Part 2- Crimes and Torts, Chapter 6: Intentional Torts, Doc 10

1. Millbrook v. Dillard’s (Assault, Battery, and False Imprisonment) • • Facts: Millbrook was accused of shoplifting and detained, though she provided proof of purchase. After 20 minutes, she was allowed to leave. She reported emotional distress but had no physical harm or work impact. Outcome: Dillard's sought summary judgment on claims of assault, battery, and false imprisonment. 2. Khan v. Parsons Global Services (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) • • Facts: Parsons allegedly delayed ransom payment in Khan's kidnapping, resulting in physical harm. Mrs. Khan filed for emotional distress. Outcome: The court dismissed Mrs. Khan’s claim, which she appealed, asserting sufficient grounds for emotional distress. 3. White v. Monsanto (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) • • Facts: White, exposed to verbal abuse by a supervisor, suffered an anxiety reaction. She sued Monsanto. Outcome: The case questioned if White’s distress was severe enough and if the supervisor's behavior was sufficiently outrageous for liability. 4. Hearst Corporation v. Smith County Prosecutors (Defamation) • • Facts: Prosecutors sued for defamation, claiming a newspaper article falsely criticized them. Hearst argued for summary judgment, citing constitutional fault requirements. Outcome: Hearst argued prosecutors could not meet the fault standard required to prove defamation. 5. Doescher v. Raess (Assault Claim) • • Facts: Dr. Raess verbally threatened Doescher in a confrontational manner. Doescher claimed assault based on fear of imminent harm. Outcome: The jury favored Doescher, but Raess appealed, disputing sufficient evidence of assault. 6. DeNardo v. Bax (Defamation and Conditional Privilege) • • Facts: Bax expressed concern about DeNardo stalking her. DeNardo sued, alleging defamation. Bax claimed conditional privilege. Outcome: The court granted Bax summary judgment, noting her statements were conditionally privileged. 7. Paris & McNelley v. Lussier (Trespass and Nuisance) • • Facts: Plaintiffs alleged smoke from the Lussiers’ woodstove caused health issues and trespassed onto their property. Outcome: The trial court ruled against the trespass and nuisance claims, which were then appealed. 8. Comedy III Productions v. Saderup (Right of Publicity) • • Facts: Saderup used the likeness of The Three Stooges in art sold for profit without consent. Comedy III sued, claiming a right of publicity violation. Outcome: The courts ruled in favor of Comedy III, stating Saderup’s work did not qualify for the First Amendment exemption. 9. Lovejoy v. Linehan & Peirce (Public Disclosure of Private Facts) • • Facts: Lovejoy alleged public disclosure of an annulled conviction by his opponent during a campaign, violating privacy rights. Outcome: The court dismissed the claim, stating it was a matter of public concern. Lovejoy appealed. 10. Kentucky Kingdom v. WHAS-TV (Defamation) • • Facts: Kentucky Kingdom sued WHAS-TV for defamatory statements after an accident at their park. The case focused on proving the First Amendmentbased fault requirement. Outcome: Since Kentucky Kingdom was a public figure, it had to prove actual malice to succeed. 11. Stoshak v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board (Injury Leave Pay) • • Facts: Stoshak was injured breaking up a student fight. He sought additional pay under the “assault or battery” statute rather than the “physical contact” statute, which limited pay to one year. Outcome: The Board granted pay under the physical contact statute, which Stoshak appealed for extended benefits under the assault statute. 12. Stanton v. Metro Corp. (Defamation and Privacy) • Case Prediction: Involved alleged defamation and privacy invasion by Metro Corp. regarding information about a public figure. The appellate court ruled on the applicable standards for defamation and privacy. This summary captures the central facts and legal questions for each case. Each ruling examines varying standards for claims such as emotional distress, defamation, and invasion of privacy, while factoring in requirements for public figures, actual malice, and conditional privileges in workplace contexts.