LEB 323 Test 1 Questions with All Correct Answers Updated
3 views 0 purchase
Module
LEB 323
Institution
LEB 323
LEB 323 Test 1 Questions with All Correct Answers Updated
Two Areas Where Negligence is Removed from Basis of Lawsuits - Answer-1) When worker's compensation has been utilized
2) In minor automobile accidents (insurance handles it)
Three Attribute of Major Intentional Torts (i.e. assault and...
LEB 323 Test 1 Questions with All
Correct Answers Updated
Two Areas Where Negligence is Removed from Basis of Lawsuits - Answer-1) When
worker's compensation has been utilized
2) In minor automobile accidents (insurance handles it)
Three Attribute of Major Intentional Torts (i.e. assault and battery) - Answer-Affirmative
Conduct → must be intentional/conscious action
Intent → to create offensive contact to body/apprehension
Injury → must be in nature of apprehension of offensive bodily contact (can't be just a
threat from far away)
***MALICE IS NOT REQUIRED (except for unusual torts like intentional infliction of
emotional distress)
Cole v. Louisiana Department of Corrections - Answer-1.Riot exercise where Cole gets
beaten excessively and injured even after saying code word; sues for battery
2.Not workers comp because it was intentional conduct that went beyond consent
3.Intention doesn't need to be malicious to count
How can proof of malice be important when not required? - Answer--Entitles plaintiff to
punitive damages
-For defamation (libel/slander), proof of malice necessary to overcome a defendant's
"qualified privilege"
Defamation: Libel vs. Slander - Answer-Libel: written defamation (includes TV and
radio); more damaging, can recover damages just by proving it occurred
Slander: oral defamation; requires proof of special damages in addition to proving
slander occurred
-4 categories of slander per se (don't need special damages): Imputation of serious
crime, loathsome disease, incompetence in profession, or Sexual misconduct
Defamation: 4 elements needed to prove and 3 defenses - Answer-1) Makes statement
as if it were FACT; 2) Defamatory; lower reputation/be FALSE 3)Communicated to 3rd
party; 4) Injure reputation
1) Statute of Limitations (1 year); 2) Absolute Privilege- even if plaintiff could prove all
elements, no liability (even if they acted in bad faith) 3) Qualified Privileges - defendant
protected when acting in good faith; malice required (i.e. knew statement was false OR
acted with reckless disregard)
, 2.Without Consent
3.Without Lawful Authority - must be a police officer/etc.
4.Injury - depriving person of liberty
-Shopkeeper's statutes: protect shopkeepers from paying false imprisonment recovery
for suspected shoplifters
Walmart v. Cockrell - Answer--Suspect shoplifter held in room/subjected to strip search
by security guard; sues for false imprisonment
-"Contemporaneous search" with probable cause
-No probable cause in this case → scope of search was unreasonable and
shopkeeper's statute didn't apply
Trespass: 3 elements and 3 defenses - Answer-1.Affirmative Conduct - consciously
enter property
2.Intent - defendant intentionally entered; don't need malice
3.Actual entry - includes air particles, overgrown tree limbs
-Statute of limitations, consent, and legal right (tenant)
4 Types of Invasion of Privacy - Answer-i.Intrusion -intrudes into area with expectation
of privacy
ii.Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Facts (ex. blackmail)
iii.False Light - may be false good deeds; sue for shame
iv.Appropriation of Name or Likeness ("Right of Publicity") -protects economic interests
that persons have in the exploitation of their names and faces (ex. actor in ad)
Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress
(GTE Southwest v. Bruce) - Answer--Must act intentionally/recklessly, must be extreme,
must be cause of distress, and distress must be severe
-GTE Southwest v. Bruce
i.Three employees complained of harassment from supervisor; sought medical
treatment for emotional distress and sued; affirmed that behavior was
extreme/outrageous
Intentional Interference with Business Relationships (elements for existing/almost
existing contracts) - Answer--3rd party that wrongfully interferes with existing contract or
contract that is about to be made
-Existing: existence of binding contract, intentional interference (don't need malice),
proximate cause, actual damage/loss
-Almost Existing: reasonable probability parties would have made contract, intentional
AND malicious act that prevented contract, no privilege/justification to act, actual
damage
Speakers of Sport, Inc. v. Proserv, Inc - Answer--Court ruled that Proserv wasn't liable
for committing tort because Ivan was allowed to leaver Speakers of Sport whenever he
wanted (no breach of contract, nature of business relationship with baseball player)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Scholarsstudyguide. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £10.23. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
