University:
Indiana University Bloomington
Course:
Financial and Managerial Accounting: Information for Decisions - John J. Wild
Academic year:

2024
Views:

73

Pages:

2
Author:

bratrochanter

Problem Case Analysis: Intentional Torts 1. Battery Case: England v. Garley Issue: Did Garley have the intent for battery, and does the absence of physical harm negate England’s claim? • • • Battery Elements: Battery occurs when a defendant intentionally causes harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff. Intent Requirement: Garley’s act of throwing the hamburger, even if not aimed directly at England, satisfies the intent requirement if Garley knew with substantial certainty that the act would result in offensive contact. Harm Requirement: Physical harm is not required; offensive contact suffices. Conclusion: Garley had the necessary intent for battery. England’s claim is valid even without physical injury since the contact was offensive. 2. Battery Case: Wishnatsky v. Huey Issue: Was Huey entitled to summary judgment in Wishnatsky’s battery claim? • • • Battery Elements: Intentional offensive contact. Offensive Contact: Closing the door forcefully, without physical harm, could be offensive if it invades personal dignity. Summary Judgment Standard: Huey is entitled to summary judgment if no reasonable jury could find the contact offensive under the circumstances. Conclusion: Huey likely acted within reasonable bounds in closing the door. Summary judgment is appropriate as Wishnatsky’s discomfort alone is insufficient to establish battery. 3. Defamation Case: Moats v. Nebraska Republican Party Issue: Were the statements in the publications defamatory, and did Moats’s complaint state a valid claim? • Defamation Elements: (1) False and defamatory statement, (2) concerning the plaintiff, (3) unprivileged publication to a third party, and (4) fault amounting to negligence or actual malice for public figures. • • Public Figure Status: As a political candidate, Moats is a public figure and must prove actual malice. Analysis of Statements: o Some statements (e.g., Moats received a $50,000 trust) might be factual and subject to truth as a defense. o Mock letters and implications of impropriety may be viewed as opinion or hyperbole, not actionable fact. o Statements about abortion funding and misleading creditors require proof of falsity and actual malice. Conclusion: Without specific allegations proving falsity and actual malice, the trial court correctly dismissed the case. 4. False Imprisonment Case: Millbrook v. Dillard’s Issue: Did Millbrook experience false imprisonment? • • False Imprisonment Elements: (1) Intentional confinement, (2) without lawful justification, (3) against the plaintiff’s will, (4) awareness or harm from confinement. Facts: o Millbrook was physically restrained and escorted without consent. o She was confined in a room without her companion. o If the security officer lacked reasonable suspicion of theft, the confinement could be unlawful. Conclusion: The facts support a claim for false imprisonment. If the security officer lacked justification, Millbrook’s confinement was wrongful.