Owner or possessor of a chattel enjoys a qualified

This preview shows page 44 - 46 out of 52 pages.

We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Business Law: Text and Cases
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter 6 / Exercise 05
Business Law: Text and Cases
Clarkson/Miller
Expert Verified
Owner or possessor of a chattel enjoys a qualified privilege to recapture it, but the privilege does not protect the owner who mistakenly seizes property that is not actually hers If you make an error, can be sued for nominal amount of trespass and punitives CASE: Katko v. Briney (Iowa 1971) HELD: An owner may not protect personal property in an unoccupied boarded-up farmhouse against trespassers and thieves by a spring gun capable of inflicting death or serious injury No privilege to use force intended or likely to cause death or serious harm against another whom the possessor sees about to enter his premises or meddle with his chattel, unless the intrusion threatens death or serous bodily harm to the occupiers or users of the premises Even if damage to or theft of property, no privilege to use deadly force DISSENT: Cannot ignore wrongful conduct of CN: Tort law trying to protect personal security not things CASE: Jones v. Fisher (Wis. 1969) Employers/ ripped Π ’s dentures out of her mouth after they did not like the repayment plan she proffered HELD: s committed assault and battery but compensatory and punitive damages excessive DISSENT: No need for punitives-- unlikely to happen again so no need to deter such behavior It was Π ’s decision, loan unpaid, to go to work for someone else that precipitated a change in the relationship 4. Investigative Detention and Arrest Privilege arises to enable officials and private citizens to advance the cause of law enforcement and the operation of the legal system Shopkeeper’s Privilege allowed to be wrong under a reasonable mistake CASE: Grant v. Stop-N-Go Market of Texas, Inc. (Tex. Ct. App. 1999) Π brought a suit against Stop-And-Go for false imprisonment after he was loudly accused of stealing a pack of cigarettes in front of other patrons, he was told he could not leave, and the police were called 44
We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Business Law: Text and Cases
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter 6 / Exercise 05
Business Law: Text and Cases
Clarkson/Miller
Expert Verified
HELD: Summary judgment for was improper said no imprisonment bc Π could leave at any time Reasonable fear not to leave The police were actually called, and Grant thought he would be labeled a fugitive from justice if he left claims its actions were authorized by the shopkeeper’s privilege, which provides that a person who reasonably believes another person has stolen, or is attempting to steal property, is privileged to detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time to investigate ownership of the property o (1) Reasonable belief a person has stolen or is attempting to steal; (2) Detention for a reasonable time; and (3) Detention in a reasonable manner XI. INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Pain and suffering ≠ emotional distress bc p&s originated in physical injury ED does not start with personal injury, though it may end with it A. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Tort consists of 1. Extreme and outrageous conduct, 2. Which is intended to cause and does cause 3. Severe emotional distress to another Recognized in part to deal with a special class of cases that closely resemble

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture