MY NOTES: Civil Procedure | Contracts | Criminal Law | Property | Torts | LAWAR | MN Home

 

TORTS MARCH NOTES

 

March 10, 1999

 

When she calls on me say "I think you are totally insane."

 

Availability of punitive damages:

Intentional torts - yes if desire to harm

Reckless or willful and wanton conduct - yes, ex:

Negligence - no unless reckless (such as drunk driving)

Products liability - yes, if aware of high risk and refuse to take steps to decease danger - Fischer - p. 658 (asbestos)

 

Reasons for Punitive damage for intentional torts:

 

Reasons against availability of punitive damages:

 

 

survival action: some states allow the decedent's cause of action to survive even after the person dies. The suit must have brought the action BEFORE the person dies. CAN recover punitive damages. CA has this type of statute.

 

Wrongful death action: if the decedent's estate brings the suit AFTER the person dies, the estate CANNOT recover punitive damages.

 

Vicarious liability for punitive damages - majority rule: employer may be liable for punitive damages.

Minority (CA) - no punitive damages unless:

  1. employer ratified, or approved behavior
  2. employee was unfit and employer was reckless in employing him
  3. employee was working in a managerial capacity
  4. employer was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice

 

products liability - can impose strict liability

 

possibility of overkill in punitive damages: some awards are too high

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

March 15, 1999

 

Defamation - deals with harm to a person's reputation

 

There is a common law and modern law section

 

Public concern

 

Negligent publication - someone should have foreseen that publishing to a third person would cause someone else to be come aware of it. Can happen by failure of exercise of due care

 

Defamation's can also be actions - taking someone in handcuffs through a crowded store

 

Disseminator: held to negligence standard of due care - liable only if know or had reason to know of presence of defamation in product being loaned or sold

 

Merely associating with a mobster, person in jail - probably not enough for defamation

 

Accusing someone of being insane - should not cause damage to person's reputation and therefore not defamation;

 

--------------------------------------

 

March 17, 1999

 

Defamation continued

 

Room 127 7:40 - 8:45 - Monday night next week

 

Publication to a third party - have to show negligently communicated AND it went to someone other than the plaintiff

 

If defamatory statement is capable of

 

At common law damages were presumed. Under modern law P usually has to prove damages. Most likely to be tested on times when damages are not presumed.

 

General damages - damages which flow from defamation itself (harm to reputation, loss of friends, etc)

 

CAL CIV CODE

1786.52. Nothing in this chapter shall in any way affect the right

of any consumer to maintain an action against an investigative

consumer reporting agency, a user of an investigative consumer

report, or an informant for invasion of privacy or defamation.

An action to enforce any liability created under this title may be

brought in any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction within

two years from the date on which the liability arises except that

where a defendant has materially and willfully misrepresented any

information required under this title to be disclosed to a consumer

and the information so misrepresented is material to the

establishment of the defendant's liability to the consumer under this

title the action may be brought at any time within two years after

the discovery by the consumer of the misrepresentation.

(a) Any investigative consumer reporting agency or user of

information against whom an action brought pursuant to Section 1681n

or 1681o of Title 15 of the United States Code is pending shall not

be subject to suit for the same act or omission under Section

1786.50.

(b) The entry of a final judgment against the investigative

consumer reporting agency or user of information in an action brought

pursuant to the provisions of Section 1681n or 1681o of Title 15 of

the United States Code shall be a bar to the maintenance of any

action based on the same act or omission which might be brought under

this title.

 

Libel (letter) - written - something that people see (also can be pictures, braile, feeling a statue)


Slander (spoken) - less permanent, less physical, oral. Nods of head.

 

Section 46 - of Cal Civ Code

44. Defamation is effected by either of the following:

(a) Libel.

(b) Slander.

 

 

 

45. Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing,

printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye,

which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy,

or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency

to injure him in his occupation.

 

 

 

45a. A libel which is defamatory of the plaintiff without the

necessity of explanatory matter, such as an inducement, innuendo or

other extrinsic fact, is said to be a libel on its face. Defamatory

language not libelous on its face is not actionable unless the

plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered special damage as a

proximate result thereof. Special damage is defined in Section 48a

of this code.

 

 

 

46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally

uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other

means which:

1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,

convicted, or punished for crime;

2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious,

contagious, or loathsome disease;

3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office,

profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general

disqualification in those respects which the office or other

occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with

reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a

natural tendency to lessen its profits;

4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or

5. Which, by natural consequence, causes actual damage.

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

March 22, 1999

 

More on defamation

 

Slander per se categories

 

  1. unchastisy of a woman - common law - obscene language, undue familiarity with men; modern law - unmarried woman is chaste if still a virgin, married woman is chaste if not engaged in extra-marital affairs

 

retraction statute - gives media a protection

 

Defenses:

 

Consent - does not happen very often; analyze the same as intentional torts

Truth - a complete defense under most jurisdictions

Privileges - absolute, qualified

 

----------------------------------------

 

March 24, 1999

 

More on defamation

 

Defenses

 

Privileges

 

Common interest / public interest

Overcome by:

CL malice - split

Lackof honest belief

Split - regarding reasonable belief

Excessive publication

 

DEFAMATION - Prima facie case:

Damages:

 

CL DEFENSES

 

If P is a "public person" (public official or public figure) (v. private individual) defamation is constitutionally privileged (D wins) unless P proves by clear and convincing evidence that D published with "actual malice" (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) - New York Times v. Sullivan (p.929) (Butts and Walker, Gertz)

 

NEED TO KNOW CASE NAME of New York Times v. Sullivan

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

March 29, 1999

 

Constitutional defenses

 

Acting unreasonably is NOT enough to show "knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth"

 

Proof for actual malice - clear and convincing proof; more than preponderance of evidence

 

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ß KNOW THIS CASE! Page 953

 

Actual injury damages - with a private P on matter of public concern, states must impose some standard of liability other than strict liability à assume that negligence is the standard for this class

 

Limited purpose public figure - three requirements

  1. particular public controversy
  2. voluntarily thrust or inject or drawn to forefront to influence resolution
  3. defamation germane (pertain to) to controversy

 

standard of care to show reasonable care under the circumstances - split (for this class use reasonable care under the circumstances test)

 

factors that lead someone to be a public official and to be a public figure or a private individual - this will tell you what standard of fault needs to be done

 

public official - someone who holds high governmental office

  1. whether P's position appears sufficiently important to give the public an independent interest in the qualification and performances of the person who holds the office
  2. whether P has sufficient access to media to counteract the defamatory impact
  3. degree to which P assumed the risk of exposure to criticism by the media by actively seeking a position of influence

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

March 31, 1999

 

Types of public figures

 

Public person

Public figure

    1. all purpose public figure
    2. limited purpose
    1. defamation - germane to P's role in controversy

If P = private individual reguarding matter of public concern

Concern à gerts applies (negligence for actual; actual malice presumed punitive)

If P = private individual re matters of private concern

presumed and punitive damages don't require actual malice; open issue re negligence or SL

Test for public concern (Durn and Bradstreet v. Greenmoss)

  1. content
  2. form
  3. context

 

If someone is not a public figure, then they are a private individual:

Private individual with a matter of public concern