is a private wrong.– Injured party seeks remedy.– Recovers damages from the one who
commits the tort.• Crime is a public wrong.
• Wrongdoer is prosecuted.• Pays fine to government or is jailed to
pay debt to society.
Torts vs. CrimesTorts vs. Crimes
![Page 4: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Intentional torts: – More than an accidental wrong.
• Tort of negligence:– Accidental harms that result from the failure to
think through the consequences.– Still have liability but there are defenses.
• Strict tort liability:– Absolute standard of liability.– Used in product liability cases.
Types of TortsTypes of Torts
![Page 5: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Property Torts– Trespass– Disparagement– Palming off– Negligence
• Personal Torts– False
imprisonment– Defamation– Battery– Assault– Emotional distress– Negligence
Other Types of TortsOther Types of Torts
![Page 6: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Untrue statement by one party that is published to a third party.
• Slander is oral or spoken defamation.• Libel is written, and in some states
broadcast, defamation.
DefamationDefamation
![Page 7: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Elements:– Statement about a business’ or person’s
reputation or honesty that is untrue. – Statement is directed at business and
made with malice and intent to injure.– Publication - someone heard and
understood the statement.– Damages - economic losses such as
damage to reputation.
DefamationDefamation
![Page 8: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Defenses:– Truth is a complete defense.– Privileged speech: two types.
• Absolute privilege.• Qualified privilege.
DefamationDefamation
![Page 9: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Case 10.1 Wilkow v. Forbes (2001).– What was Forbes’ defense to libel?– Can an opinion be libelous?
• Case 10.2 Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1983).– Was malice established in the case? Why was
it necessary to establish malice?– Is the National Enquirer a newspaper for
purposes of the protection of the privilege?
DefamationDefamation
![Page 10: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• References and defamation.– Managers must use caution when
speaking of former or current employees to potential new employers.
– The tort of defamation can be established if false statements are made.
DefamationDefamation
![Page 11: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Elements:– Tortfeasor knew of Employee’s contract.– Tortfeasor intended to interfere with or
breach contract between Employer-Plaintiff and Employee.
– Employer-Plaintiff is injured by breach of contract.
Contract InterferenceContract Interference
![Page 12: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co. (1987)– The court awarded Pennzoil $7.53
billion in actual damages and $3 billion in punitive damages for tortuous interference of contract.
– On April 12, 1987, Texaco filed for bankruptcy protection.
Contract InterferenceContract Interference
![Page 13: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Custody of someone else for any period of time against their will.
• Need not establish physical damages; just the fact that they are detained establishes sufficient damages.
• Defense of shopkeeper’s privilege.– Can detain for reasonable time.– Must have basis for detaining the individual.
False ImprisonmentFalse Imprisonment
![Page 14: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Liability for conduct that exceeds all bounds of decency.
• Difficult for plaintiff to establish emotional distress.
• Has been used by debtors against collectors.
Intentional Infliction of Intentional Infliction of E.D.E.D.
![Page 15: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Public disclosure of private facts• Appropriation of another’s name for
commercial advantage• Galella v. Onassis (1972).
– The court ruled Galella had invaded Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis’ privacy.
• HIPAA protects health/patient privacy.
Invasion of PrivacyInvasion of Privacy
![Page 16: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Unauthorized use of someone’s name, voice, image, or likeness for commercial advantage.
• Even if manner of use is accurate, it is a tort because of the use without authorization.
AppropriationAppropriation
![Page 17: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Case 10.3 Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (1988).– On appeal, Ms. Midler’s case was tried
and she recovered $400,000.– Was the audience confused as to who
really sang in the commercial?– Was the use of Midler’s voice
appropriation?
AppropriationAppropriation
![Page 18: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Duty—Element One.– All persons are expected to behave as
ordinary and reasonably prudent persons do:• Standard of the law is not always used.• Example: The speed limit of 45 is not
appropriate in ice and snow.
NegligenceNegligence
![Page 19: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Case 10.4 Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School District (1997).– What concerns are raised about
imposing liability on those who provide letters of recommendation?
– What was the proximate cause of Randi W’s injury?
NegligenceNegligence
![Page 20: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Breach of Duty—Element Two– Failure to comply with established
standard of conduct• Often connected with element one as courts
struggle to determine whether a duty even exists
– Case 10.5 Graves v. Warner Brothers (2004).• What duty did Jenny Jones show have to
the Plaintiffs?
NegligenceNegligence
![Page 21: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Causation—Element Three.– Breach of duty caused the plaintiff’s
injuries.– “But/for” causation test . – Restricted by the zone of danger rule =
Duty.
NegligenceNegligence
![Page 22: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Proximate Cause (Foreseeability)—Element Four.– Some courts hold the cut-off line must be
drawn between the "but/for" causation and events contributing to plaintiff's injuries
• Case 10.6 Palsgraf v. Long Island RR (1928) – There is a legal limit to what is foreseeable.
NegligenceNegligence
![Page 23: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Damages—Element Five.– Medical bills.– Lost wages.– Pain and suffering.– Loss of consortium (as between
spouses).
NegligenceNegligence
![Page 24: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Contributory negligence:– Plaintiff is also negligent. – Operates as a complete bar to recovery
• Comparative negligence:– Compare acts of plaintiff and defendant and
assess blame for accident.– Reduces plaintiff’s recovery by amount of
fault.
Defenses to Defenses to NegligenceNegligence
![Page 25: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Assumption of risk—plaintiff knew of inherent risk and went forward anyway.
• Case 10.7 Mosca v. Lichtenwalter (1997).– Is the risk of being struck by a line inherent
in the sport of fishing?– What is the difference between assumption
of the risk in day-to-day activities and in sports?
Defenses to Defenses to NegligenceNegligence
![Page 26: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Current Attempts at Reform:– Limits on verdicts.– Standards for recovery.
• Case 10.8 BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996).– What constitutional issues are raised?– To whom would the dissent leave the issue of
punitive damage?
Tort ReformTort Reform
![Page 27: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
Tort ReformTort Reform• Limits on Punitives:
– Eighth Amendment excessive punitive damages is cruel and unusual punishment. Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Group (2001).
– Due Process violated with excessive punitives. State Farm v. Campbell (2003).
![Page 28: Chapter 10 Business Torts](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062218/56815da8550346895dcbd80b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
Strict LiabilityStrict Liability• Absolute liability for injury.• Can result from violation of statute
(improper disposal of toxic waste).• Public policy reason is manufacturers
take appropriate steps to design and manufacture products.