USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
For this assignment, you will be finding one example for each of the intentional and negligence torts listed below. Using, a camera or your cell phone, find an image that represents each of the following items. You may stage them, act them out, or draw them. You may also use a current event with an image from a news source. You are not allowed to simply copy and paste images/clipart off the internet, as we are looking to activate the higher order thinking skill of synthesis. Place the image under the category and provide a brief description of how this picture represents the concept.
Tort Tour Scavenger Hunt
Sara Prior
Legal Environment of Business, Fall 2019 02
Torts Against Persons
1. Assault and Battery
a.
Definition: Assault is any word or action intended to make a person fear real
immediate physical harm; battery is defined as unexcused, harmful, or offensive conduct
with another.
b.
Application: Rancel Valdez was assaulted and attacked at a frat party by a group
of men who first verbally abused the plaintiff (due to his sexual orientation); the battery
occurred when the defendants threw the plaintiff to the ground causing him to fall and
break his ankle. In this case his attackers should be liable for assault and battery as the
verbal and physical contact was unwanted and resulted in physical injury to the plaintiff.
c.
Image: A picture of an X-Ray of the broken leg (the physical harm) that Valdez
suffered in the attack as featured in a news story about the attack.
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/crime/2019/09/04/man-assaulted-partynear-university-delaware-sues-attackers-fraternities/2207819001/
2. False Imprisonment
a.
Definition: False imprisonment is the intentional confinement or restraint of
another person without justification.
b.
Application: A man (who is white) is suing Frontier Airlines for the false
imprisonment of his son (who is black) after he was relocated to the back of the plane
and not allowed to rejoin his father despite his requests because the flight crew believed
that the man was trafficking his son. Frontier should be liable for false imprisonment as
the boy was relocated to the back of the plane against his will and physically prevented
from rejoining his father by the flight crew.
c.
Image: A stock image Frontier Airlines plane. It is easy to imagine how someone
can be confined against their will in the back of a plane due to the confined space when
physically blocked by another person.
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article234770802.html
3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
a.
Definition: Intentional infliction of emotional distress is defined as outrageous or
extreme conduct that causes severe emotional distress in another. A business may be
held liable if the actions of its employee(s) results in emotional distress. The tort may be
defined as intentional if the employee’s actions are particularly outrageous or extreme.
For example the false accusation of a serious crime as described below.
b.
Application: A man was falsely accused of having child pornography on his
phone by a Target employee after he took his phone to the electronics department of a
store. No questionable content was ever found by the FBI. As a result of the stress of the
accusation and investigation the man suffered a heart attack and died. Target may be
liable for the employee’s actions that resulted in the emotional distress. The employee’s
actions can be considered particularly outrageous if the employee knew that there was
no child pornography on the phone and falsely leveled such a serious and life changing
accusation.
c.
Image: Target is being held liable for the actions of one of its employees at this
store that result in the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7440745/Family-Oregon-man-falsely-accusedhaving-child-porn-Target-employee-sue-store.html
4. Defamation
a.
Definition: Defamation is defined as anything published or spoken that causes
injury to a person’s image or reputation. A defamation tort has at least 3 requirements:
that the defendant made a false statement as fact (for example claiming that the victims
of a tragedy were paid actors), that the false statement is understood to be about the
plaintiff (in the example below the statement was clearly stated to be about the plaintiff),
and finally must be published (communicated) to at least one other person (for example
via an internet show or podcast). There is a further requirement of proving actual malice
if the plaintiff is a public figure.
b.
Application: The host of the Infowars netcast was found liable in a defamation
suit brought by the father of a Sandy Hook school shooting victim. He had claimed that
the victims and their families were really crisis actors and thus the shooting didn’t
actually happen despite undeniable evidence that it did happen. This statement has
been shown to be unequivocally false (the first requirement for defamation). Second he
spoke directly about the plaintiff as a Sandy Hook parent, fulfilling the second
requirement here. Finally, his statements about the plaintiff were broadcast on the
internet, fulfilling the third requirement. There should have been no need to prove actual
malice in this case as the plaintiff was a public figure.
c.
Image: Alex Jones was the host of the InfoWars netcast. He was found liable for
defamation and recently lost his appeal.
https://www.salon.com/2019/09/05/alex-jones-loses-his-appeal-of-sandy-hookdefamation-lawsuit-and-he-has-been-ordered-to-pay-up/
https://www.google.com/search?q=alex+jones&rlz=1CAHDPY_enUS863&tbm=isch&sxs
rf=ACYBGNQ1U8jaGkscFy3I_efSefwWlaIxEA:1568076542551&source=lnms&sa=X&ve
d=0ahUKEwiOibKqhMXkAhUPvKwKHWCCDU4Q_AUIDCgD&biw=1366&bih=641&dpr=
1#imgrc=susY8xjk6-FYHM:
5. Invasion of Privacy
a.
Definition: In a tort of invasion of privacy the plaintiff must of had a reasonable
expectation of privacy, and the invasion must have been offensive. An act that can
qualify as invasion if intrusion into an individual’s affairs. An example could be the
recording of a patient’s medical procedure without their permission. In a medical setting
patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the form of HIPAA and the notion of
doctor-patient confidentiality.
b.
Application: At least 80 women are suing a women’s hospital for recording their
surgical procedures without their knowledge or permission. These women had a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the OR, and the invasion may also be considered
offensive due to the nature of the procedures (obstetric procedures and c-sections).The
hospital may be liable for the recordings and may be additionally liable for negligence
since several recording files have gone missing.
c.
Image: Monitoring equipment from one of the operating rooms at the hospital in
question. The cameras were placed in equipment that was facing the table. The
hospital’s claim is that the cameras were placed to catch drug thieves.
https://inewsource.org/2019/04/02/sharp-grossmont-hospital-secret-recording-womenlawsuit/
6. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
a.
Definition: The tort of fraudulent misrepresentation consists of intentional deceit
for personal gain. Misrepresentation has several features. First is misrepresentation of
facts such as claiming that the target is in legal trouble when they are not. There needs
to be intent to cause someone else to rely on the false claim. This may be evident in
creating deceiving messages such as an email constructed to look like email from a
recognized source. If the fraudulent message is convincingly constructed, the victim may
rely on the message as genuine. In instances such as these the target can suffer real
harm in the form of monetary loss or other harm as a result of being fooled by the
message into thinking that payment or revealing personal information is required to
prevent legal or punitive action.
b.
Application: A man is being sued by YouTube for fraudulent misrepresentation
for targeting content creators with bogus emails claiming their accounts had copyright
strikes against them. In one particular instance the defendant fooled the target through
these emails into thinking that they need to submit their real name and address to deal
with this strike. This is a genuine YouTube procedure in certain situations so the target
was reasonable to believe and rely the bogus email. After they gave the defendant their
contact information they were subjected to “swatting.” This likely resulted in harm to the
target in emotional trauma and possibly property damage.
c.
Image: The man being sued by YouTube is likely liable for fraud as he attempted
to mislead his targets with bogus emails made to look like official emails from YouTube.
In other cases he attempted to extort money from targets using these fake messages.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/man-sued-for-using-bogus-youtubetakedowns-to-get-address-for-swatting/
7. Abusive or Frivolous Litigation
a.
Definition: If a party files a lawsuit out of malice and without a legitimate claim,
they may be sued for malicious prosecution if they lose.
b.
Application: Woman attempted to sue Starbucks in a class action suit alleging
that the company intentionally under fills its cold drinks by using too much ice. Her case
was dismissed as frivolous by the court. If Starbucks so wished, the company could sue
her for frivolous litigation.
c.
Image: The woman in the suit tried to recover $5 million from Starbucks for under
filling their cold drinks. Her suit was deemed frivolous by the courts.
https://www.newsweek.com/starbucks-lawsuits-list-456294
8. Wrongful Interference (with a Contractual Relationship or Business Advantage)
a.
Definition: Wrongful interference can be interference with a contractual or
business relationship. In wrongful interference in a business relationship involves the
defendant engaging in predatory business behavior. An example of this is a modeling
agency poaching talent from another agency, thus depriving the plaintiff agency of
revenue that it would have made from events and shows that would have featured its
talent.
b.
Application: Wilhelmina Models is suing the Society, a rival modeling agency,
alleging that the Society is stealing talent by hiring away its models. If it is found to be
engaging in predatory business behavior, the Society could be liable for wrongful
interference in a business contract.
c.
Image: Model agencies such as Wihelmina depend on having talent signed to
them in order to generate revenue by hiring its talent out for shows, events, etc. Losing
talent to other agencies cost the agency the revenue that would have been made from
having its talent participate in these events.
https://wwd.com/business-news/media/wilhelmina-model-agency-lawsuit-the-societyfashion-model-poaching-1203246195/
Torts Against Property
9. Trespass to Land
a.
Definition: One definition of trespass to land is causing something to enter onto
land owned by someone else. A company could be liable if it builds something (or even
allows its construction equipment to enter someone else’s land) on land that it does not
own or does not have permission to use. It may also be liable for damage done to that
land.
b.
Application: In Louisiana, a company that builds oil pipelines is being sued by
land owners for building on/damaging their properties. If the land owners can establish
that the company did not have permission to enter/build on the land, the company may
be liable for damages as part of a tort of trespass to land.
c.
Image: Property owners are suing a pipeline construction company for
trespassing and damage to land. They allege the company did not have permission to
do so and should be liable for damages.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/14/louisiana-landowners-suebayou-bridge-pipeline-for-trespassing-damage
10. Trespass to Personal Property
a.
Definition: Trespass to personal property occurs when someone wrongfully takes
or harms someone else’s personal property. Harm can mean destruction or to diminish
its value or condition.
b.
Application: A man has sued his parents for trespass to personal property for
destroying his substantial pornography collection. His parents did not have permission to
take his property. They should be liable for destroying the collection unless they can
prove that destroying the collection was warranted.
c.
Image: The collection was valued at around $26,000. It was largely consisted of
physical media in this case.
https://www.grandhaventribune.com/news/law_enforcement/judge-won-t-dismisslawsuit-over-parents-destroying-son-s/article_473ad50d-89fe-543d-86f2943cfa5ca26c.html
11. Conversion
a.
Definition: Conversion is defined as the wrongful taking or keeping of someone
else’s property. It often occurs along with trespass to personal property.
b.
Application: In the same suit as mentioned above, the plaintiff also alleges that
the defendants retained certain…personal items of the plaintiff’s. They may be liable for
conversion for taking and failing to return these items.
c.
Image: In this particular case the plaintiff sued the defendants for trespass of
personal property as well as conversion.
https://www.grandhaventribune.com/news/law_enforcement/judge-won-t-dismisslawsuit-over-parents-destroying-son-s/article_473ad50d-89fe-543d-86f2943cfa5ca26c.html
12. Disparagement of Property
a.
Definition: Disparagement of property occurs when someone makes a falsehood
about someone else’s product or property and causes economic damage to that person.
One aspect of this is trade libel, which is publishing false information about someone
else’s product. For example, a company could be liable for disparagement if they publish
a statement saying that another company’s product is defective when it is not.
b.
Application: The makers of a French press coffee maker are suing Starbucks for
recalling its product (thus saying it is defective) when the maker of the product claims
that it was not faulty. If Starbucks cannot prove that there was a fault with the coffee
makers it may be liable for disparagement, more specifically, trade libel.
c.
Image: The suit alleges that Starbucks could not find any fault with the presses in
lab testing but still published the recall thus committing the tort of disparagement of
property (trade libel).
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2019/05/15/526504.htm
Negligence
13. Negligence
a.
Definition: Negligence is the failure to exercise a standard of care that a
reasonable person would use. A plaintiff must prove 4 parts of an allegation of
negligence. The defendant must of had a duty of care to the plaintiff, that duty was
breached, this breach caused the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff must have a
legally recognized injury as a result. Companies have a duty of care to customers and
business invitees. This duty is breached if a company fails to warn of foreseeable risk
that the company is aware of.
b.
Application: Several women are suing Lyft after they were raped by their drivers.
Lyft may be found negligent for failing to exercise the expected duty of care as a
transportation company and perform background checks on its drivers. Additionally, they
allege that Lyft knew of these attacks as far back as 2015 but failed to act to address the
issue. Lyft’s failure to act may be the direct reason why these women were placed in a
situation where they could be attacked.
c.
Image: The plaintiffs also allege that Lyft concealed the issue of attacks by their
drivers.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04/tech/lyft-sexual-assault-lawsuit/index.html
Strict Liability
14. Abnormally Dangerous Activities
a.
Definition: Strict liability is liability without fault. Strict liability is often applied to
activities where the risk of proximate harm to others by these activities is especially high.
b.
Application: A class action lawsuit against an oil company alleges that the
company is strictly liable (as well as negligent) following an explosion at one of its
refineries. The company may face strict liability if it can be shown that activities taking
place at the plant were particularly hazardous regardless of whether there was any other
fault (negligence) by the company.
c.
Image: The explosion caused the evacuation of nearby residents as well as
release pollutants into the air. If the activities at the plant may be considered especially
hazardous the company that owns the plant could face strict liability even if they were
deemed to not be at fault for the explosion.
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/crime-and-courts/4493989-class-actioncomplaint-filed-against-husky-energy
