Chapter 8 Tort Law Chapter 8: Tort Law Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Overview LO8-1: How do we classify torts? LO8-2: What are some of the most common intentional torts and the elements needed to prove them? LO8-3: What types of damages are available in tort cases?

Chapter 8 Hypothetical Case 1 Bob Swaby, owner of Fire and Ice Heating and Air Conditioning, and Ben Christianson, owner of Thermostat Dreams HVAC, are bitter competitors. Both are determined to meet the heating and cooling needs of the small town of Valdese, North Carolina. For years, each business owner has sought to outdo the other through price undercutting and other business practices, and tensions between the two have grown. Christianson's wife and children go on vacation to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina while he stays behind. During this time, Swaby concocts a devious scheme. One night he calls Christianson, disguising his voice and identifying himself as the head administrator at the Horry County, South Carolina Coroner's Office. Swaby tells Christianson that his family has been murdered, and that he must come to South Carolina to identify the bodies and participate in the investigation of their deaths. Shocked and distraught, Christianson drives the six hours to Horry County, South Carolina. There, Christianson discovers he has been the victim of a very twisted joke. When he returns home, Christianson does not feel quite right. He has trouble sleeping, has difficulty concentrating on his job, experiences bouts of anxiety, and often feels despondent. He consults a psychiatrist, who diagnoses Christianson with a form of post-traumatic stress disorder. Assuming Christianson discovers that Swaby is the perpetrator of the prank, does Christianson have an actionable civil claim against Swaby? If so, on what legal theory should the action be based, and what is the appropriate amount of monetary damages? Chapter 8 Hypothetical Case 1: Bob Swaby, owner of Fire and Ice Heating and Air Conditioning, and Ben Christianson, owner of Thermostat Dreams HVAC, are bitter competitors. Both are determined to meet the heating and cooling needs of the small town of Valdese, North Carolina. For years, each business owner has sought to outdo the other through price undercutting and other business practices, and tensions between the two have grown. Christianson's wife and children go on vacation to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina while he stays behind. During this time, Swaby concocts a devious scheme. One night he calls Christianson, disguising his voice and identifying himself as the head administrator at the Horry County, South Carolina Coroner's Office. Swaby tells Christianson that his family has been murdered, and that he must come to South Carolina to identify the bodies and participate in the investigation of their deaths. Shocked and distraught, Christianson drives the six hours to Horry County, South Carolina. There, Christianson discovers he has been the victim of a very twisted joke. When he returns home, Christianson does not feel quite right. He has trouble sleeping, has difficulty concentrating on his job, experiences bouts of anxiety, and often feels despondent. He consults a psychiatrist, who diagnoses Christianson with a form of post-traumatic stress disorder. Assuming Christianson discovers that Swaby is the perpetrator of the prank, does Christianson have an actionable civil claim against Swaby? If so, on what legal theory should the action be based, and what is the appropriate amount of monetary damages? [Instructor: See Intentional Torts in Chapter 8]

Chapter 8 Hypothetical Case 2 When Sylvia Wood talks, people listen. As a talk-show host with her own nationally syndicated television program, "The Sylvia Show," Wood reaches approximately thirty million viewers each week. Her dedicated viewers are collectively referred to as "Sylvia's Militia," and most wait breathlessly for Wood's on-air blessings of products, people, and books. One of her recent programs has Wood in hot water. Wood devoted her September 30 episode to a food-borne illness commonly referred to as "crazy chicken" disease. During the past two years, approximately fifty people in the United States have developed physical symptoms after eating undercooked, diseased chicken. Apparently, chickens have developed the disease after eating substandard feed, and consumers have been affected down the food chain. Common symptoms include muscle contractions, nausea, and diarrhea. During the September 30 episode of "The Sylvia Show," Wood interviewed a medical doctor, Dr. Tyson Fowler, who said that in his opinion, chicken was not safe for human consumption. In response, Wood had said "Dr. Fowler, if that is the case, I will never eat chicken again." Hearing of this episode, the United Poultry Growers Association sued Wood and "The Sylvia Show," claiming commercial disparagement (the commercial equivalent of defamation.) Are the defendants Wood and "The Sylvia Show" liable for commercial disparagement? Chapter 8 Hypothetical Case 2: When Sylvia Wood talks, people listen. As a talk-show host with her own nationally syndicated television program, "The Sylvia Show," Wood reaches approximately thirty million viewers each week. Her dedicated viewers are collectively referred to as "Sylvia's Militia," and most wait breathlessly for Wood's on-air blessings of products, people, and books. One of her recent programs has Wood in hot water. Wood devoted her September 30 episode to a food-borne illness commonly referred to as "crazy chicken" disease. During the past two years, approximately fifty people in the United States have developed physical symptoms after eating undercooked, diseased chicken. Apparently, chickens have developed the disease after eating substandard feed, and consumers have been affected down the food chain. Common symptoms include muscle contractions, nausea, and diarrhea. During the September 30 episode of "The Sylvia Show," Wood interviewed a medical doctor, Dr. Tyson Fowler, who said that in his opinion, chicken was not safe for human consumption. In response, Wood had said "Dr. Fowler, if that is the case, I will never eat chicken again." Hearing of this episode, the United Poultry Growers Association sued Wood and "The Sylvia Show," claiming commercial disparagement (the commercial equivalent of defamation.) Are the defendants Wood and "The Sylvia Show" liable for commercial disparagement? [Instructor: See Intentional Torts in Chapter 8]

Tort—Definition A wrong or injury to another, other than a breach of contract A tort is a wrong or injury to another, other than a breach of contract.

Purposes of Tort Law Compensate innocent injured persons Prevent private retaliation by injured parties Reinforce vision of a just society Deter future wrongs The purposes of tort law include compensating innocent injured persons, preventing private retaliation by injured parties, reinforcing the vision of a just society, and deterring future wrongs.

Classification of Torts Intentional torts: Occur when defendant takes action intending certain consequences or knowing they are likely to result Negligent torts: Occur when defendant acts in a way that subjects other people to unreasonable risk of harm Strict liability torts: Occur when defendant takes action that is inherently dangerous and cannot ever be undertaken safely. Torts can be classified in terms of intent, negligence, and strict liability. Intentional torts occur when a defendant takes action intending certain consequences or knowing they are likely to result. Negligent torts occur when a defendant acts in a way that subjects other people to unreasonable risk of harm. Strict liability torts occur when a defendant takes action that is inherently dangerous and cannot ever be undertaken safely.

Common Intentional Torts Against Persons Assault Battery Defamation (published, libel; spoken, slander) Invasion of privacy (false light, public disclosure of private facts, appropriation for commercial gain, and intrusion on an individual's affairs or seclusion) False imprisonment Intentional infliction of emotional distress Misuse of legal procedure Examples of intentional torts against persons include assault, battery, defamation (defamation in publications is known as libel, and spoken defamation is known as slander), invasion of privacy (false light, public disclosure of private facts, appropriation for commercial gain, and intrusion on an individual's affairs or seclusion), false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and misuse of legal procedure.

Common Intentional Torts Against Property Trespass to realty Private nuisance Trespass to personal property Conversion Examples of intentional torts against property include trespass to realty, private nuisance, trespass to personal property, and conversion.

Common Intentional Torts Against Economic Interests Disparagement Intentional interference with contract Unfair competition Misappropriation Fraudulent misrepresentation Examples of intentional torts against economic interests include disparagement, intentional interference with contract, unfair competition, misappropriation, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

Damages Available in Tort Cases Compensatory damages: An award that makes plaintiff whole (puts plaintiff in same position he/she would have been in had tort not occurred) Nominal damages: A minimal amount that signifies defendant's behavior was wrongful, but caused no harm Punitive damages: Damages that punish defendant and seek to deter such conduct in the future Money damages available in tort cases include compensatory damages (designed to make the plaintiff whole, i.e., to put the plaintiff in the same position he or she would have been in had the tort not occurred), nominal damages (a minimal amount that signifies defendant's behavior was wrongful, but caused no harm), and punitive damages (designed to punish the defendant and to deter such wrongful conduct in the future).

Chapter 8 Hypothetical Case 3 Officers Jones and Henderson are well-respected police officers in the town of Woodlawn. They have been recognized, both within the police department and by the community, for their outstanding service. While on patrol in downtown Woodlawn late one evening, they observe a person sleeping on a park bench in the town square. The person is Fred Ames, a homeless man known in the community for his trouble with alcohol and illicit substances. Ames has a long history of bad choices and bad luck, and most in Woodlawn know him well. Woodlawn does not have a law against vagrancy or homelessness. Determined to clean up the downtown area, the officers demand that Ames get in the back of the squad car. Reluctantly, and without the use of force on the part of Jones or Henderson, Ames complies. Officers Jones and Henderson transport Ames to a rural area, where they release him on a dark country road and warn him not to return to Woodlawn until he "cleans up his act once and for all." Have Jones and Henderson committed a tort against Ames? Are the officers within the privilege of their authority in removing Ames from the downtown area? Did the officers act unethically? Should Woodlawn implement a law against vagrancy/homelessness? Chapter 8 Hypothetical Case 3: Officers Jones and Henderson are well-respected police officers in the town of Woodlawn. They have been recognized, both within the police department and by the community, for their outstanding service. While on patrol in downtown Woodlawn late one evening, they observe a person sleeping on a park bench in the town square. The person is Fred Ames, a homeless man known in the community for his trouble with alcohol and illicit substances. Ames has a long history of bad choices and bad luck, and most in Woodlawn know him well. Woodlawn does not have a law against vagrancy or homelessness. Determined to clean up the downtown area, the officers demand that Ames get in the back of the squad car. Reluctantly, and without the use of force on the part of Jones or Henderson, Ames complies. Officers Jones and Henderson transport Ames to a rural area, where they release him on a dark country road and warn him not to return to Woodlawn until he "cleans up his act once and for all." Have Jones and Henderson committed a tort against Ames? Are the officers within the privilege of their authority in removing Ames from the downtown area? Did the officers act unethically? Should Woodlawn implement a law against vagrancy/homelessness? [Instructor: See Intentional Torts in Chapter 8]

Chapter 8 Hypothetical Case 4 Regina Farrow had worked for Door Chime Industries for 35 years, and her colleagues decided to throw a party in her honor. Farrow had long been the person in her office who was the first to celebrate and acknowledge her colleagues' birthdays, anniversaries, engagements, and new babies, so they wanted to make the party a surprise—a party that, for once, she didn't have to plan. All the planning went off without a hitch, and Farrow didn't suspect a thing. When she was called into the office on a Saturday afternoon unexpectedly, she became worried that something was very wrong. As she opened the door, her colleagues jumped out and yelled, "Surprise!" Just like that, Farrow dropped dead of a heart attack. Farrow's family is devastated and plans a lawsuit against the company and the individuals who planned the party. Is this situation an intentional tort? Why or why not? Chapter 8 Hypothetical Case 4: Regina Farrow had worked for Door Chime Industries for 35 years, and her colleagues decided to throw a party in her honor. Farrow had long been the person in her office who was the first to celebrate and acknowledge her colleagues' birthdays, anniversaries, engagements, and new babies, so they wanted to make the party a surprise—a party that, for once, she didn't have to plan. All the planning went off without a hitch, and Farrow didn't suspect a thing. When she was called into the office on a Saturday afternoon unexpectedly, she became worried that something was very wrong. As she opened the door, her colleagues jumped out and yelled, "Surprise!" Just like that, Farrow dropped dead of a heart attack. Farrow's family is devastated and plans a lawsuit against the company and the individuals who planned the party. Is this situation an intentional tort? Why or why not? [Instructor: See Intentional Torts in Chapter 8]