chapter 9 - defamation, so long as a retraction is printed...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
3. David was not watching where he was going and was preoccupied with throwing a snowball at his brother instead of looking for those ahead of him in order to avoid a collision. Imposing liability for conduct such as David's will not deter vigorous participation in the sports of snowboarding and skiing or otherwise fundamentally alter the nature of either sport. We conclude there is a trial issue of fact whether David's conduct was so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport of snowboarding. 5. Yes, bank should be held liable. Bank provided ATM services. So bank is liable for the foreseeable acts of others if they fail to take reasonable precautions. 7. Maryland Heights should do: 1. Measurement of Defendant’s Benefits; 2. Specific Performance, such as how to improve equipment to reduce the emissions. This case is involved trespass. 9. Yes, I think she was liable. Qualified privilege is media privilege to print inaccurate information without liability for
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

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.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online