Ch 8: Intentional Torts and Business Torts

tort

A violation of a duty imposed by the civil law; French word meaning “wrong”

intentional torts

harm caused by a deliberate action

Defamation

concerns false statements that harm someone’s reputation; can be written or spoken

libel

written defamation

slander

oral defamation

What is an element of a defamation case?

It is something that a plaintiff must prove to win a lawsuit

What are the four elements to a defamation case?

1. Defamatory statement

2. Falsity

3. Communicated

4. Injury

absolute privilege

A witness testifying in court or legislature may never be sued for defamation; exists in courtrooms and legislative hearings

false imprisonment

The intentional restraint of another person without reasonable cause and without consent

intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”)

An intentional tort in which the harm results from extreme and outrageous conduct that causes serious emotional harm

battery

An intentional touching of another person in a way that is harmful or offensive

assault

An act that makes a person reasonably fear an imminent battery

trespass

Intentionally entering land that belongs to someone else or remaining on the land after being asked to leave

conversion

Taking or using someone’s personal property without consent

fraud

Injuring another person by deliberate deception

compensatory damages

Money intended to restore a plaintiff to the position he was in before the injury

single recovery principle

Requires a court to settle the matter once and for all by awarding a lump sum for past and future expenses

punitive damages

Damages that are intended to punish the defendant for conduct that is extreme and dangerous

What are the three “guideposts” a court must consider when awarding punitive damages?

1. The reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct

2. The ratio between the harm suffered and the award, and

3. The difference between the punitive award and any civil penalties used in similar cases

What is the primary purpose of punitive damages?

They are aimed at deterrence and retribution

economic damage

lost wages, medical expenses, and other measurable losses

non-economic damages

pain and suffering and other losses that are difficult to measure

tortious interference with a contract

An intentional tort in which the defendant improperly induced a third party to breach a contract with the plaintiff; the defendant may try to prove there was no contract, or that special circumstances made its conduct fair

What four elements should the plaintiff establish to show that tortious interference with a contract exists?

• There was a contract between the plaintiff and third party

• The defendant knew of the contract

• The defendant improperly induced the third party to breach the contract or made performance of the contract impossible; and

• There was injury to the plaintiff

justification

A claim that special circumstances made its conduct fair

To establish justification, what must the defendant show?

• It was acting to protect an existing economic interest, such as its own contract with the third party;

• It was acting in the public interest, for example, by reporting to a government agency that a corporation was over billing for government services; or

• The existing contract could be terminated at will by either party, meaning that although the plaintiff had no long-term assurances because the other side could end it any time

tortious interference with a prospective advantage

Malicious interference with a developing economic relationship; a plaintiff who has a definite and reasonable expectation of obtaining an economic advantage may sue a corporation that maliciously interferes and prevents the relationship from developing

The Lanham Act

The law provides broad protection against false statements intended to hurt another business

What three things must the plaintiff prove in order to win a case with the Lanham Act?

1. The defendant made false or misleading fact statements about plaintiff’s business

2. Defendants used the statements in commercial advertising or promotion

3. The statements created the likelihood of harm to the plaintiff