HARMFUL BATTERY

Intentional
A defendant is liable for battery when they act intentionally to cause harmful or offensive contact to another, or the imminent apprehension thereof, and such
contact results.
Intent can be inferred, substantially certain to result. Garratt v. Dailey kid pulled lawn chair out from under old lady as she was sitting down.
Intent can be based on the lawlessness or lack of decorum in the actions. Vosburg v. Putney kick in school.
Damages full range (punitive, injury, pain and suffering, future loss, consortium), jury decides, consider causal chain (if plaintiff is not hurt, nominal recovery)
OFFENSIVE BATTERY
Intentional, Dignitary
A defendant is liable for battery when they act intentionally to cause harmful or offensive contact to another, or the imminent apprehension thereof, and such
contact results.
Damages full range (punitive, injury, pain and suffering, future loss, consortium), jury decides, consider causal chain (if plaintiff is not hurt, nominal recovery)
Defenses to All Intentional Torts
Real Consent must be expressed
Apparent / Manifested Consent OBrien v. Cunard implied from plaintiffs conduct in light of the circumstances
Consent Implied by Willing Engagement Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. as long as everyone stays within the rules and customs of encounter
Informed Consent Medical
For non-emergency situations: patient should be fully informed, all knowledge of alternative outcomes, given a choice Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital
For emergencies where patient is unconscious or cannot consent: dr. can decide if immediate decision necessary, there is no reason to believe the patient
would not consent if he were able, a reasonable person in the patients position would consent, and the dr, is not overstepping his custodial care
Extended Medical Consent dr. can extend procedure during a consented-to operation if:
Unreasonable to wake patient for consent (general anaesthesia)
Patient would likely consent if fully informed
Would avoid two operations, or otherwise lessen burden on patient
Consent is assumed in an emergency
Kennedy v. Parrott ovarian cysts
NOTE: Consent is no good if it is obtained by duress or material fraud
Self-defense may use reasonable force based on an objective perspective, deadly force only based on reasonable belief Courvoisier v. Raymond
Defense of Others may exchange force for force, mistakes may be either derivative or independent
Defense of Property, nondeadly force against nonprivileged actors, with qualifications
Defense of Property, deadly force for reasonable belief the intruder may cause death/serious injury Katko v. Briney no mechanical devices, warn first
Necessity, Disciplinary Privilege, Arrest, Crime Prevention, Recapture of Land or Chattels
NEGLIGENCE
A defendant is liable for negligence when he breaches his duty to take reasonable and ordinary care to prevent foreseeable harm, causing injury to the plaintiff.
A negligent act is doing something a reasonably prudent person would not do, or failing to do something a reasonably prudent person would do, not
exercising care in all circumstances (3)
Breach is B<PL (Burden of preventing harm<Probability of injury x potential liability) United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
Risk/Utility Analysis
Emergency Doctrine no breach of duty if sudden emergency, no fault of the plaintiff, plaintiff exercises the same care a reasonable person would in the
same emergency situation
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
Provides duty element and evidence for breach
Usually based on a statutory violation, matter of law for the judge to decide
RULE: Unexcused violation of a safety statute is negligence per se Martin v. Herzog driving buggy w/o lights
There must be a causal link between the violation and the type of harm suffered Brown v. Shyne chiropractor without license
Statute must apply to the facts of the case, must be intended to guard against the type of harm that resulted, harm w/I risk analysis Gorris v. Scott
EXCEPTIONS: Safer to violate than adhere, spirit but not letter Tedla v. Ellman, Unaware of statute, Attempting to comply, Impossible to comply
CUSTOM
Provides proof of a minimum standard of care
Trimarco v. Klein safety custom can be the minimum standard of care, failure to conform may provide liability if it is the proximate cause
The T.J. Hooper even if an entire industry has a standard, it may still be negligent
Helling v. Carey in a medical specialty, custom is dispositive of the standard of care, EXCEPTION: standard is raised if B<PL.
RES IPSA LOQUITOR
Circumstantial proof of negligence, the thing speaks for itself
The defendant was in control of the instrumentality that caused the plaintiffs injury
The injury was not the type that normally would occur if reasonable care were used
There exists no direct evidence for what caused the injury
Boyer v. Iowa High School Athletic Assn classic case
NO RES IPSA: Shutt v. Kauffmans enough evidence to get to the jury on negligence, careful or you will plead yourself right out of goddamn court
NO RES IPSA: City of Louisville v. Humphrey actions of third parties are not instrumentalities, even in a custodial care situation
DUTY to Rescue if:
Statute (Vermont)
Deterring rescue by others Lacey
Justified reliance the plaintiff is aware of the service, justifiably relies on it, service is negligently performed or abandoned without notice Erie Co v. Stewart
Instrumentality under defendants control causes the plaintiffs harm Tubbs v. Argus hit tree and abandoned passenger
Special relationship Tarasoff v. Regents of University of CA can be between defendant and plaintiff or defendant and anyone in the risk of harm, social utility

Rescue Doctrine
Danger Invites rescue, plaintiffs duty extends to rescuers independent of duty owed to other parties
Injured rescuer can recover from a negligent defendant if 1) decision to rescue was reasonable, 2) means of rescue were reasonable (for jury) Solomom v. Shuell
Causation
Actual Cause / Cause In Fact did the defendants act contribute to the plaintiffs injury?
But-For
Substantial Factor
Proximate Cause was the plaintiffs injury within the scope of risk created by the defendants negligence?
Foreseeable Plaintiff injury must be apparent to the eye of ordinary vigilance
Palsgraf v. Long Island RR Cardozo Opinion narrow view, zone of risk duty is only owed to foreseeable plaintiffs, those the eye of ordinary vigilance could
foresee as exposed to a risk of harm; Andrews Dissent broad view if duty is owed to anyone, duty is owed to all
Foreseeable Harm Causal Chain
The defendant is liable for all injuries within the cluster of events that happen while the accident is still unfolding Marshall v. Nugent
Chain of foreseeability is broken by intervening acts, intentional torts, criminal acts Stahlecker v. Ford Motor Company
EXCEPTION: If the natural act, intentional tort, or crime is foreseeable, it creates a duty the plaintiff may breach Herrera v. Quality Pontiac
Unforeseeable Harm
The exact mechanism and extent of damages do not have to be foreseen, but consequences must be direct Kinsman Transit Co.
Liable for all direct consequences of wrongful conduct, despite occurrence of an unforeseen type of injury Inre Polemis board dropped belowship
Ultimately, its a crapshoot, depends on the agility of your lawyer and the sympathy of the jury Wagon Mound
Negligence Liability
Joint both parties joined in a single unit / suit
Several each party is liable in full to the plaintiff
Joint and Several Each defendant is liable for the entire harm if more than one defendant is a proximate cause of harm, and the harm is indivisible
Acting in Concert
Acted Independently / Caused Indivisible Harm
Burden shifting
Summers v. Tice when two or more defendants are negligent, and the plaintiff (through no fault of his own) cannot prove who caused the injury, each
defendant is liable unless he can prove the other defendant caused the injury
Conspiracy of silence
Ybarra v. Spangard If the plaintiff is not sure who to blame, the burden can be shifted to the defendants (probably not everyone negligent)
Market Share the plaintiff cannot prove any one manufacturer is to blame, so defendants are joined in suit and the burden shifted to prove non-liability
Vicarious Liability sword for the plaintiff, not a shield for the defendant
Based on the legal master-servant relationship (servant performs duties, master controls servant)
Was the employee in the scope of his employment, or on a frolic and detour of his own? Authorized act to serve employers purposes?
Independent Contractors are immune from VL look at extent of control, distinct occupation or business, skill, supplies provided, method of payment,
understanding of parties
Exceptions for contractors (employer can still be brought in on a claim for contractor negligence)
Ultrahazardous activity contracted out
Illegal activity contracted out
Contracted duty nondelegable b/c of public policy, public relation, or a particular plaintiff
Employer was negligent in selecting, hiring, or supervising (also a claim for negligence)
Contractor is ostensible agent (third parties induced)
Joint Enterprise Liability defendants shared profits and losses, shared control of operations, had a common purpose
Family Purpose Liability owner of car is liable for harm caused by other family members driving on a family purpose
Damages awarded despite the foreseeability of the outcome and based on actual harm, comparative v. contributory scheme (contributory rare), jury decides
NEID
-

Zone of Danger Rule: to recover, plaintiff must have been in the zone of danger/impact at the time of negligent injury to the other party, requirement of
fear for ones own safety Waube v. Warrington
Dillon v. Legg Bystander Liability TEST:
Proximity to the scene
Sensory and contempory observation
Close relation between the plaintiff and the victim
Thing v. LaChusa factors:
Plaintiff present at the scene at the time of the accident, and aware of the victim
Awareness of the injury
Plaintiff and victim closely related
Plaintiff suffered ED beyond that of a disinterested witness

PURELY CONSEQUENTIAL ECONOMIC LOSS

Traditionally, no recovery without actual physical loss Barber Lines v. Donau Maru floodgate argument
EXCEPTION: fishermen are the favorites of the admiralty
Special relationship between contractors and their customers allows recovery JAire v. Gregory
Modern approach: recovery allowed when injury was foreseeable, a small class was injured, and conduct was blameworthy People Express v. Consolidated Rail
Defenses to Negligence
Contributory Negligence evaluate plaintiffs negligence, complete bar to recovery, not fashionable anymore daaahling Butterfield v. Forrester
Last Clear Chance, Helpless Plaintiff Doctrine (479) the negligent plaintiff can recover for putting himself at a risk of harm from the negligent defendant if RIGHT
BEFOREHAND:

The plaintiff could not avoid the harm by ordinary care (b/c he was helpless)
The defendant was also negligent by knowing about the situation and failing to see the danger, which then becomes his duty
This is like a defense to a defense to negligence, which is nuts
Last Clear Chance, Inattentive Plaintiff Doctrine (480) the plaintiff who SHOULD HAVE discovered the danger he was in by reasonable vigilance can recover if:
The defendant knew about the inattentive plaintiffs situation
The defendant realized the plaintiff was inattentive and therefore likely hurt, and
The defendant the fails in his duty to exercise due care
Examples: If you are crossing the street and drunk and pass out in the middle of the street, you are a helpless plaintiff when someone claims you were
contributorily negligent. If you are just really drunk and dont look before you cross, you are inattentive.
Assumption of the Risk plaintiff is aware of the risk, voluntarily made a free choice to take on the risk
Express Assumption spoken or written
Contractual Assumption exculpatory clauses, written agreements or releases (cannot be ambiguous or vague)
Reasonable Assumption clear cases, the plaintiff actually weighs the risk like a pro bull rider, the defense is affirmative and recovery is shared
Unreasonable Assumption the plaintiff fails to take reasonable care of himself like an amateur bull rider, complete bar to recovery
Primary Assumption the defendant owed no duty and was not negligent, one-sided and the plaintiff was negligent just by participation, complete bar to
recovery Meistrich v. Casino Arena Attractions, Knight v. Jewett
Secondary Assumption the defendant was also negligent and has to share the blame, works like comparative negligence, riding with a drunk driver
Comparative Negligence / Comparative Fault Schemes the plaintiffs own negligence does not bar recovery, just reduces it
Jury apportions damages between the plaintiff and the negligent defendants, recovery is reduced by percent responsibility
TRESPASS TO LAND
Intentional (There is a negligent form, too)
The defendant is liable for trespass to land when he intentionally (negligently) and physically invades the plaintiffs land, and the invasion is unauthorized or
unprivileged and interferes with the exclusive possession of the plaintiff.
Defense Private necessity Ploof v. Putnam, Public necessity is a complete privilege
Damages negligent trespass REQUIRES DAMAGES, can usually only recover actual loss, injunction, other equitable relief, nominal loss
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS (Applies to Negligence and Trespass Defenses)
INVITEES: Duty to Inspect/Repair
Public Invitee member of the public, invited for purpose for which land/bldg is open, church parishioners or park visitors
Business Invitee invited for business dealings, store patrons, also extended by doctrine to people like mail carriers and escorts
Landowner Duty: make property reasonably safe, includes duty to warn of known dangers, if warning would be insufficient, inspect for dangerous
conditions and make them safe
LICENSEES: Duty to Warn
Have landowners real, manufactured, of implied consent to enter social guests, police officers, fire fighters, solicitors
Landowner Duty: warn or use reasonable care to make conditions safe, warn of dangerous artificial conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm if
the licensee doesnt know and probably wont discover it
ORDINARY TRESPASSERS: No duty
CRIMINAL TRESPASSERS: Refrain from wanton or willful conduct
CONSTANT TRESPASSERS: For artificial conditions, warn of or make safe if not obvious and highly dangerous, no duty for natural conditions
KNOWN TRESPASSERS: Basically the same as Licensees
Artificial conditions duty to warn of or make safe known conditions if not obvious and highly dangerous
Duty of reasonable care with harmful activities
No duty to warn of natural conditions
CHILD TRESPASSERS: Landowner is liable if
Condition artificial
Children known to trespass
Knows condition dangerous to children
Children do not appreciate danger b/c of their youth
B<PL, AND
Fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger
PRIVATE NUISANCE
The defendant is liable for a private nuisance when he intentionally and unreasonably interferes with the plaintiffs use of property through a non-trespass
invasion of land that deprives the owner of use and enjoyment.
Unreasonable = balance utility v. harm
Think lights, noise, odors
Three main types of claims:
land itself (pollution, shaking ground)
health and comfort (air quality, odors)
peace of mind (funeral parlor, stockpiles of explosives)
Damages actual loss, injunction, self-help abatement
PUBLIC NUISANCE
The defendant is liable for public nuisance when he interferes in an unreasonable and significant or unlawful way with a public right. For this cause of action, the
private plaintiff must demonstrate damage of a different nature than the public at large.
Unreasonable = significant interference with a public right
Damages actual loss, injunction, self-help abatement
STRICT LIABILITY / ANIMALS
Strict
The defendant will be held strictly liable when his livestock damage the plaintiffs property.
Only negligence liability for personal injury

The defendant will be held strictly liable when his domestic animal with known dangerous propensities harms the plaintiff.
The defendant will be held strictly liable when he is the owner and possessor of a wild animal that harms the plaintiff.
Damages livestock get property damage and no specials; wild animals and dog bites get full damages and punitives
STRICT LIABILITY / ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY
Strict
The defendant will be held strictly liable when his abnormally dangerous activity harms the person, land, or chattels of the plaintiff.
Liability cannot be eliminated by due care
Limited to the kind of harm, the risk of which makes the activity dangerous
Is strict liability applicable?
Is a dangerous material involved? Fletcher v. Rylands a person who brings something onto his land for his own purposes that is likely to cause substantial
damages if it escapes strictly liable for all consequences if it escapes and causes harm (DIFFERENTIATE: roads have a negligence standard, reciprocal risk)
Is there an unnatural use of the land? Rylands v. Fletcher, Turner v. Big Lake Oil natural = general or ordinary
Consider the geography Turner v. Big Lake Oil Foster v. Preston Mill Co.
Is there an abnormally dangerous or ultrahazardous activity involved? Siegler v. Kuhlman, Foster v. Preston Mill Co.
Limitations activities are not abnormally dangerous if their risk can be eliminated PSI Energy, Inc. v. Roberts asbestos (dissent: rsts say eliminated, not reduced)
Only foreseeable hazards, only natural consequences, not exceptionally sensitive activity Foster v. Preston Mill Co.
Defenses Assumption of the risk, firemans rule (not contributory negligence, not in the spirit of the law)
Damages full range or pecuniary and punitives
PRODUCTS CLAIMS / NEGLIGENCE
A product manufacturer is liable when they breach their duty to take proper precautions in manufacturing acceptable consumer goods, causing harm to the
consumer.
No privity required
Damages based on harm to person or property (not purely economic loss) plus pecuniary loss based on blameworthiness of defendant
MANUFACTURING DEFECT (this ONE is bad)
A defendant manufacturer is liable when they breach their duty to manufacture a product with due care, resulting in a defective product. The defect is the
proximate cause of the products breakdown, and causes harm to the plaintiff.
NEGLIGENT DESIGN (ALL of them are bad)
A defendant manufacturer is liable for negligence in product design when the foreseeable risk of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or
avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design.
McCormack v. Hankscraft vaporizer could easily have been made safe with no effect on performance
Uloth v. City Tank Corp garbage truck amputated foot, a warning is not good enough is an easy fix would prevent serious / fatal injury
FAILURE TO PROPERLY INSPECT
The manufacturers duty is to manufacture dangerous items carefully
Dealers duty is to properly inspect, extends all the way to the end user MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. more probable the danger, greater the duty
FAILURE TO OBTAIN QUALITY COMPONENTS
MANUFACTURER FAILURE TO WARN
Duty to warn if
Risks are foreseeable
Omission renders the product not reasonably safe
Danger is not open and obvious
Warning must be adequate in nature, scope, severity, and degree to which it tells about avoidance of the risk.
If risk cannot be designed out, then warn carefully. But you cant warn yourself out of defective design.
PRODUCTS CLAIMS / WARRANTY COA
A warranty cause of action will lie for defective goods that breach the Manufacturers Express Warranty / Implied Warranty of Merchantability / Implied Warranty
of Fitness for a Particular Purpose.
Express Warranty explicit promise the product will perform, strictly enforced
Implied Warranty of Merchantability UCC 2-314 assurance product is free from defect and will perform normally for its intended use
Merchant must be a seller of goods of that kind
Includes serving for value of food/drink (premises or elsewhere)
Merchantable goods must:
Pass w/o objection in the trade
Be of fair, avg quality
Be fit for ordinary purposes
Be of even quality throughout the unit
Conform to promises on the label
Be adequately packaged
Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose product will meet the needs of a particular purpose the seller knows about, focuses on defective nature
Defense Disclaimers, unless they abrogate a statutory duty, are inconspicuous or unconscionable
Damages based on contract and tort theories combined, can recover for economic loss and personal injury based on harm / blameworthiness of defendant
STRICT LIABILITY PRODUCTS (402A)
A claim will lie in strict liability for recovery by a user/consumer from a seller who is engaged in the business of selling the product, for physical harm caused by a
defective product that is unreasonably dangerous.
No privity requirement
Due care has no effect

Recovery is barred for products that have been mishandled, or already risky products
Greenman v. Yuba product must be used as intended and the plaintiff must be unaware of the defect

UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS MANUFACTURING DEFECTS

UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS DESIGN DEFECTS
Risk/Utility Test to show feasibility of alternative design
Technical feasibility, availability of materials, cost of production, cost to consumer, acceptance by consumer Troja v. Black and Decker handsaw guard
Risk of Harm / Social Utility Balancing in Parish v. JumpKing
Consumer Expectation Test does the product do what a normal consumer reasonably expects under the circumstances?
Barker Test combines consumer expectation, then risk/utility Heaton v. Ford Motor Co. tough new trucks wheel came off when it hit an itty-bitty rock
Excessive Preventable Danger Test a risk/utility analysis for complex products, requires expert testimony Soule v. General Motors not-so-bitchin Camaro
Product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary customer would expect
Defect existed when it came off the assembly line
Defect caused the customers enhanced injury
Product was used correctly or foreseeably
FAILURE TO WARN rare type of strict liability situation, obvious situations like motorcycle helmets Sheckells v. AVG limited protection not openly obvious
Defenses for the suppliers duty to warn:
Learned intermediary (like a prescribing doctor)
Sophisticated user or intermediary
Bulk supplier Gray v. Badger Mining
Raw materials or component part supplier (and its only the end product that needs a warning)
Definitions
Product tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption (includes real estate and electricity, not services or animals)
Seller commercial seller, one who distributes a product, or combo or products and services (hair stylist, home decorator)
Used Products courts disagree over liability for this, the seller is generally liable if:
The product is sold as quality remanufactured
There have been defective repairs or new component parts
The defect results from the sellers failure to exercise reasonable care
The sellers marketing tactics would cause a buyer to expect the product has no greater risk than a new product
Generally NO LIABILITY for cases where the seller did not introduce the defect
Circumstantial Proof sufficient proof for strict product liability if a new, well cared-for product malfunctions under normal conditions of use
RULE: if may be inferred harm was suffered by a defect existing at the time of sale or distribution if:
The incident was of a kind that normally occurs as a result of a product defect
Was not only the result of other causes
Affirmative Defenses
Contributory negligence is NOT a defense for the defendant, if the plaintiff failed to discover the defect
Assumption of the risk and unreasonable use are defenses if the user/consumer discovers the defect and proceeds unreasonably, is injured
Comparative negligence
Comparative causation Murray v. Fairbanks Morse this equitably allocates the loss, but is like comparing apples and oranges (product to conduct)
Abnormal misuse and failure to follow instructions
Damages based on harm to person or property (not purely economic loss) plus pecuniary loss based on blameworthiness of defendant
ASSAULT
Intentional, Dignitary
A defendant is liable for assault when he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the plaintiff or a third person, and such
imminent apprehension results.
Violence must be IMMINENT Read v. Coker
Fear is not required, apprehension is key Beach v. Hancock
Damages full range, but plaintiff is generally not hurt so nominal recovery, consider causal chain, jury decides
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Intentional, Dignitary
A defendant is liable for false imprisonment when he acts intending to confine the plaintiff within boundaries fixed by the defendant, his actions directly or
indirectly result in such confinement, and the plaintiff is either conscious of such confinement or is harmed by it.
No force necessary restraint, compulsion, threat of humiliation, threat of inconvenience
Plaintiff must be totally restrained Rougeau v. Firestone
Shopkeepers Privilege allows detention on reasonable grounds to investigate (not arrest or take confession)
Damages full range (punitives, injury, pain and suffering, future loss, consortium), jury decides, consider causal chain (if plaintiff is not hurt, nominal recovery)
IIEU
Intentional or Reckless, Dignitary
A defendant is liable for IIEU when he engages in extreme and outrageous conduct demonstrating intentional or reckless infliction of severe emotional or mental
distress on the part of the plaintiff.
Conduct tolerated by society as a whole does not count Jones v. Clinton
The standard is lowered if there is a relationship of public utility or power
Damages REQUIRES A SHOWING OF ACTUAL DAMAGES, then full range (punitives, injury, pain and suffering, future loss, consortium), jury decides
DEFAMATION
Intentional, Reckless, or Negligent

A defendant is liable for defamation when he makes a defamatory, false statement of and concerning the plaintiff, publishes that statement, and thereby harms
the plaintiff by exposing him to hatred, ridicule, and contempt.
Libel is literature
Slander is spoken
Liability for primary publisher and republishers, not disseminators (bookstores, libraries, mail)
Privileges consent, litigation or govt affairs, spousal
Qualified privilege may be lost if abused by malice, known falsity or excessive publication
Imp interest to recipient or third person
Publisher has legal duty
Publication made upon request
Family or other relationship between the parties
Defenses truth, now burden is on plaintiff to prove falsity
Damages
Punitive Damages generally only for cases with malice
General Damages mental distress, damage to reputation or personal relationships, humiliation, etc.
Special Damages pecuniary/monetary losses (job, gift, business, etc)
Slander requires a showing of special damages
EXCEPTIONS: Slander per se statements that do not require proof of special/pecuniary damages
statement reflects adversely on s business or profession
imputes serious sexual misconduct to the
imputes a crime of moral turpitude to the
imputes that the suffers from a foul and loathsome disease
Libel per quod requires a showing of special damages, need information beyond the facts to show defamation
Libel per se requires no showing of damages, defamatory on its face
Retraction must be taken into account, only counts if immediately after and clearly connected
INVASION OF PRIVACY
INTRUSION
A defendant is liable for an intrusion invasion of privacy when he intentionally or negligently makes a highly offensive intrusion into the plaintiffs private
affairs.
Protected Interest privacy and peace of mind (not publication)
Highly offensive, beyond the limits of normal decency, offensive to a reasonable person in normal society
Can be a nonphysical invasion (sound recording, binoculars)
TEST for privacy reasonable expectation that area of life will be private, conversation with a doctor etc.
May also lead to a COA for IIEU
Defenses Consent, Relationship Privilege
Damages no need to demonstrate special damages or physical harm, emotional distress and mental anguish are enough
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
A defendant is liable for a public disclosure invasion of privacy when he makes public disclosure of a private face of no legitimate public interest that would be
highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Protected Interest public truth and reputation (not space)
Requires more publication than defamation, to public at large or enough people that it is likely to reach the general public
Aspects of the plaintiffs life not left open to public inspection
Not newsworthy, plaintiff not a public figure
Defendant must be blameworthy
Defenses Consent, Lawfully obtained govt information is a qualified privilege
FALSE LIGHT
A defendant is liable for false light invasion of privacy when he knowingly or recklessly publishes statements that place the plaintiff in a false light.
Protected Interest reputation
Requires publication to a reasonable number of third persons
Highly offensive to a reasonable person
Qualified privilege for newsworthy material, official acts or duties of public officials
Distinguish from IIEU: no outrageous conduct needed, protects privacy instead of mental well-being
Distinguish from Appropriation: protects from unauthorized false impressions instead of commercial interests
Distinguish from Defamation: less restrictive COA that does not necessarily hurt reputation and is not necessarily untrue
Damages may recover for damage to reputation, any emotional distress, and pecuniary loss
APPROPRIATION
A defendant is liable for appropriation invasion of privacy when he makes unauthorized use of the plaintiffs name or likeness for a commercial purpose.
Protected Interest commercial interests (prerequisite of personality)
Does not matter if plaintiff is a satisfied customer of the product, COA is for unauthorized use
May extend beyond name and likeness to other features (voice, personality)
Parody and other expressive/artistic/transformative uses are protected by the 1st Amendment
TORTIOUS MISREPRESENTATION
Intentional or Reckless, Kinda K
A defendant is liable for tortious misrepresentation when he makes a false misrepresentation concerning a presently existing material fact (either knowing it to be
false or recklessly disregarding his insufficient knowledge of the truth) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act, and the other party acts reasonably in
reliance on the misrepresentation, is induced to act, and is injured.
No liability for bare misrepresentation Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank
Cannot be based on omission Ingaharro v. Blanchette

There must be proof of fraud, knowingly, recklessly Derry v. Peck

Damages expectancy plus pecuniary
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH K
Intentional, Kinda K
A defendant is liable for tortious interference with contractual relations when he intentionally interferes with a contract involving the plaintiff, and the nature and
motive of the defendants conduct is improper.
Factors for evaluating defendants conduct:
Nature
Motive
Interests of the other party
Interests sought by the actor
Social interests in protecting freedom of action of the actor and contractual interests of the actor
Proximity of the actors conduct to the interference
Relations between the parties
Existing K
Prospective K requires either malice Tuttle v. Buck defendant seeking only to injure the plaintiff rather than further his own interests
or existence of another tort or crime Wal-Mart v. Sturges
Defense Privilege
Damages K damages, expectancy damages etc.
WRONGFUL DISCHARGE FROM EMPLOYMENT
Intentional
A defendant is liable for wrongfully discharging the plaintiff when he terminates the plaintiff in a manner that is an egregious violation of public policy.
Courts interpret public policy violations broadly or narrowly based on their regional political perspective
Applies even in at-will employment relationships
Damages punitive and expectancy