Tort Causes of Action - Torts Law - Solved Exam, Exams of Law of Torts

Download Tort Causes of Action - Torts Law - Solved Exam and more Exams Law of Torts in PDF only on Docsity! ID: ID: Name: Exam Name: Instructor: Grade: Torts2_LS2_Lumsden_2010SL (Exam Number) Torts2_LS2_Lumsden_2010SL Lumsden as 45 Lumsden Page 1 of 1 Exam taken wilh SofTest v8.9 ID: Torts2_LS2_Lumsden_2010SL Lumsden 1) PART I - ESSAY QUESTION ONE Mzambe v. Winters - Libel Mzambe (WM) will likely sue Winters (W) for defamation based on ing common law, to establish a prima facie case for defamation, a plaintiff had to prove 1) / pasate by defendant of 2) a defamatory statement 3) of and concerning the plaintiff 4) which caused harm to plaintiff's reputation. Libel is the publication of a defamatory statement in a written or otherwise permanent form. For a statement to be considered a publication, it must be read/heard and understood by at least one person other than the plaintiff and defendant. In this case, W's statement is a publication because it was published in the New York Times, a national and globabally circulating newspaper. It is likely that more than just one other uw person read and understood the statements made by W about M. For the statement to be “of and concerning" the plaintiff, plaintiff either has to be explicity named in the statement or it could be inferred by a reasonable person that the statement was about plaintiff. In this case, the statement is probably “of and concerning" M because the statement names M as "Ms. Mzambe." While there are a _/ probably other Ms. Mzambe's in the world, using colloquium, M would be able to bring in extrinsic evidence to show that the "Ms. Mzambe” that W mentioned referred directly to M. M would probably be able to prove that a reasonable person would understand the statement was about her in light of the publicity in local newspapers surrounding the Page 1 of 12 (Question 1 continued) ID: Torts2_LS2_Lumsden_2010SL Lumsden she did not take./” W's publication would likely qualify under false light requirements because the statements were published in the New York Times, a major newspaper. The statements are likely to portray M in a false light because the statements attribute to M actions she did not take and possibly views she did not hold. W's statement that she lost confidence in M's ability to run a school portrays M as a bad principal, which may not be true. W's statement that she though M would care more for the girls portrays M as someone who did not care for the girls. It is possible that M cared for the girls very much and maybe even more that W did. Vege “While statements of opinion are often not actionable, these statements by W might be actionable because they are based on an assertion of fact that could lead to an inference that the implied facts were true. W might have a qualified privilege based ona private interest she has in running the school she opened and a public interest extending to the community where the school is located. Truth is not a defense to false light invasion of privacy. Mv. W- Intentional Interference with Existing Contractual Relationship and Intentional Interference with Potential Economic Relations M can sue W for intetnional interference with existing contractual relationship (IIECR). To establish a prima facie case for IIECR, plaintiff must prove 1) existence of contract 2) defendant knew of the contents of the contract; 3) defendant intentionally interfered with the contract; 4) causing damage to plaintiff. W knew there was an existing contract and probably knew of the contents Page 4 of 12 (Question 1 continued} ID: Torts2_LS2_Lumsden_2010SL Lumsden because W hired M. W intentionally interfered with M's contract by firing her. However, M will not win on this suit because there is no cause of action where one party to the contract interferes with it. Here, W is probably a party to the contract, so M has no cause of action for IIECR. M probably has a better chance to succed in a case based on intentional interference with potential economic relations. For that tort, plaintiff must prove i) defendant knew of potential economic relations between plaintiff ahd third party; defendant intentionally interfered with that relationship; 3) plaintiff suffered damages as a result. W will argue she is justified because the matter is of public concern. M will argue that justification is limited to nontortious conduct and W negated her justification defense by committing a libel against M. It is possible that M will recover for intentional interference with potential economic relations if W was not justified because of her tortious conduct. M v. News of the World - Unreasonable Intrusion Upon Seclusion of Another Mwill likely sue News of the World (N) for invasion of privacy based on the unreasonable intrusion upon her seclusion. To establish a prima facie case of invasion of privacy based on the unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, plaintiff must prove 1) under the circumstances, plaintiff had right to reasonable privacy; 2) at defendant invaded the,Slace, conversation or matter in a manner that would be highly _—_ offensive to a reasonable person. Inside the home and on one's own property are places where privacy will be ee highly protected unless plaintiff is easily visible from a public street. In this case, N was Page 5 of 12 crete (Question 1 continued) ID: Torts2_LS2_Lumsden_2010SL Lumsden in M's backyard seeking to take pictures of her and her family through a back window. N was not on public property. In determining whether the intrusion is highly offensive, the circumstances and context are very important. In this case, N probably knew that M and her family thought they were in a private place. N trespassed on M's property in order to find M and her family through a window. This is probably highly offensive to a reasonable person because N was trespassing and an ordinary citizen would not expect a photographer to be snapping photos from a backyard into someone's house. M is likely to win in this suit for the aforementioned reasons. M v. N - Public Disclosure of Private Facts M will sue N for invasion of privacy based on public disclosure of private facts. facks To establish a prima facie case, plaintiff must prove 1) defendant published 2) private facts about plaintiff 3) such that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The publication requirement is met because N published photographs Of M and her family inside their house in an international tabloid presumably seen and read by hundreds, if not thousands or millions of people. M will argue that the private facts that N published were what she and her family do inside their home and look like inside their home are private facts and that a reasonable person would be highly offended by the publication of such photos. N will argue that the photos are not themselves facts but merely photographs Assuming that the photos are facts, to determine where the private facts are highly offensive, courts will look to the manner in which the facts were obtained. In this instance, N obtained the photographs in a highly offensive manner by trespassing on M's land and peering into Page 6 of 12 (Question 1 continued) ID: Torts2_LS2_Lumsden_2010SL Lumsden N v. Starfish - Warning Defect N will sue Starfish (S) under products liability theory based on a warning defect To establish a prima faice products liability case based on a warning defect, plaintiff must prove 1) defendant knew or had reason to know the product could be dangerous “ 2) plaintiff had no reason to know of the dangerousness of the product 3) the warning yas insufficient to safeguard against the known dangers of the product and 4) plaintiff was injured as a result of inadequate warning Jn determining whether a warning is adequate or not, the court will look at 1) the risk of danger (including degree and likelihood) involved, 2) the obviousness of the danger, 3) the form (size, prominence, detail, clarity etc.) of the warning given, 3) the way the product is used, and 4) the knowledge of the community about the product. If the risk is very high, not obvious, and the form of the warning does not give adequate notice of the high risk, then the warning is defective. In this case, the risk of danger posed by pregnant women consuming mercury is known. N was seemingly unaware of the risk of harm and the likelihood of harm because after reading A's book, she sitll asked the clerk at teh grocery store. Ss probably knew both the degree and likelihood of harm involved because S$ included a y waming on its package. Whether this warning was adequate or not is yet to be determined in this analysis. The detail and clarity of the warning is the biggest issue in this warning defect case. The warning simply says that the canned tuna is known to contain mercury. This does not warn pregnant women not to eat the product. If it was reasonably foreseeable to S that a pregnant woman would consume the tuna despite the warning that canned tuna is known to contain mercury, then the warning may not Page 9 of 12 (Question 1 continued) ID: Torts2_LS2_Lumsden_2010SL Lumsden have been adequate. The fact that Nadya had high levels of mercury in her bloodstream which likely was the cause of her child's birth defect does not mean that S will definitely be held liable for their defective warning. /The defective warning has to be the cause of the injuries to plaintiff. First of all, Nadya was not physically harmed by mercury, her child was. In addition, it is possible that N had high levels of mercury from another aspect of afer diet. Unless N can prove S's canned tuna was the actual and proximate cause of her damages, she cannot recover. While it might be difficult, a jury is likely to be sympathetic to N and award her damages. S will likely argue that it expressly disclaimed liability for any injuries resulting from using that product. While warranties can be disclaimed if done specifically and expressly, a manufacturer cannot disclaim liability for all injuries resulting from the use of its products because this goes against public policy. ~~ N v. Whole Fun - implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose N will sue Whole Fun (WF) for breach of an implied warranty of fitness fora particular purposeY0 establish a prima facie case for implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, plaintiff must prove 1) defendant is a commercial seller/2) who knows plaintiff is buying a product for a particular purpose and 3) defendant knows plaintiff is relying’ef defendant's superior knowledge to supply or furnish an acceptable product; 4) the product fails in its particular purpose; 5) causing damages to plaintiff. In this case, WF is a commercial seller because they are in the business of selling the type of product at issue. When N asks specifically if the tuna is safe for Page 10 of 12 (Question 1 continued) ID: Torts2_LS2_Lumsden_2010SL Lumsden pregnant women to consume, WF probably should have known that N was planning on using the tuna as a safe food for a pregnant woman's (N's) consumption. WF probably did not realize the extent to which N was going to rely on WF's statement about the quality of the product. Also, WF's statement did not express superiority in knowledge or any expertise on the subject. In reality, the clerk may have been a teenager who does ae not know anything about canned tuna. The clerk's physical actions (shrugging) and prefacing her statement with “I think” also show that WF may not have been ina ~ It appears that N did rely to some extent on WF's assertion that canned tuna is superior knowledge position. safe for pregnant women to consume. The product failed in the particular purpose that N wanted it for because she sustained high levels of mercury causing birth defects to her child. This creates a causation problem because N was not injured herself, but her child was. N might be better off suing on behalf of her child for some other cause of action because it does not seem likely she will be able to win in this suit. N v. WF - Negligent Misrepresentation \b Aus wr Hongetk Trany? N can sue WF for negligent misrepresentation. To establish a prima facie case for negligent misrepresentation, plaintiff must prove 1) defendant owed a duty to provide accurate information to foreseeable plaintiffs, 2) defendant breached that duty by supplying false information; 3) plaintiff actually (subjectively) relied on the misrepresentation; 4) plaintiff justifiably (objectively) relied on the misrepresentation, and 5) plaintiff's reliance on the misrepresentation caused plaintiff harm. When WF responded to N's inquiry, it is arguable that WF assumed the duty to Page 11 of 12