This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: defamation, so long as a retraction is printed and there was no malice. Hooks expressed the opinion that part of the trouble was caused by the theft of parts and equipment by McCall. But she didn’t have evident to prove. So I think McCall was able to raise the defense of a qualified privilege to Hooks’ defamation action. 10. No, this defense was not valid. Defendant no. 1 was liable. The evidence adduced (1) that the truck was left parked in the nighttime without lights of any kind, and (2) that there was a failure to display a red light at the end of the pipes which projected out behind the truck body. 11. No, the store wasn’t liable. The action of opening the pocketbook and offering it for inspection was purely voluntary on plaintiff's part. By plaintiff's admission the agent did not say another word after that. Under this status of affairs, there was no violation of plaintiff's legal rights and thus no tort....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 07/25/2011 for the course ACCT 200 taught by Professor Minliu during the Spring '11 term at Universidad Europea de Madrid.
- Spring '11