LEG 100 – Week 3 Discussion – Intentional Torts

LEG 100 – Week 3 Discussion – Intentional Torts

Part 1

This week, we’ll be examining how our legal system protects persons who are injured by the purposeful act of another. These types of injuries are called intentional torts. The legal claims of assault, battery, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and defamation are examples of intentional torts.

For this discussion, choose one of the scenarios listed below and determine the intentional tort that you think applies. Make sure to explain your answer, including the elements of the claim, why you think those elements are or are not present, and what other information you would need to make this determination. A group of people protesting a company’s employment practices in the lobby of a building is surrounded by private security guards hired by the company. A teenager sends a joking message to his best friend telling him that there is a bomb in his basement. You accidentally leave your personal journal at the local coffee shop. Another customer finds it and shares your innermost secrets on his blog, but never identifies you as being the writer of the journal. At a family reunion at your parents’ home, you see Dave, a second cousin, take a very expensive bottle of wine from the wine cellar, place it in a duffle bag, and hurry out the backdoor. You quickly go to your father and tell him that Dave stole the bottle, and your father calls the police. In reality, your mother told Dave he could pick any bottle of wine from the cellar as a belated birthday present.

Part 2

Provide a substantive response to your classmate (Natalie All.)

Hello all,

Within the scenario where a teenager sends his best friend a text that there is a bomb in his basement, I believe the intentional tort that would apply to this case is Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

I am sure many of us can agree that receiving such a text would cause panic and hysteria. There are different elements to this case that could swing it either way, however, such as the fact that the scenario states the teenager who sent the text did so as a joke. One cannot easily prove that something they did or said was meant with only joking intentions.

This situation may not be considered “outrageous” enough to apply an IIED ruling, despite any emotional distress it could cause the recipient of the text message. We would need further information on what the recipient did in response to this text.

If they were afraid and called in the bomb squad for example, the sender could be held responsible for the false report and misuse of the bomb squad’s time.

If the recipient had a panic attack and was hospitalized, the sender could be held responsible for medical bills also.

We are missing the resulting actions of the recipient in this scenario, to be able to fully decide which tort would best be applied to this case.