1. Chapter 8 Tort Law Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

2. 8-2 Chapter 8 Case Hypothetical Bob Swaby, owner of Fire and Ice Heating and Air Conditioning Company, and Ben Christianson, owner of Thermostat Dreams HVAC Systems, Incorporated, are bitter competitors. Both are determined to meet the heating and cooling needs of the small town of Valdese, North Carolina, and to put it bluntly, the town is not big enough for the two of them. For years, each business owner has sought to “outdo” the other through price undercutting and other business practices, and the tension between the two has grown. Ben Christianson is married with two children, and the word around town is that Mrs. Christianson is on vacation in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina with her two children, Brent and Alexi. Bob is convinced that Ben has remained in town for no other reason than to “stay the course” in his effort to drive Fire and Ice Heating and Air Conditioning Company out of business. Bob concocts a devious scheme. One night he calls Ben, disguising his voice and identifying himself as the head administrator at the Horry County, South Carolina Coroner’s Office. Bob tells Ben that his wife and children have been murdered, and that he must come to South Carolina to identify the bodies and participate in the investigation of their deaths. Shocked and distraught, Ben nevertheless climbs into his Suburban and drives the six (6) hours to Horry County, South Carolina. When he gets there, Ben discovers he has been the victim of an impractical, and very twisted, joke. Ben reunites with his wife and children in Myrtle Beach, thankful that his loved ones are alive and well. When he returns home to North Carolina, Ben does not feel “quite right.” He has trouble sleeping, has difficulty concentrating on his job, experiences bouts of anxiety, and often feels despondent. In recent weeks, he has consulted with a psychiatrist, who has diagnosed Ben with a form of post-traumatic stress disorder. Assuming Ben Christianson discovers that Bob Swaby is the perpetrator of the prank, does Ben have an actionable civil claim against Bob? If so, on what legal theory should the action be based, and what is the appropriate amount of money damages?

3. 8-3 Chapter 8 Case Hypothetical When Olivia P. Rae talks, people listen. As a talk show host on her nationally-syndicated television program, “The ‘O’ Show,” Olivia reaches approximately thirty (30) million viewers each week. Her dedicated viewers are collectively referred to as “Olivia’s Militia,” and most of her viewers wait for Olivia’s on-air blessings before deciding what to read, how to vote, and more generally, how to think. One of her recent programs has Olivia in “hot water.” Olivia devoted her September 30 episode to a food-borne illness commonly referred to as “crazy chicken” disease. During the past two years, approximately fifty (50) people in the United States had developed physical symptoms after eating undercooked, diseased chicken. Apparently, chickens had developed the disease after eating substandard feed, and consumers had been affected in the food chain. Common symptom included muscle contractions, nausea and diarrhea, and less-than-caring individuals, many skeptical of the disease’s legitimacy, referred to these symptoms as “The Chicken Dance.” During the September 30 episode of “The ‘O’ Show,” Olivia interviewed a medical doctor. Dr. Tyson Fowler, who said that in his opinion, chicken was not safe for human consumption. In response, Olivia had said “Doctor Fowler, if that is the case, I will never eat chicken again.” Hearing of this episode, the United Poultry Growers Association sued Olivia and “The ‘O’ Show,” claiming commercial disparagement (the commercial equivalent of defamation.) Are the defendants Olivia and “The ‘O’ Show” liable for commercial disparagement?

4. 8-4 Chapter 8 Case Hypothetical Officers Jones and Henderson are well-respected police officers in the Woodlawn community. They have been recognized, both within the police department and by the community, for their outstanding service. While on patrol in downtown Woodlawn late one evening, Jones and Henderson observe an individual sleeping on a park bench in the town square. The individual is Fred Ames, a homeless person known in the community for his trouble with alcohol and illicit substances. Ames has a twenty-year history of bad choices and bad luck, and most in Woodlawn “know his story.” Woodlawn does not have a law against vagrancy or homelessness. Determined to “clean up” the downtown area, the officers demand that Ames seat himself in the back of the squad car. Reluctantly, and without the use of force on the part of Jones and Henderson, Ames complies. Officers Jones and Henderson transport Ames to a rural area, where they release him on a dark country road, and warn him not to return to Woodlawn until he “cleans up his act once and for all.” Have Officers Jones and Henderson committed a tort against Ames? Are the officers within the “privilege of their authority” in removing Ames from the downtown area? Did the officers act unethically? Should Woodlawn implement a law against vagrancy/homelessness?

5. Tort (Definition): A civil wrong giving the injured party the right to bring a lawsuit against the wrongdoer to recover compensation for the injuries 8-5

6. 8-6 Purposes of Tort Law Compensate innocent injured persons Compensate innocent injured persons Prevent private retaliation by injured parties Prevent private retaliation by injured parties Reinforce vision of a just society Reinforce vision of a just society Deter future wrongs Deter future wrongs

7. 8-7 Classification of Torts Intentional Torts—Occur when defendant takes action intending that certain consequences will result, or knowing they are likely to result Intentional Torts—Occur when defendant takes action intending that certain consequences will result, or knowing they are likely to result Negligent Torts—Occur when defendant fails to act in a responsible way, subjecting others to an unreasonable risk of harm Negligent Torts—Occur when defendant fails to act in a responsible way, subjecting others to an unreasonable risk of harm Strict Liability Torts—Occur when defendant undertakes an “inherently dangerous” action, causing harm to others Strict Liability Torts—Occur when defendant undertakes an “inherently dangerous” action, causing harm to others

8. 8-8 Intentional Torts (Against Persons) Exhibit 8-3 Assault Assault Battery Battery Defamation Defamation Invasion of Privacy (“false light,” public disclosure of private facts, appropriation for commercial gain, and intrusion on an individual’s affairs) Invasion of Privacy (“false light,” public disclosure of private facts, appropriation for commercial gain, and intrusion on an individual’s affairs) False Imprisonment False Imprisonment Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Misuse of Legal Procedure Misuse of Legal Procedure

9. 8-9 Intentional Torts (Against Property) Trespass to Realty Trespass to Realty Private Nuisance Private Nuisance Trespass to Personal Property Trespass to Personal Property Conversion Conversion

10. 8-10 Intentional Torts (Against Economic Interests) Exhibit 8-4 Disparagement Disparagement Intentional Interference With Contract Intentional Interference With Contract Unfair Competition Unfair Competition Misappropriation Misappropriation Fraudulent Misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation

11. 8-11 Damages Available in Tort Cases Exhibit 8-5 Compensatory Damages: An award that puts plaintiff in same position he/she would have been in had tort not occurred. Primary type of damages Compensatory Damages: An award that puts plaintiff in same position he/she would have been in had tort not occurred. Primary type of damages Nominal Damages: A minimal amount that signifies defendant’s behavior was wrongful, but caused no harm Nominal Damages: A minimal amount that signifies defendant’s behavior was wrongful, but caused no harm Punitive Damages: Damages that punish defendant, seeking to deter such conduct in the future Punitive Damages: Damages that punish defendant, seeking to deter such conduct in the future