Common Law in Contemporary Society Exam 2

battered spouse syndrome

extension of assault and battery (continuing tort) that allows victims to pursue a case after the statute of limitations, result of continuous pattern of abuse and violence

1. minor verbal/physical abuse that escalates when the victim is passive

2. actual battery

3. abuser asking for forgiveness

tort

private harm to a person or their property on the civil side, predominantly court-created but legislatures enact “tort reform” statues to modify percieved abuses of the tort system

torts

intentional acts (subject to punitive damages), negligent acts, strict liability (usually limited to ultrahazardous activities, no liability

restatement of torts, second privacy

1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of others

2. appropriation of name/likeness

3. unreasonable publication of someone’s private life (not false info, not adopted by NE)

4. publicity that unreasonably places the other in false light before the public (like staging a photo)

warren and brandeis, the right to privacy

harvard law review article, originated concept of legally-enforceable standalone right to privacy, catalysts were emergence of instantaneous photography and tabloids

transferred intent

if a person directs tortious action towards A, but instead harms B, intent transfers to B

eggshell skull

intent means intent to perform the act, not to harm (intent > motive) defendents still liable for unforeseeable consequences

battery

1. intentional act to cause contact

2. that creates harmful or offensive physical contact

assault

1. intentional act

2. that creates reasonable apprehension of

3. immeadiate harmful or offensive physical contact

restatement of the law of torts, second

authoritative secondary source written by legal scholars summarizing existing common law as well as suggesting what the law should be (persuasive authority)

defamation

harm to a person’s reputation caused by oral (slander) or written (libel) remarks that must injure reputation of hold a person to ridicule

1. publication

2. of false statements

3. that cause harm to reputation

public figure

any subject, need malice for liability and punitive damages

private figure

subject of public concern, at least negligence for liability, malice for punitive damages

private figure

subject of private concern, state law for liabilty and punitive damages

artisan’s lien

keeping something you worked on until the work is paid for

conversion

older brother to trespass (civil side of theft), taking property with the intention of permenantly depriving the person of it

trespass

1. someone enters or causes something to enter or remain

2. on the land of another

3. without permission

-no intention to keep personal property

intentional infliction of emotional distress

allows plantiff to recover for emotional distress without injury

1. intentional act

2. that is extreme and outrageous

3. and causes

4. severe emotional distress

defense to assault and battery

consent, self/other defense, defense of property

defamation of public figures

require malice, making the comment knowing it was false or acting with “reckless disregard” whether is was true or not

defamation per se

remarks so harmful that they are automatically considered defamatory, don’t need proof they caused harm

sigal construction v kenneth stanbury

man was fired by company, potential new employer contacted them and executive who didn’t know man gave scathing review based on office gossip, man sued for slander

-opinions can be defamatory if presented as fact

-employer reference is protected qualified privilege, but privilege is lost if speaker acts with common law malice/is reckless to the truth

dun and bradstreet v greenmoss builders

credit agency falsely reported bankruptcy of company to 5 subscribers, it was actually an ex-employee, company sued for defamation

-when defamatory speech involved private matter and private plaintiff, 1st amendment doesn’t restrict damages (punitive up to state law)

-gertz requirement for malice doesn’t apply to non-public concern

gertz

private figures do not have to meet the rigid New York Times v. Sullivan actual-malice standard for basic liability as long as some fault (like negligence) is shown, but they cannot recover presumed or punitive damages without proving actual malice

latek v kmart

store security said “lets get him”, tackled and handcuffed man because he looked like a shoplifter, kept him held and handcuffed for 20 minutes after they caught the real guy (who they didn’t handcuff)

-must have probable cause and conduct when holding someone in reasonable manner/duration

-priviledge to do so immeadiately distinguished once suspicion is proven groundless

knight v jewett

defendent stepped on plaintiff’s hand while intercepting a pass during a coed touch football game at a superbowl party, finger had to be amputated, plaintiff sued for negligence

-in sports participants know aggressive play is inherent risk, can’t recover from ordinary negligence (primary assumption of risk) defendent owes no duty of care

-intent is key, defendent had no intention of stepping on plaintiff’s hand, thus, no battery

cox broadcasting v cohn

girl raped and died in GA, criminal statute says misdeamor to publish names of rape victims, reporter said name off public court records, father sued cox for common law invasion of privacy/violation of state statute

-1st/14th amendments prohibit states from imposing press liability for publishing true, public records

-interest of public/open judicial proceedings override common law right to privacy

-statue was unlawful (unconstitutional)

katko v briney

owner of abandoned farmhouse rigged spring gun, 14 yo looking for antiques was severely shot in the leg

-deadly force cannot be used to protect property (only reasonable force)

-criminal/wrongdoing doesn’t exempt tort protection against deadly force

-if you can’t do it in pe, you can’t do it mechanically

tuttle v buck

The plaintiff was an established, independent barber in a small Minnesota town. The defendant was a wealthy, influential local banker who harbored personal malice and hostility against the barber. The banker financed, equipped, and opened a rival barbershop, hired barbers at high wages, and actively solicited customers away from the plaintiff.

-The banker did not enter the business for legitimate commercial investment or financial profit, but solely with the malicious design to drive the plaintiff out of business and financially ruin him, intending to close the rival shop once the plaintiff was destroyed.

privilege of competition

In a free-market economy, a person has an absolute legal right to start a business, compete vigorously, and lure away a rival’s customers through lawful methods (lower prices, better service), even if doing so results in the complete financial ruin of a competitor.

spite shop exception

When a person enters into a business solely out of unmixed malice, spite, and a purpose to inflict harm on another, disguised under the facade of legitimate business competition, the competitive privilege is forfeited, and the conduct constitutes an actionable common-law tort.

top service body shop v allstate

body shop sued insurance agency for tortious interference with contractual/business relations, alleging that agency adjusters routinely steered insured motorists away from body shop to other preferred body shops by disparaging body shop’s pricing, calling its work shoddy, and telling customers that choosing body shop would delay settlement checks.

intentional interference with contractual or economic relations

the interference must be wrongful beyond the mere fact of interference itself. The plaintiff must prove the defendant acted through:

1. An Improper Motive (acting with pure malice, spite, or ill will unrelated to a legitimate business interest); OR

2. An Improper Means (using methods that are independently tortious or illegal, such as fraud, deceit, physical violence, defamatory disparagement, extortion, or statutory violations).

If an entity acts to protect its own bona fide economic interests (e.g., an insurance company keeping repair costs reasonable for its policyholders), it is privileged to compete and direct business, provided it does not employ independently wrongful means

ins v ap

News1 gathered war news in Europe at great financial expense. Due to wartime censorship, news2 was banned from using European telegraph cables. To bypass this, news2 employees in New York bought early editions of news1 member newspapers and copied bulletins posted on news2 public bulletin boards, then telegraphed the news west to news2 subscriber papers, often publishing ahead of news1’s own west-coast papers.

hot news doctrine

Raw factual information, historical events, and current news cannot be copyrighted under federal statutory copyright law. However, as between direct commercial competitors, the entity that gathers time-sensitive news at substantial labor and expenditure acquires a quasi-property right in that information against a rival.

1. plaintiff generates information at cost

2. information is highly time-sensitive

3. defendant free-rides without cost

4. defendant directly competes

5. the conduct substantially threatens the incentive to produce the product.

rockwell graphic v dev

rockwell manufactured printing presses and maintained intricate "piece part drawings" (engineering blueprints with exact dimensions and tolerances) used to fabricate replacement parts. DEV, a competitor formed by former Rockwell employees, began selling identical replacement parts. Rockwell sued for misappropriation of trade secrets. DEV argued that Rockwell forfeited trade secret protection because Rockwell had shared thousands of these blueprints with independent outside vendors (subcontractors) to bid on and manufacture parts, arguing Rockwell had failed to maintain total, absolute secrecy.

uniform trade secrets act

information (formula, pattern, compilation, program, technique, or engineering blueprint) that:

1. Derives independent economic value from not being generally known; AND

2. Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.