UGA. LEGL2700 (Chapter 10)

Torts Affecting Business

Tort

A civil wrong that causes harm or loss to another person, for which the injured party may seek legal remedies, typically through monetary compensation.

A tortfeasor

the person who commits a tort or a wrongful act against another.

3 categories of torts

include intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability.

branch of law torts are considered

civil law

Intentional torts

are wrongful acts committed with intent to cause harm or injury to another person or their property.

types of intentional torts

assault, battery, infliction of mental distress, invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, trespass, conversion, defamation, fraud, interference with business relations

intent:

not the intention to harm them necessarily, but the intention to complete the action that caused the harm

assault & battery

are different

assault

must see it coming, and cause immediate apprehension. the expectation that one is about to be harmed.

can words negate an assault?

yes!

Battery:

touching without consent or justification, and the plaintiff doesn’t have to see it coming.

Harper v. Winston County

Alabama Supreme Ct case holding that an employer physically grabbing an employee’s arm to force her into an office without consent CAN constitute battery, confirming that offensive contact without physical injury is legally actionable

Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress

Kind of like battery to the emotions, a civil wrong where a defendant's extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes a plaintiff severe emotional harm

Invasion of Privacy

occurs when someone intentionally interferes with another person's right to be left alone

3 different invasions of privacy (only have to prove one)

• Misappropriation of name or likeness

• intrusion on physical solitude

• public disclosure of highly objectionable private information

  • can be cause of action even if its true

  • not to be confused with defamation, because defamation must always be false

Misappropriation of name or likeness

Misappropriation of name or likeness is the unauthorized use of a person's identity, such as their name, image, voice, or signature, for commercial advantage or financial gain

Intrusion on physical solitude

a legal wrong that happens when someone intentionally and offensively pries into your private space or physical quiet

Public disclosure of highly objectionable, private information

is a legal civil wrong (tort) where someone shares true, highly embarrassing, or deeply personal information about another person to a wide audience without permission

Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp., 961 F. Supp. 2d 659 (2013)

Whether an employer violated the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) and invaded privacy by viewing an employee's restricted Facebook posts Ehling posted a controversial comment on her Facebook page criticizing paramedics following a shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum.

• Ehling's privacy settings allowed only her Facebook friends to view the posts, and no members of management were on her friend list.

• However, one of Ehling's Facebook friends (who was a coworker) voluntarily showed or provided screenshots of the post to a MONOC supervisor.

• Management suspended and eventually fired Ehling, prompting her lawsuit alleging wrongful termination, retaliation, and SCA violations.

  • he court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer

False Imprisionment:

arrest without warrant, detention without reason, holding a SUSPECTED shoplifter, no deadly force

Malicious Prosecution:

causing someone to be arrested without probable cause

Trespass

Entering land without consent, or staying after being asked to leave (doesn’t have to be a human body on property, could be as much as throwing rocks onto property that isn’t yours)

Conversion

The civil way to get money for someone messing up your stuff criminally. Can be temporary or permanent, It has to substantially change your property.

Defamation

• 2 types

1. Slander

2. Libel

• A statement that is published, FALSE, injurious, and unprivileged

• opinions cannot prove defamation

• they must prove that their reputation was ruined

• Has to be Unprivileged information

• Public officials/figures must also prove that there is “actual malice”

Slander

oral defamation

Libel

Written defamation, or published over the radio

Unprivileged information

is a communication that does not have legal protection or immunity, meaning it can form the basis of a defamation lawsuit if it is false and harms someone's reputation

NY Times v. Sullivan

Establishes that public officials must prove “actual malice” to win a defamation suit

• In 1960, The New York Times published a full-page fundraising advertisement criticizing Montgomery, Alabama police actions against civil rights protesters.

• The ad contained minor factual inaccuracies.

• Montgomery police commissioner L.B. Sullivan sued the newspaper for libel in state court and won a $500,000 judgment.

Core Ruling

• The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the newspaper.

• It held that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues.

• Public officials cannot recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to official conduct unless they prove it was made with actual malice.

Curtis Publishing Co v. Butts

Supreme Court decision that expanded the "actual malice" standard for defamation to public figures who are not public officials

• The Article: The Saturday Evening Post, published by Curtis Publishing Co., ran an article titled "The Story of a College Football Fix".

• The Allegation: The magazine claimed that Wally Butts, the athletic director at the University of Georgia, conspired with Alabama head coach Paul "Bear" Bryant to rig the 1962 Georgia-Alabama football game by leaking secret game plays.

• The Source: The story relied entirely on an unverified insurance salesman who claimed he accidentally intercepted a telephone conversation between the two coaches.

• The Investigation: The magazine failed to interview key witnesses, review game films, or consult football experts to check if the notes made sense.

The Legal Question

• Does the First Amendment protection for freedom of the press—established for public officials in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)—also apply to public figures who are not government officials?

The Ruling and Legacy

• The Standard: The Court ruled that public figures could sue for defamation, but they had to meet a high standard similar to actual malice. They had to show "highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from responsible publishing standards".

• The Outcome: The Court found that The Saturday Evening Post showed a reckless disregard for the truth because of its grossly inadequate investigation of non-urgent claims. Butts was awarded $460,000 in damages

Fraud

the intentional misrepresentation of a material fact that is justifiably relied upon by someone to his or her injury

Core elements to fraud

• “intentional”: You knew or were recklessly indifferent; you intended for the other party to rely on the misrepresentation

• “misrepresentation”: the false statement/act

• “material fact”: The statement involved an important, existing fact—not a vague opinion, puffery, or minor error

• “Injury”: Usually a loss of money

Interference with Business relations:

a civil wrong where someone intentionally and improperly disrupts an economic relationship between you and a third party, causing you financial harm

2 types of interference with business relations

1. Injurious Falsehood

2. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

Injurious falsehood

• a civil wrong, or tort, that occurs when someone intentionally spreads false statements about your business, property, or products to cause you financial harm

• “trade libel”: lying about the quality of safety of a company’s products

• comparative advertising: when an advertiser makes a false, malicious statement that explicitly or implicitly identifies a competitor and causes actual economic loss

Intentional interference with contractual relations

• Intentional interference with contractual relations is a civil wrong (tort) where an outside person deliberately disrupts a valid contract between two other parties, causing financial harm

  • there is a valid and existing contract

  • defendant has knowledge of said contract

  • there are intentional acts intended or designed to disrupt the contractual relationship

  • there is actual disruption of the contract

  • there are resulting damages

Negligence

• the failure to use the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances, resulting in unintended harm to another

• carelessness- not intentional

what kind of tort case is the most common claim in the U.S.

Negligence

ALL 5 elements that must be proven in order to be considered negligence

1. Duty of care

2. Breach of duty

3. Causation in fact

4. Proximate causation

5. Actual injury

Duty of Care

a legal obligation to act with reasonable caution and prudence to avoid causing foreseeable harm to others

Breach of Duty

• when a person or entity fails to act with the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would provide under similar circumstances

• Were they careless and unreasonable?

• this can hold employers responsible for employee’s bad actions and carelessness

  • known as vicarious liability

Causation in Fact (“but for” test)

• the factual link between a defendant's action and a plaintiff's injury in tort law.

• prove they ACTUALLY caused the injury

• “but for” the bad act, injury wouldn’t have occurred

• Joint and Several liability

Proximate Causation (Foreseeable Cause)

• an event is close enough and sufficiently related to an injury to hold someone legally responsible for it

• was the event reasonably foreseeable

• The limiting factor in negligence claims

  • cuts off some of liability

Actual Injury

a real, demonstrable, and tangible harm that affects a person's legal rights, property, finances, or physical well-being

Joint and Several Liability (relating to causation in fact)

• The carelessness of 2 or more individuals or businesses

• that allows a person who wins a lawsuit to collect the entire amount of damages from any one of the responsible parties, regardless of that party's specific share of fault

  • plaintiff can go after one solvent company and leave them to sort out damages owed with other companies later

Res Ipsa Loquitur

• the thing speaks for itself

• the fact that a particular injury occurred may itself establish a breach of duty owed

• creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence

• ex.) sewing a surgical sponge into a patient on accident

• ex.) removing the wrong limb on accident

Defenses to Negligence

Affirmative defenses

• Contributory Negligence: Plaintiff’s fault; Doctrine of comparative responsibility

• Assumption of risk: Plaintiff’s knowing and willing undertaking of an activity

Contributory Negligence

• if the plaintiff is even 1% responsible they will get nothing from the defendant

• all or nothing rule

• applies in 5 states

Pure Comparative Negligence

a legal rule that lets an injured person recover money for an accident, even if they are mostly to blame, by reducing their payout based on their exact share (%) of fault

Partial Comparative Negligence

• reduces an injured person's financial recovery based on their share of fault, but completely bars them from recovering anything if their fault reaches a specific limit

• sets a threshold that is dependent of the state usually about 50%

• The plaintiff has less than or equal to the percentage amount of liability then the plaintiff can receive damages

• If contributory negligence and pure comparative negligence had a baby

Assumption of risk

• plaintiff is knowingly and willingly undertaking an activity

  • ex.) signs at national parks warning of danger

  • ex.) riding in a packed car without a seatbelt

Strict Liability in tort

• injury causing behavior that is neither intentional nor negligent

  • strict products liability

  • ultra-hazardous activity

  • dram shop laws

Strict products Liability

• seller who sells an unjustly dangerous faulty product that causes injury to a user of the product is strictly liable

  • production defects: where the product isn’t created to standards; usually happens during a concentrated period of time and isn’t always bad

  • Design defects: injury caused due to unsafe design; was bad from the jump

    • can use assumption of risk but not contributory negligence

Ultra-hazardous activity

• an action so inherently risky that a person or company performing it is held strictly liable for any damage it causes, even if they used the utmost care and were not negligent

  • ex.) Transporting and using explosives and poisons

  • ex.) keeping dangerous wild animals

  • ex.) Artificial storage of large quantities of liquid

Dram shop laws

Dram shop laws hold commercial alcohol-serving establishments—like bars, restaurants, and liquor stores—legally responsible for injuries or damages caused by patrons they overserve or sell to unlawfully

Burger King Case (Iannelli v. Burger King Corp.)

• examines premises liability and the extent to which a commercial business owes a duty of care to protect its customers from the criminal acts of third parties

• Is Burger king responsible for the premises? Yes!

• Is Burger king responsible for the 3rd party causing injury? Yes!

• Nicholas Iannelli and his family went into a Burger King restaurant for a meal. Inside, there was a rowdy group of teenagers who were being loud, obnoxious, and aggressive.

• The Escalation: Iannelli grew concerned for his children's safety and asked the teenagers to use more appropriate language. In response, one of the teenagers struck him, and the group beat him up, causing significant injuries.

• The Claim: The Iannelli family filed a personal injury negligence lawsuit against Burger King Corp.. They argued that the restaurant employees should have realized the rowdy teenagers posed a danger, and that staff failed to act reasonably by not calling the police, failing to notify management, or failing to ask the group to leave before the violence erupted.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad (landmark case regarding proximate cause)

• Helen Palsgraf stood on a station platform waiting for a train.

• Railroad employees helped a passenger board a moving train.

• In doing so, they dislodged an unmarked, newspaper-wrapped package containing fireworks.

• The package fell and exploded, causing heavy scales at the far end of the platform to topple over and strike Palsgraf.

The Ruling

• Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo wrote the majority opinion reversing the lower court and dismissing the complaint.

• The court ruled that negligence is not absolute, but relative.

• A defendant is only liable for negligence if they breach a duty of care to a foreseeable plaintiff within the zone of danger.

• Because the package did not look dangerous, the employees could not foresee that helping the man would risk harming a distant passenger like Palsgraf.

Damages

• 2 types of damages

  • Compensatory

  • Punitive

Compensatory damages

• Compensate plaintiff for injuries suffered

  • Past and future medical expenses

  • Past and future economic loss

  • Past and future pain and suffering

Punitive Damages

• Awarded by courts to punish defendants

  • Arise from intentional torts or extreme willful and wanton negligence

  • Awarded for risky negligent conduct