{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

bblaw huggind

bblaw huggind - plaintiff’s complaint state an actionable...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
5. Huggins v. Citibank, N.A. (Banks issue credit cards to imposters) a. Facts i. Banks issued credit cards to an unknown imposter, “John Doe.” Doe asserted he was Huggins, used the cards, and failed to pay the banks. Huggins claims that as a result of the banks’ issuance, his credit was damaged, he was “hounded by collection agencies,” and he was distressed and embarrassed. ii. The banks asserted that they owed no duty to Huggins because he wasn’t their customer. iii. Huggins disagreed, saying the banks have a duty to protect potential victims of identity theft. b. Issue i. Does South Carolina recognize the tort of negligent enablement of imposter fraud and, if so, what are the elements of the tort and does
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: plaintiff’s complaint state an actionable claim for the tort? c. Holding i. South Carolina does NOT recognize the tort of negligent enablement of imposter fraud. d. Reasoning i. To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove 1.a duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff, 2.a breach of duty by negligent act or omission, and 3.damage caused by the breach. ii. While identity theft is a growing problem, the court declines to recognize a duty of care between credit card issuers and those whose identities may be stolen. Foreseeability alone does not give rise to a duty. iii. Since there is no duty on the part of the credit card issues, S.C. doesn’t recognize the tort....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online