Mallory Pappas

Professor Schatz
ENGL392
3/9/2018
Case Brief
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.
 FACTS:
o P was standing in line at D’s hotel restaurant to be served when an employee of
the hotel restaurant violently tore P’s plate out of P’s hands, and D had allegedly
called P a “negro.” P testified that D did not physically touch P.
 ISSUE:
o Did D commit assault against P when P expressed his embarrassment and
humiliation of the event but there is no evidence of fear or apprehension
experienced by P?
 RULE:
o No. Because it could not be proven that P felt fear and/or apprehension
constituting assault in the state of Texas, D did not commit assault against P.
 ANALYSIS:
o Not only did D not physically touch P during the event of grabbing P’s plate out
of P’s hands, but it could not be proven that P felt fear or apprehension. Although,
P did express his humiliation and embarrassment of the act.
 CONCLUSION:
o The court affirmed the case that D did not commit assault against P.
Wester Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill Alabama
 FACTS:
o P and his wife’s child was sick and dying. However, P was in Alabama and the
wife and the child were in Georgia. The wife had sent a telegram to P telling him
to come home to see their child before he passed away. P did not receive the
telegram in time and claims suffering of mental anguish. P demands to collect for
his mental anguish from D.
 ISSUE:
o Should D pay P for the mental anguish that D committed from negligence of the
D’s telegram even though there was no formal written contract to send telegrams
in a timely manner?
 RULE:
o Yes. D musts pay damages to P because of D’s negligence of sending the
telegram that was intended for P which was inherently time sensitive.
 ANALYSIS:
 o It was the duty and the contract of the Alabama telegram company to immediately
continue and deliver the telegram upon receipt of it. If D had delivered the
telegram to P in a timely manner, P could have had the chance to return home to
Georgia to see his wife and dying son, which could have minimized any and all of
P’s mental anguish.
 CONCLUSION:
o The court affirmed that D must pay damages to P.
Faniel v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. of Maryland
 FACTS:
o D is the employer of P at a telephone company where P is in sales. D had called P
into a conference room to question P on having taken an extra phone from their
inventory without permission. Upon questioning, P admitted to having an extra
third phone that she had taken from the telephone company. D demanded that D
and P drive to P’s house to retrieve the unpermitted phone. P had requested to
make a phone call to her husband where D eventually gave P permission to do so.
While in the vehicle traveling to P’s home, D informed P of having to stop at
another company location to pick up a security officer to follow company
protocol, as the security officer actually had the authority to retrieve the phone. P
had claimed that D did not inform P of having to take a stop at the other location
to pick up the security officer for the company. P had asked for another phone call
to her husband, but D denied the request. P had expressed in the trail that she did
verbally inform D of her not wanting to deny the travel to her home out of fear for
her employment to be further compromised or terminated.
 ISSUE:
o Did D commit false imprisonment against P even though P did not verbalize her
not wanting to get into the car giving D the impression that P was okay in
traveling to P’s home?
 RULE:
o The judge concluded the outcome that the court declared of giving $7,000 to P
from D is notwithstanding the verdict constituted by the jury.
 ANALYSIS:
o Although P did not wish to travel to her home upon D’s demands, P did not
verbalize it. Thus, this action does not constitute false imprisonment because P
technically gave consent to P. Additionally, P was still on the clocking getting
paid and it was during work hours. D followed the proper protocol to adhere to
the situation of P’s violations of her employment agreement. P was also not
constrained against her will. In other words, she could have easily gotten out of
the car without being held against her will, although her employment could have
been on the line; but, that does not constitute false imprisonment.
 CONCLUSION:
o The judge declared notwithstanding of the verdict of granting $7,000 to P.
Garratt v. Dailey
 FACTS:
o Six-year-old D was visiting his adult sister, P, when D was attempting to move a
lawn chair under P to help as P was about to sit down. However, because of the
lack of dexterity of D being so young, P did not sit on the chair adequately and
fell and sustained injuries. Upon appealing the trail, the court remanded the case
to the state level to have a definitive fact of whether or D knew P even attempting
to sit.
 ISSUE:
o Did D commit assault and battery against P when P was trying to sit on a lawn
chair and D had moved it to help her sit down but accidently caused injuries to P
even though D’s dexterity from his youth had compromised his act?
 RULE:
o The court of appeals had remanded the case until the initial court could
distinguish whether or not D actually knew that P was attempting to sit down on
that lawn chair.
 ANALYSIS:
o P was originally charging D with assault and battery and appealed when the case
had originally denied the assault and battery charges. However, the appellant
court could not deem any official judgements without having a definitive fact of
whether or not D knew if P was actually intending to sit down.
 CONCLUSION:
o The initial trail had denied a judgement against D for committed assault and
battery against P, but when the case was appealed, the court had remanded the
case until further information became definitive.

A few lingering questions in the Faniel v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. of
Maryland case…
 In the third case, why would the telephone company not sue P for stealing company
property? Also, I find that it was unnecessary and not constituted for the court to give P
$7,000. If I am understanding the literature of it properly, did the judge decide to keep
verdict of D being in the wrong but taking the money back…? This case was very hard
for me to entirely understand, and took me almost two hours to read, re-read, understand,
and try to come to a conclusion of the case to write the brief. And I am honestly still a
little unsure what the actual outcome was.