Intentional Torts

1
Intentional Torts

• What do we mean by intentional?
• Caudle v. Betts, p. 182
• Facts
• How did the lower court screw up the concept of
  intent in tort law?
• The case also gives us another illustration of
  the interplay between the tort law system and
  state workers compensation law. How so?
• And, the case gives us an example of the tort of
  assault and battery.

2
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Leichtman v. Furman, Ohio Ct. App., 1994
• Def. Furman was a radio talk show host. He
  invited Pl. Leichtmann to appear as a guest. Pl
  was volunteer executive director of the Citizens
  for a Tobacco-free Society. He appeared on Defs
  show on the eve of the Great American Smokeout
  to discuss the dangers of passive smoke
  inhalation. During the interview, Def.
  repeatedly and deliberately blew cigar smoke into
  Pls face and onto his clothes. There was no
  evidence that Pl. suffered any physical injury.
  Pl. sued Df. his employer (owner of radio
  stations) for assault and battery.
• Conclusion?

3
Intentional Torts, cont.

• False imprisonment
• Detain or confine, no consent, not part of lawful
  arrest
• Most common application today is detention of
  suspected shopliftersold common-law view
• Two types of state statutes are relevant
• Probable cause reasonablenessAll states
• Electronic detection probable causeMany states
• Estes v. Eckerds, p. 186
• Facts
• How did the 2 statutes work together in this
  case?
• Conclusion?

4
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Moores, Inc. v. Garcia, TX Ct. App., 1980-Not a
  shoplifting case
• Garcia, along with a friend, went to a store,
  Moore's, Inc., to stuff for a party. After Garcia
  bought a pie, the two men left the store. Upon
  entering the car outside the store, Garcia's
  friend realized that he had forgotten to pay for
  some candy, and was going to go back in the
  store. The security guard of the store, Bieniek,
  who was also an off-duty policeman, saw the
  alleged shoplifting of the candy and followed the
  men to their car. At the car, Bieniek asked
  Garcia's friend to accompany him back into the
  store to inquire about the shoplifting. Both men
  accompanied Bieniek back into the store. Bieniek
  took Garcia's friend into a small room in the
  back of the store and began his investigation.
  Garcia banged on the door and loudly inquired
  about what was happening. Bieniek loudly told
  Garcia that his friend was under arrest, told him
  to get out of the store, and slammed a metal door
  in Garcias face. Garcia struck a time clock in
  rage, and stormed out of the store, cursing as he
  left. Bieniek followed Garcia out of the store,
  grabbed him by the arm pushed him, and arrested
  him for destruction of private property, breach
  of the peace, and interfering with a lawful
  arrest. Bienek claimed that the clock was
  damaged, but there was no evidence that it was.
  (Other employees testified to the eventsthis
  wasnt just Bieneks word vs. Garcias.) Several
  on-duty police officers soon arrived and arrested
  Garcia. He was handcuffed and taken to jail where
  he was booked, photographed and fingerprinted.
  Garcia remained in jail for approximately three
  hours, and all charges were dismissed. Garcia
  sued Bienek and the store for false imprisonment
  and assault and battery.
• Conclusion?

5
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Henry v. J.C. Penney, TX Ct. App., 2000
• Henry (P) was in a J.C. Penney (D) store. He
  saw a sweater he liked. He took off his new
  jacket (he had bought it there 2 wks. before) and
  put it on a rack while he tried on the sweater.
  He decided not to buy the sweater. He put his
  jacket back on and left the store. A clerk saw P
  take the jacket off a rack that had similar
  jackets, put it on, and leave the store without
  paying for it. She alerted the manager who
  followed P to a nearby store and told him that
  there was a problem with his merchandise and that
  he had some questions for him. Henry shrugged
  and said OK. The manager and a security guard
  accompanied Henry back to Ds store. The guard
  took Henrys arm, but not roughly, and guided him
  back to Ds store where P produced a receipt from
  his wallet proving that he had previously paid
  for the jacket. The manager checked the receipt,
  apologized, and let Henry leave. The incident
  took 7-10 minutes, all told. P sued D for false
  imprisonment. Conclusion?

6
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Invasion of Privacy
• Public Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Facts
• Young v. Jackson, p. 189
• Facts
• What has to be proved?
• Note the analogy the court used in adopting a
  qualified privilege from the law of defamation.
• How did this privilege apply here, and what
  effect did it have.
• Conclusion?

7
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Invasion of Privacy
• Intrusion (intrusion into seclusion, intrusion
  into solitude)
• Intrusion of outrageous nature into matters that
  a reasonable person would be justified in viewing
  as very personal private
• Examples
• How might we change the facts in Young v. Jackson
  to make it an intrusion case?
• What if you use your employers e-mail system,
  and the employer monitors your usage without your
  consent or knowledge?
• False light (wont discuss)
• Appropriation of name, likeness . . (the right of
  publicity)
• You didnt consent, explicitly or implicitly.
  What if you were participating in a public event,
  and a photo with you in it appeared in the
  newspaper? What if someone took the photo and
  then used it in a commercial ad?

8
Intentional Torts, cont.

• McNamara v. Freedom Newspapers, TX Ct. App., 1991
• Def. newspaper in Brownsville published a photo
  taken during a high school soccer game. The
  photo accurately depicted Pl. and a student from
  the opposing school running full stride while
  chasing the soccer ball. The picture revealed
  P's genitalia, which happened to be exposed at
  the exact moment that the photo was taken. Pl.
  sued the newspaper for public disclosure of
  embarrassing private facts.
• Conclusion? Why?

9
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Kidder v. Ocwen, Fla. Dist. Ct., 2000
• Minnis crawled through the crawlspace above the
  womens restroom at his office building and
  installed a video camera so that he could
  secretly spy on Pl. and other female employees.
  Pl. sued for intrusion?
• Conclusion?
• What if he had shown the videos to one friend?
  Any difference?
• What if he put the video on the web, or attached
  it as a file to an e-mail he sent to a large
  number of people?

10
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Smyth v. Pillsbury Corp., Fed. Dist. Ct., PA,
  1996
• Pillsbury (Def.) maintained an e-mail system to
  promote internal corporate communications among
  its employees. The company repeatedly assured
  its employees that all e-mail would remain
  confidential and privileged and that it would not
  be intercepted and used by the company against
  its employees as grounds for termination or
  reprimand. In October 1994, after becoming very
  angry at his supervisor about some inane
  bureaucratic requirement, an employee named Smyth
  sent an e-mail to another employee referring to
  an upcoming coming holiday party as the Jim
  Jones Koolaid affair, a reference to the suicide
  of 900 followers of cult leader Jim Jones in S.
  Amer. by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid. He also
  wrote about killing the backstabbing bastards,
  although no reasonable person would believe that
  he intended to carry this out. Management had
  monitored the e-mail and saw Smyths message.
  They fired him, and he sued for the tort of
  intrusion. Conclusion rationale?

11
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Defamation (libel slander)
• Libel or slander per sejust proving
  humiliation, mental anguish justifies damage
  award. Just slandermust prove actual economic
  harm.
• Statement made as a fact, not a prediction or
  opinion.
• Fact?------------------?Opinion
• When in the middle, relative knowledge of parties
  can play a part.
• Also when in the middle, a statement that is
  arguably just opinion may clearly imply an
  underlying factual basis for the opinion, and be
  treated as a factual assertion.
• E.g., in the context of a discussion between X
  Y about Zs various questionable securities and
  banking practices, including references to
  certain laws, X being someone like a former
  business partner who might have access to
  relevant facts, X states, Yeah, I think that Z
  may be a crook.
• Is the statement defamatory? What is defamatory?

12
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Defamation, cont.
• Is the statement false? What if defamatory but
  true?
• Does the plaintiff have to prove falsity, or does
  the defendant have to prove truth as a defense?
  That is, who has the burden of proof on
  truth/falsity?
• Traditional rule, still the majority rule
• Rule for news media (publishers) reporting on
  public figures or officials, or on newsworthy
  events
• News media rule has been adopted as the general
  rule by a minority of states
• Communication (publication) to at least one other
  person. Obviously, though, the size of the
  audience affects the amount of harm to
  plaintiffs reputation thus damages.

13
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Defamation, cont.
• Privileges
• Absolute. Cant win a defamation case, period.
• Qualified privileges. If plaintiff proves all
  the requirements of the tort of defamation, he
  then also has to prove malice. 2 main
  situations
• Media reporting ..
• One stating, and those receiving, both have
  legitimate interest in . . .
• Proving malice
• Def. knew . . ., or
• Def. acted with reckless disregard . . .

14
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Webster v. Wilkins, Ga. Ct. App., 1995
• Dominique Wilkins, then an NBA basketball star
  (the human highlight film) and a celebrity in
  Atlanta, was about to be married to Nicole Berry.
  He was interviewed by a reporter for the Atlanta
  Constitution-Journal. The reporter asked Wilkins
  about his former girlfriend, Webster, with whom
  Wilkins had had a child. The child was 3 yrs. old
  at the time of the interview, and whom he had
  been fully supporting. He and his ex-lover
  didnt get along, to say the least. He became
  emotional and said, I probably shouldnt say
  this, but that woman is unfit to have a kid. Id
  like to take the kid away from her. Webster sued
  Wilkins the newspaper for defamation (Webster
  for slander per se, which it would have been
  under her theory, and the newspaper for libel.)
• Fact or opinion? Conclusion?
• Would the newspaper have had a defense that
  Wilkins didnt have?

15
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance, SCt. of Minn.,
  1986
• After a business trip, Lewis was asked by her
  supervisors to falsify certain expense reports.
  She had all of her receipts, and there was no
  evidence that any of her spending was excessive
  or improper. She refused to do so and was fired
  for the stated reason of "gross insubordination,"
  though her boss knew that this was an untrue
  charge. Under company employment policies, such
  a charge enabled the boss to fire her summarily,
  without any warnings, etc.
• As a result, Lewis was unable to get a job for
  a long time. She either wouldnt answer
  questions about why she had left Equitable, or
  she told the truththat she had been fired for
  the reason of gross insubordination, but she then
  denied the accuracy of this reason. She then
  sued Equitable for defamation. In its defense,
  Equitable claimed that the statementLewis had
  been fired for gross insubordinationwas actually
  true because that was the stated reason.
  Equitable also asserted correctly that it had not
  communicated the statement to anyone else as the
  law requires for defamation, but that Lewis had
  communicated it herself.
• Conclusion? Rationale?

16
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Trespass to land
• Intentional entry, even if mistaken. No express
  or implied consent.
• You buy land. Someone buys adjoining land,
  starts using it as a shooting range. You get
  tired of bullets whizzing over you land. You sue
  for trespass. Do you win?
• Someone comes to your house. They act badly.
  You tell them firmly to leave. They dont. Are
  they trespassing?
• You clearly mark your property with signs telling
  people they cant come onto your property. They
  do. Are they trespassing?
• You own a residential house lot. No sidewalk.
  School nearby. Kids walk across your lawn near
  the street. Are they trespassing? What if they
  walk through your flower beds next to the house?
  What if they walk on the lawn near the street and
  you tell them to walk in the street?
• A hunter has permission to hunt, or a wood cutter
  has permission to cut wood, on land next to
  yours. He makes a mistake about where the
  boundary line is and goes onto your property.
  What if he does not cause physical damage?

17
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Conversiontaking or destroying personal
  property (this is any property other than real
  estate, owned by an individual, corporation, or
  other entity)
• Trespass to chattelsa chattel is an old term
  from English law, still used, to describe
  tangible personal property.
• Intel v. Hamidi, SCt of CA, 2003
• Ken Hamidi, a former Intel employee, left Intel
  after a dispute over a disability claim. He
  created a web site called FaceIntel.com to
  protest Intels alleged mistreatment of its
  employees. He then used Intels own e-mail
  directory, which had been sent to him by an
  anonymous Intel employee, to send 7 e-mail
  messages to 30,000 Intel employees in order to
  publicize his web site and to ask them to send
  their grievances to him. Intel sued Hamidi for
  trespass to chattels (its server). Volume of
  e-mail didnt affect the server or distract
  employees. Conclusion?

18
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Intentional infliction of emotional distress
• Def. acted intentionally or recklessly (i.e.,
  obviously not caring) to cause emotional/psycholog
  ical trauma
• Defs conduct was extreme outrageous
• Pl. suffered severe emotional distress, as shown
  by objective evidence (not just Pl. saying so)
  and
• A reasonable person under the circumstances would
  have likewise suffered this kind of harm.

19
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Driscol v. Household Credit Services, TX Dist.
  Ct., 1995
• Marianne Driscol (P) lost her job at a time when
  she owed 2,000 on her Visa credit card. She
  continued making small payments, but the
  creditor, Household Credit Services (D) became
  impatient and began pressuring her for money. In
  1992, D demanded that P pay 22 by Oct. 31. When
  she said she couldnt get that much until the
  second week in November, Ds employee insisted
  and told her You get it, bitch, or else. P
  missed the payment and D turned the debt over to
  a collection agency called Allied. Allied
  threatened Ps life, made nasty phone calls at
  all hours of the day or night and told P they
  were going to put out a contract on her. After
  she found a new job in El Paso, Allied agents
  continually called her at work. One day they
  called her 26 times in one hour and made a bomb
  threat to her new place of employment. P. sued
  for Int. Infl. of Emot. Distress.
• Conclusion?

20
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Randalls Food Markets v. Johnson, SCt of TX,
  1995
• Randalls received a credible report that one of
  its management-level employees, P, was stealing
  from the company. Randall's questioned P about
  the situation and learned that he was innocent of
  wrongdoing. Having his honesty questioned
  severely upset and depressed P, who sued
  Randalls for Int. Infl. of Emot. Distress.
• Conclusion?

21
Intentional Torts, cont.

• Tidelands Auto Club v. Walters, Tex. Ct. App.,
  1985
• Ps wife was killed in a car wreck. P filed a
  life insurance claim with Tidelands Insurance Co.
  (D). Before giving P a copy, Ds agent altered a
  letter it had received from a Justice of the
  Peace. The letter relayed the opinion of the
  regional crime laboratory that Ps wife had not
  been intoxicated at the time of the accident.
  Ds agent changed the letter to say that she had
  been intoxicated. The letter terribly upset P.
  He did not want to tell his daughter about it.
  He locked himself up alone in a room for several
  days he could not sleep at night. Ultimately, P
  learned the truth and sued D for Int. Infl. of
  Emot. Distress.
• Conclusion?