Tort week 2 - g. Leichtman v. WLW g.i. A well known...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
What Constitutes Contact: 1. Party of body doesn’t have to come into direct contact with plaintiff’s body a. Garratt a.i. Moving the hair caused the person to be exposed to the ground b. *Chain of motion Which Intended Contacts are Wrongful? A. Must be Harmful or offensive. a. Must be of Physical Impairment a.i. Physical Injury a.ii. Illness a.iii. Disease a.iv. Death b. Doesn’t have to be major c. Harm c.i. Loss or detriment to a person, and not a mere change or alteration c.i.1. Detriment – the state of being harmed or damaged d. Bodily Harm d.i. Any change or alteration in the body of another, even if not otherwise harmful e. Offensive e.i. A bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity f. Fisher v. Carrousel f.i. Black man from NASA was invited to a dinner, and the manger there snatched his plate and said that they didn’t serve Negros. f.ii. Company was charged with battery, because of the physical contact of the plate snatching, and the injuries from mental suffering
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: g. Leichtman v. WLW g.i. A well known anti-smoker advocate was invited into a radio talk show to talk about the harmful effects of smoking. The talk show host lit a cigar and repeatedly blew smoke in Leichtmans face. Trial court dismissed the case stating Leichtman didnt show injury. But supreme court stated that there was injury of personal dignity, and contact arised from the blowing of the smoke. They refered to a glass cage defense. g.ii. Glass Cage defense g.ii.1. Is for passive or 2 nd hand smoking. Arised out of the case McCracken v. Sloan g.ii.1.a. That case is when a postal worker at his employment stated that he was allergic to tobacco, and the employer kept smoking. He stated that it not illegal for him to smoke. Courts upheld this, and the allergic guy lost his case. g.ii.1.b. Procedurally: there was not enough evidence to support the case...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course TORTS 131 taught by Professor Keller during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online