ANSWERS_TO_CHAPTER_7_PROBLEMS

ANSWERS_TO_CHAPTER_7_PROBLEMS - C HAPTER7 INTENTIONAL TORTS...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CHAPTER 7 INTENTIONAL  TORTS 1 ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS 1. The Penguin intentionally hits Batman with his umbrella. Batman, stunned by the blow, falls backwards, knocking Robin down. Robin's leg is broken in the fall, and he cries out, “Holy broken bat bones! My leg is broken.” Who, if anyone, is liable to Robin? Why? Answer: Battery . The Penguin is liable to Robin for battery. Section 13 of the Restatement imposes liability if the actor (Penguin) intends to injure a third person (Batman) and causes injury (directly or indirectly) to the person of the other (Robin). Batman is not liable because he did not act with intent. Moreover, as Section 14 states: “To make the actor liable for a battery, the harmful bodily contact must be caused by an act done by the person whose liability is in question.” Thus, it is not enough to make one liable that some third person has utilized a part of his body as an instrument by which to carry out the third person’s intention to cause harm to another. In such a case, the third person is the actor. 2. CEO was convinced by his employee, M. Ploy, that a coworker, A. Cused, had been stealing money from the company. At lunch that day in the company cafeteria, CEO discharges Cused from her employment, accuses her of stealing from the company, searches through her purse over her objections, and finally forcibly escorts her to his office to await the arrival of the police, which he has his secretary summon. Cused is indicted for embezzlement but subsequently is acquitted upon establishing her innocence. What rights, if any, does Cused have against CEO? Answer: Injury or Damage to the Person CEO might be liable for slander if there was no basis for the embezzlement accusation and there was a publication of the defamatory information to someone else in the cafeteria. By taking the employee’s purse, CEO committed a trespass to personal property, an intentional dispossession or unauthorized use of another’s property. This constituted an interference with the employee’s right to exclusive use and possession. By searching the purse, the CEO has committed the tort of intrusion. Cused could also demonstrate that CEO’s physical contact constituted a battery, which is the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact. Cused did not consent to the touching. An action might also lie for emotional distress since the courts now grant recovery for mental anguish despite a lack of physical injury. Also, there may be false imprisonment if there was not a lawful restraint under local shoplifting law. Finally, given the acquittal, a claim for malicious prosecution could be made if CEO filed the charges without probable cause and for an improper purpose. 3.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/16/2012 for the course BLAW 3201 taught by Professor Fry during the Fall '08 term at LSU.

Page1 / 7

ANSWERS_TO_CHAPTER_7_PROBLEMS - C HAPTER7 INTENTIONAL TORTS...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online