Business Law 3375 - Midterm 1: Intentional and Unintentional Torts

First five weeks of Business Law terms and concepts including federal and district court procedures, the Constitution, intentional and unintentional torts, and case studies

Article Six of the American Constitution

Also known as the Supremacy Law, it posits that the American Constitution takes precedent over any other law of the land. This means that federal laws and treaties made under its authority are superior to state laws and constitutions.

Tenth Amendment of the United States

Reserves powers not granted to the federal government to the states or the people.

Statutory Law

Laws enacted by legislative bodies, including federal and state statutes, that govern the conduct of individuals and organizations.

Administrative Law

A body of law that regulates the operation and procedures of federal agencies.

Case Law

The law established by the outcome of former court cases, which serves as a precedent for future cases and judicial decisions.

What state does NOT use common law?

Louisiana

Stare Decisis

Legal principle determining points of litigation according to precedent. It is almost always abide by except in drastic circumstances.

Constitutional Textualist

Legal interpretation of the American Constitution that states that the Constitution means exactly what it says and should not change to fit societal norms of the time.

Constitutional Non-Textualist

Legal interpretation of the American Constitution that states the Constitution ought to change and evolve with society as circumstances of standard living in the United States has changed since the country’s founding.

Requirements for a Constitutional Amendment

2/3 approval of Congress and ¾ of State Legislatures, OR 2/3 of State Legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention

Dobbs vs. Jackson

Court ruling that overruled woman’s right to abortion in a federal level previously established by Roe vs. Wade

Concurring Opinion

Agreeing with a decision for a different reason

Situational ethics

A person allows the situation to dictate appropriate behavior.

What is the name of New York’s state court?

Supreme Court

Why does ethics matter in court?

For collateral legal issues, recruitment, and personal effectiveness

Road to Fraud

Pressure, opportunity, and rationalization/entitlement

Marbury vs. Madison

Established principle of jurisdictional review that affirms Court’s power and nullifies acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution.

in personam jurisdiction

A court’s authority to render a binding judgment directly over a specific person or entity involved in a legal action

In rem jurisdiction

A court’s authority to decide legal disputes over property (real or personal) rather than over a specific person. It applies when the property is located within the court’s geographical territory.

Long-arm statute

A legal provision allowing a state court to claim personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state or foreign defendant who has sufficient, meaningful, or "minimum contacts" with that state.

What is the long-arm statute governed by?

The Fourteenth Amendment

What do courts look to in determining if a state court can apply the long-arm statute?

Quantity of contacts, quality of contacts, connection of the course of action to the contacts, and the interests of the forum state.

Case Study: Crummey vs. Morgan

Issue: Whether Louisiana had sufficient evidence in using the long-arm statute to prosecute a Texan citizen in its state court following communication and sale to a Louisianan buyer over the Internet.

Ruling: The courts found that Louisiana had the right to prosecute the defendant within its state court following the long-arm statute.

Analysis: The court found that the Texas sellers had sufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana because they purposefully conducted business with a Louisiana resident through an interactive eBay sale, accepted payment originating from Louisiana, and communicated with the buyer by phone and electronic means. Using the Internet jurisdiction “sliding scale,” the court concluded the transaction was commercial and interactive advertisement. Because the defendants knowingly marketed to and contracted with a Louisiana buyer and allegedly caused harm there through misrepresentations, they could reasonably foresee being sued in Louisiana, making jurisdiction consistent with due process.

Tort

A civil wrong not arising from a breach of contract or stature that causes harm to another’s person, property, or reputation.

Intentional torts

A civil wrong in which the defendant actions with specific intent to cause physical, mental, and/or emotional harm to the plaintiff, or acts with substantial certainty that such a harm will result.

Special harm

Loss of wages, or property damage.

General harm

Pain and suffering, physical and mental impairment.

Punitive damages

Awarded in cases considered grossly negligent or intentional that is meant to punish the defendant, not to award the plaintiff.

Compensatory damages

Awarded in cases to reimburse the plaintiff for actual losses (medical bills, pain, lost wages) to restore them to their pre-injury state.

Gross negligence

Conscious and voluntary disregard for the need to use reasonable care.

Tort reform

Legislative changes to the civil justice system that is designed to limit liability, reduce frivolous lawsuits, and cap non-economic damages.

What is the monetary limit to general damages?

$250,000

Disparagement

Speaking abusively about a business that negatively affects said business

What are the defenses to assault and battery charges?

Consent, defense of others, defense of property, and self-defense

Assault

An intentional threat that requires an intentional act that causes reasonable apprehension or imminent harm.

Battery

An intentional contact that requires intentional, unwanted physical contact that is harmful or offensive, including touching items intimately associated with the body, such as a purse.

True or False: in all cases of which self-defense is used, provable fear of imminent danger supersedes any use of excessive force as means of protecting oneself or their property

False, because the use of self-defense must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat

State of Oklahoma vs. Jerome Ersland

Issue: Whether Ersland’s use of deadly force against a wounded and disarmed robbery suspect justified self-defense (in defense of others) or murder.
Ruling: Ersland’s use of excessive force did not fall within self-defense, enabling the courts to charge him with murder.
Analysis: The prosecution argued that although the initial shots during the armed robbery may have been justified, the threat had ended when the suspect was incapacitated on the floor. Surveillance video showed Ersland leaving the room, retrieving another gun, returning, and firing multiple additional shots into the unconscious teen. This sequence suggested retaliation rather than self-defense, undermining justification. The defense argued he feared the suspect could still pose a danger, but the jury concluded the later shots were unnecessary and excessive, supporting a finding of murder rather than lawful defensive force.

False Imprisonment

An intentional tort occurring when a person is restricted or confined within a specific, bounded area against their will, without legal justification or consent. It requires that the perpetrator intended to confine the victim, the victim was conscious of the confinement, and there was no reasonable means of escape.

Pope v. Rostraver Shop 'N Save

Issue: Whether the grocery store falsely imprisoned Ms. Pope by detaining her under suspicion of shoplifting without sufficient legal justification.
Ruling: The court maintained that the incident did not meet the legal requirements to charge Rostraver Shop ‘N Save with false imprisonment charges.
Analysis: The court explained that false imprisonment requires an unlawful detention without legal authority. However, under the shopkeeper’s privilege, merchants may briefly detain suspected shoplifters if they have probable cause and act reasonably. Here, store employees observed conduct they reasonably believed indicated theft and detained Pope only long enough to investigate. Because the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion and was not excessive in duration or force, it was legally justified and did not constitute false imprisonment.

Defamation

An intentional tort that requires a false statement of fact, no privilege, and communication of a third party that harms a person’s or entity’s reputation

Slander

A verbal defamation of spoken false statements where the plaintiff must prove special damages.

Libel

Written and published false statements of fact where special damages do not need to be proven in court to collect general damages.

Webster v. Wilikins

Issue: Whether the defendant’s statements about Webster constituted actionable defamation (libel/slander), or whether they were protected because they were not false statements of fact (for example, opinion, truth, or privileged communication).
Ruling: The court held that the statements were not actionable defamation because the plaintiff failed to prove the required elements — particularly a false statement of fact capable of defamatory meaning.
Analysis: The court ruled that Wilikins published statement that his ex-wife is “unfit to have a kid” was not used as a legal conclusion of the word “unfit,” but as a subjective opinion criticizing Webster’s parental abilities. Because this was an opinion and not a false statement of fact, the statement does not meet the legal justification to be treated as a defamatory claim.

Defamation of public figures

A tort that requires proving that a false statement was published, caused damages, and was made with “actual malice”.

Actual malice

Knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.

Defenses to Defamation Claims

Truth, opinion, consent to publication, privilege (only in Congress), or defamation-proof.

Elements of defamation cause of action

False statement of fact, no privilege, communication to a third party, damage to reputation

Invasion of privacy

Breach of an individual’s exclusive right to enjoy privacy away from harassing behavior.

Appropriation of identity

The violation of a person’s exclusive right to their name, likeness, and photograph for commercial practices

Cease and desist letter

Documentation of communicating to cease an action that can lead to punitive damages. This is valuable because it leaves clear and documented evidence of communicating discomfort of an action.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation of material facts

Edgar Winter v. DC Comics

Issue: Whether a comic book publisher violated the plaintiffs’ right of publicity by using characters allegedly based on the musicians’ likenesses, or whether the depiction was protected by the First Amendment as a transformative creative work.
Ruling: The court held that the comic book characters were sufficiently transformative and therefore protected by the First Amendment, defeating the misappropriation (right of publicity) claim.
Analysis: The court applied the transformative use test, which balances the right of publicity against free speech. Although the characters were inspired by musicians Johnny Winter and Edgar Winter, the comic portrayed them as a significant creative transformation rather than a literal depiction. Because the work added substantial new expression and did not merely exploit the plaintiffs’ identities for commercial gain, the First Amendment barred liability for misappropriation.

Hate speech

Offensive expression targeting individuals or groups based on characteristics intended to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred.

Which country legalized hate speech?

United States

Negligence

A tort where intention is not required for prosecution, characterized by the actor neither wanting to bring the consequences of the act nor believing that the action would occur. They are acts or omissions that do not meet the reasonable standard of care.

Elements to recover in a negligence action

The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, that duty was breached, the plaintiff suffered legally recognizable harm that was a direct result of that failed duty.

Duty of care

Certain professions are required to come to their job with a greater care (specialty of care), most often applied to healthcare professionals.

Good Samaritan Act

Protects Samaritan acts from being charged for negligence if care is given during emergency situations unless the act is willfully or wantonly negligent.

Eggshell Plaintiff Rule

Defendant takes plaintiff as they are, even if the victim had pre-existing vulnerabilities that made damage more severe than expected.

Causation

Means between injury and defendant’s acts must be definitive in negligence cases.

Proximate cause

Legal tool to cut off liability where the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad

Issue: Whether the Long Island Railroad owed a duty of care to Mrs. Palsgraf and could be held liable for injuries caused by a sequence of events that began when railroad employees attempted to help a man board a moving train, causing him to drop a package of fireworks that exploded.
Ruling: The court held that the railroad was not liable because Mrs. Palsgraf’s injuries were not a foreseeable result of the employees’ actions; there was no proximate cause linking their conduct to her harm.
Analysis: The court emphasized foreseeability as the key element of duty and proximate cause in negligence. While the employees acted negligently in assisting the man, the harm to Palsgraf was highly unforeseeable — she was standing far away, and the package contained fireworks, an unusual hazard. Liability in negligence requires that the harm be a reasonably predictable consequence of the defendant’s conduct. Because the railroad could not reasonably anticipate that its actions would injure Mrs. Palsgraf, no duty extended to her, and the claim failed.

Liebeck v. McDonald’s

Issue: Whether McDonald’s was liable for negligence and/or product liability for serving coffee at a temperature that caused severe burns to Stella Liebeck, and whether the damages awarded were appropriate.
Ruling: The jury found McDonald’s 80% at fault and Stella Liebeck 20% at fault. The court upheld punitive damages, although the amount was later reduced. McDonald’s was liable because the coffee was unreasonably hot and posed a foreseeable risk of serious injury.
Analysis: The court found McDonald’s liable because it served coffee at an unreasonably high temperature (180–190°F), creating a foreseeable risk of severe burns. The company knew of prior burn incidents yet failed to take steps to reduce the hazard or adequately warn customers. Liebeck’s spill occurred under ordinary circumstances while she was seated in a parked car, showing that the injury was foreseeable and not due to recklessness. The jury concluded McDonald’s acted negligently, justifying both compensatory and punitive damages.

50% comparative negligence rule

Allows an injured party to recover damages only if they are found to be less than 50% at fault for the incident. If the plaintiff is 50% or more responsible, they are barred from recovering any compensation.

Business invitees

Those invited into a business or establishment receive a higher degree of care than normal care in the public.

Dicta

Opinion of the judge that is not essential to the resolution in court

Constructive knowledge

A legal doctrine assuming a person or entity is aware of a fact or condition because they should have known it through reasonable care, diligence, or inquiry, even if they lacked actual, direct knowledge.

Trammel Crow v. Gutierrez

Issue: Whether a property manager owed a legal duty to protect a shopping mall patron from a third party’s violent criminal act resulting in death when prior criminal activity on the premises occurred, such that the lack of adequate security could be considered negligent.
Ruling: The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment and ruled that the property manager did not owe a duty to protect the plaintiff from the criminal act, because the harm was not reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law.
Analysis: In premises liability claims based on criminal acts by third parties, a duty arises only if the risk was both foreseeable and unreasonable — meaning prior crimes must be sufficiently similar and frequent to put a property owner on notice. While the shopping center had experienced some robberies and other offenses, none involved murders or shootings comparable to what happened to Gutierrez. Because the specific violent act (fatal shooting) was so unlike prior incidents, the Texas Supreme Court concluded Trammell Crow could not reasonably foresee or prevent the fatal attack, and imposing a duty would unfairly require property owners to guard against virtually all random criminal acts.

Aspects examined by courts to determine whether a criminal act was foreseeable

Proximity, publicity, recency, frequency, and similarity.

Assumption of Risk

The knowledge of and voluntary assuming of a risk that can cause injury, such as agreeing to fight in a hockey rink as a player. This can be used as a defense of negligence cases.

Superseding event

An unforeseeable, independent intervening event that breaks the chain of causation in a negligence case, relieving the original negligent party of liability.

Contributory negligence

Plaintiff had a role in the incident causing resulting harm to themself, relieving the defendant of liability

Brooks v. City of Baton Rouge

Issue: Whether the trial court correctly allocate damages for contributions to the automobile accident resulting in bodily harm to Mrs. Brooks.
Ruling: The trial court was incorrect; it found the trial court’s apportionment of fault was manifestly erroneous and adjusted the shares of comparative negligence to which Mrs. Brooks was only 15% at fault, and it reduced certain damage awards to conform with legal standards
Analysis: The court determined both parties contributed to the accident: Mrs. Brooks was negligent for drifting off the roadway and aggressively attempting to re‑enter the pavement without reducing speed, and the City/Parish was negligent in constructing and maintaining a defective shoulder, which featured a drop‑off that contributed to the loss of control. Because the trial court’s original finding that Mrs. Brooks bore only 15% of fault was not supported by the evidence, the appellate court reallocated fault evenly (50/50) between her and the City/Parish. The court also reviewed the damage awards and, finding some excessive in comparison with established wrongful‑death guidelines, reduced those specific general damage awards.

Res Ipsa Loquitor

A tort law doctrine allowing plaintiffs to infer a defendant’s negligence through circumstantial evidence when direct proof is lacking. It applies when an accident ordinarily wouldn't occur without negligence, the cause was under the defendant's exclusive control, and no action by the plaintiff caused it.

Negligence per se

Establishes that a defendant is automatically negligent if their violation of a statute, ordinance, or safety regulation causes harm to someone the law was designed to protect

Dram Shop Liability

Laws that hold commercial establishments, particularly bars, legally responsible for serving alcoholic beverages to individuals who subsequently cause harm to themselves or others, regardless of how much the establishment provided them to drink.

Strict Liability

An action was so dangerous that one is strictly liable if something harmful happens.

Agent authority

Defines the power an agent has to act on behalf of a principal, binding them to contracts or actions.

Implied Authority

Power that is not explicitly stated but is necessary, usual, or incidental to carrying out the agent's express duties. It is based on the agent's reasonable understanding of the principal's instructions.

Apparent authority

Arises when a third party reasonably believes, based on the principal's actions or behavior, that the agent has authority to act, even if that authority was not specifically granted.

Scope of Employment

A legal doctrine that states that employers are responsible for the behavior of employees that caused harm if that incident occurred within the range of authorized activities and duties an employee performs for their employer, covering actions reasonably related to their job and foreseeable by the employer.

Independent Contractors

A legally defined form of employment where the employee independently controls their hours of employment, brings their own tools, has temporary work, provides their own form of transportation, is payed by the job (and not hourly, weekly, or monthly), and is free to work for other employers.

Detour

A small, temporary deviation that is still within the scope of employment.

Frolic

A substantial personal departure from work duties that falls outside the scope of employment.