at least negligence regarding the truth of the statement applies to private

At least negligence regarding the truth of the

This preview shows page 2 - 5 out of 11 pages.

at least negligence regarding the truth of the statement (applies to private persons) or -intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement (applies of public figures) Carole Burnett v. National Enquirer story about her being drunk, published story knowing it was false reckless disregard for the truth DefensesA.Legitimate Interest B.Texas Labor Code 103 – Immunity from Civil Liability; Employer Representatives C.Truth = an absolute defense
Background image
D.Statue of Limitations E.Texas Defamation Mitigation Act F.Texas Anti-SLAPP Statute G. Opinion Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990) 2 high schools: Mentor & Maple Heights, MH penalty cannot compete in wrestlingLorain Journal outraged and wrote opinion in paper, Milkovich sues for defamation LJ argues that it was a statement of opinion, not factstatement of fact – theoretically when said, it can prove to be true or not, “he lied” can determine, held: for P Sagan v. Apple Computerfelt like Apple was using his name, Apple called project “Butthead Astronomer”opinion not fact C.False Imprisonment false imprisonment: wrongful detaining of another, interests protected ? freedom to come and go as we pleaseCook v. Des Moines Chrysler Plymouth she consented to getting in, not to getting trunk shut on herheld: for pDupree v. Piggly Wiggly defense: they had reason to detain her, held: for P Walmart v. Cockrell held: for P, defense: antishopliftingoreasonable belief that they stole odetain in reasonable mannerodetain in reasonable time, defense: lawful arrestD.Trespass to real propertyinterest protected? enjoyment of real property First City National Bank v. Japhet man had heart attack and dies, crashing into property held: no trespassing, did not intend to die statute of limitations: 2 years from date of violation was or should reasonable have been discovered E.Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Background image
IIED – act intended to cause severe emotional distress to another interest protected? right to peace of mind Boyles v. Kerr Kerr humiliated, sues for int. & neg. infliction of emotional distressneg. infliction of emotional distress not supported in tx act intended to cause serve emotional distress to another no insurance for an intentional act Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressD acted intentionally or recklesslyP suffered emotional distress emotional distress was severeD conduct = existence + outrageous Driscol v. Household Credit Services (1995) call her + repeatedly tell her they’re going to kill her, bomb threat to worksues for IIED, gap filler tort– can only sue if no physical injury Randall’s Food Markets v. Johnson (1995) credible report stealing, told later wrong and Johnson sues no intent of D intentionally or recklesslyF.Tortious Interference A.With Contract K that could be interfered with; willful and intentional interference; act = proximate cause of damages; and actual damage or loss B.With prospective business relationship
Background image
Image of page 5

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 11 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • Baker
  • The Land, emotional distress,  D

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes