Defamation
What are the three defenses of defamation discussed in class? What defense is referred to as an absolute defense of defamation?
1.) Truth (absolute defense)
2.) opinion
3.) privilege
When assessing the breach of duty, what standard does it fall under?
In other words, what do you ask when trying to determine whether or not someone breached their duty of care?
What would a REASONABLE PERSON have done in the same or similar circumstances?
Two-part question:
1.) What court case established proximate cause?
2.) what test does proximate cause use?
1.) Palsgraf VS Long Island Railroad co.
2.) The foreseeability test
There is not a ________ element in strict product liability (its presumed)
duty of care element (duty of care to produce non-defective products)
Ethical reasoning /ethical discernment is always ________, never __________
prospective…retrospective
Describe the case of Hustlers Magazine vs Falwell. What was the court’s ruling and why?
Ruled in favor of the magazine because its statements regarding the pastor could have been made to entertain
Name four business torts discussed in class
1.)slander of quality
2.)slander of title
3.)Wrongful/tortious interference with a business relationship
4.)wrongful/tortious interference with a contractual relationship
The duty of care that the defendant owes the plaintiff can change based on the status of…. (looking for TWO answers)
1.) The defendant
2.) The plaintiff
True or false: With adequate testing, trials, and research, a company can be held not liable for injuries resulting from a defective product.
false
Is there such a thing as business ethics?
No, all ethics is derived from personal ethics
Name EVERY “topic” that falls under slander per se.
1.) Loathsome disease
2.) Conviction of a serious crime
3.) Serious financial issues
4.) Sexual promiscuity
5.) Professional Impropriety
In order for someone to commit wrongful/tortious interference with a business relationship what must they do?
They must specifically target the customers of their competition.
ex-handing out Starbucks coupons in a Dunkin donuts parking lot
The reasonable person standard is hypothetical. Does professor altom describe it as an objective or subjective standard?
Objective, it is not subjective
What are the two causal links in strict product liability
1.) The product's defective condition must be what causes it to be unreasonably dangerous
2.) The product being unreasonably dangerous is what caused the damages
True or false: “If a business is not making a profit, they are not being socially responsible.”
True
A student, Jamie, is frustrated after failing an exam in Professor Altom's class and starts to spread a rumor among peers that Professor Altom only holds office hours for female students, never for males. Jamie knows this statement is false but continues making the claim out of anger. Professor Altom becomes aware of the rumor and files a defamation suit against Jamie. At the end of the trial, Jamie argues that Professor Altom has not demonstrated any actual damages resulting from the statement and claims that there is no valid defamation claim without showing harm. Who is the court likely to side with?
Professor Altom
Two questions: you must get both correct for points!
1.) Name all elements of fraudulent misrepresentation.
2.) What type of TORT is misrepresentation?
1.) The defendant knowingly makes a false statement of material fact
2.) with the intent to induce the plaintiff's reliance thereon
3.) the plaintiff does rely on the defendants knowingly made false statement of material fact
4.) such reliance is both justifiable and detrimental
5.) there is a causal connection between the defendants statement and plaintiffs reliance
According to in-class discussions, a plaintiff must be able to identify the four elements of negligence. Professor Altom says that in addition to these four things, the plaintiff must be able to identify the ______ _______ and ______ ______.
Right defendant
Right "Negligent act"
Prior to the industrial revolution: ______ and _____ were separate
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, product liability and strict liability were separate.
Name all privacy torts
1.) False light
2.) Public disclosure of private facts
3.)intrusion into seclusion
4.)appropriation of image or likeness for commercial gain
Alex and Christian, two grown men in college, spend most of their free time playing video games. They have been grinding on Xbox all week to prepare for an upcoming tournament. One night, Alex doesn’t log on because he was hanging out with a real-life girl.
Christian is furious, believing Alex should have better priorities. In frustration, he goes into their gaming group chat on Discord and publicly claims that Alex commits crimes like DUIs and battery and has somehow yet to be held accountable—even though Alex has never done such things (not that he’d have time with all the gaming). Alex sues Christian for defamation but refuses to prove any damages in court, simply arguing that the false accusations alone were enough. He only mentions that the girl he was talking to stopped responding, which upset him. Christian’s lawyers argue that Alex must prove damages to succeed in his claim. Who does the court side with—Alex or Christian’s lawyers? Why?
Christians.
Mike and AJ work together at an accounting firm, where both take immense pride in their profession and financial success. As recent college graduates making a staggering $40,000 annually, they often boast about their bright financial futures. Their egos frequently clash, leading to ongoing arguments—especially about who will make more money in the long run. AJ claims that if he stays with the firm for two decades, he might earn an incredible $60,000 per year. Mike scoffs at this, proclaiming that in 15 years, he will apply to a prestigious firm where accountants earn a mind-blowing $65,000 annually, securing his place among the financial elite. Over the coming months, their rivalry intensifies as they continuously try to embarrass each other at work, making snide remarks and public jabs whenever possible. The situation escalates to the point where both begin dreading coming to work—not because of the job, but because they can't stand dealing with each other. Still, neither is willing to back down—after all, they are accountants, and accountants never lose. One day, AJ catches Mike heading to the bathroom and publicly humiliates him in front of Bella, the desk clerk Mike has been flirting with for months. AJ mocks Mike’s car, a standard Honda Civic, claiming that only the best accountants can afford the sport version. AJ then rubs salt in the wound, taunting, "Maybe one day, if you finally get with Bella like you've been talking about, you can pick her up in my car." Bella clearly overhears, leaving Mike utterly humiliated. Devastated by this public embarrassment, Mike sues the firm for hostile work environment. Do AJ's actions create a hostile work environment? Will Mike likley be successful?
AJ actions most likely create a hostile work environment
Mike won't be successful. He contributed to creating a hostile work environment.
What does the "But for" test say?
What does the "foreseeability" test say?
"But for what the defendant did or did not do would the plaintiff still be injured?"
"Could it have have been foreseeable to the defendant, at the time of the act or omission, that the plaintiff would be injured?"
Jack attends a large cattle auction where dozens of cows are tied to sturdy poles for potential buyers to inspect. As he moves through the auction, Jack examines several cows by touching them to assess their muscle structure before deciding which one to purchase. While inspecting one particular cow, Jack places his hand on its hindquarters, and the cow suddenly kicks him, causing serious injury. Jack sues the cow’s owner, arguing that the owner should be strictly liable for the harm caused by the cow. Is the owner strictly liable for Jack’s injuries? Why or why not?
The owner is not strictly liable. A wild animal is an animal that belongs to a category of animals that have not been generally domesticated
What are the two approaches to ethical decision-making? When do they occur regarding an ethical dilemma?
1.) Duty-Based Approaches to ethical decision making (duty-based approaches are set before an ethical dilemma occurs)
2.) Outcome-based approaches to ethical decision-making (happen once you are in an ethical dilemma, but before you make a decision)