Chapter 7

Intentional Torts

 

Learning Objectives:

1. Identify and describe common intentional torts.
2. Privileges relating to defamation suits, and different rules for different people such as public figure, public official, or private person.
3. Four torts relating to invasion of privacy.
4. Distinguish interference with contractual relations, disparagement, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

 

1. Introduction to tort law
1. Civil liability, imposed by law
2. Three purposes, compensation, proper placement of costs, and prevent future harm.
3. This chapter focuses on intentional misconduct.
4. Tort remedies include compensatory damages and punitive damages.

 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct. 1513 (2003).

Facts:  Campbell was involved in a serious car crash.  One of the other drivers was killed, the other seriously injured.  State Farm insured Campbell.  They decided to contest liability and made no offer.  They turned down limits demand of $50k.  State Farm assured Campbell they had no liability, and that their assets were not at risk. Jury found Campbell 100% liable, for $185k.  State Farm then refused to post appeal bond, lawyer told him to sell his house.  State Farm then paid the entire judgment, including amount beyond policy limits.  Campbell then sues for tort of insurance bad faith.

 

In bad faith case, State Farm moved for summary judgment on grounds that they paid the entire claim.  Court granted motion, but was reversed on appeal.  During trial, Campbell was allowed to present evidence of settlement practices in other cases.  After trial, jury found bad faith, $2.6m in compensatory damages and $145m in punitive damages.  Judge reduced to $1m and $25m, but Utah Supreme Court reinstated the original verdict.  U.S. Supreme Court granted cert.

 

Issue:  Does huge punitive damage award violate due process clause?

Holding: 

Reasoning:  Punitive damages serve similar policy goals to criminal law, but same protections do not exist.  Look at (1) how bad was D’s action, (2) ratio of actual damage to punitive damage, (3) how award compares to comparable cases.  Here, the award is totally out of whack on all three counts.  What State Farm did was bad, but not $145m bad.  Also, state may not punish D for what happened outside state.  There’s no rigid ration, but 145/1 is too much.  Criminal fine for fraud is only $10k.

 

2. Harm to the Person
1. Battery
2. Assault
3. False Imprisonment

Vaughn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 734 So.2d 156 (La.App. 1999)

Facts: Brother, sister, and sister’s friend went to WM with mother.  Mother went to get something with boy.  Two girls stayed in front.  One bought some gum and a stamp album.  She went back into the merchandise area, and opened the gum.  Store manager sees them, and searches the bag.  It’s disputed how nice she was about it.  She told them to go to the front of the store and wait for the mother to return.  She never said they could not leave.  Later, there was a meeting to go over what happened.

 

P sued, get $500 award per child.  WM appealed.

 

Issue:  Under Louisiana law, did WM have probable cause to look in bag?

 

Holding:  Yes.  WM acted reasonably.

 

Reasoning:  Merchant may detain suspected shoplifters.  They may not use unreasonable force, act without reasonable cause, or detain for longer than 60 minutes.

 

4. Infliction of Emotional Distress

 

3. Harm to the Right of Dignity
1. Defamation.  False and defamatory statement, publication, damages

                                                              i.      Libel.  Written or broadcast

                                                           ii.      Slander.  Spoken.

 

Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc. v. Buck, 678 S.W.2d 612 (Tex.App. 1984); cert denied 472 U.S. 1009 (1985).

          Facts:  Hall is an insurance agency.  Buck was an agent, who brought in several big accounts.  He was, however, told that he was not producing enough and was fired.  He hires PI to find out why he was fired.  Company president and employees say that he was untrustworthy, paranoid, untruthful, etc.  They also said he stole stuff.  Buck sued for slander, got $605k compensatory, $1.3m in punitives.

          Issue:  Does publication to Buck’s PI count as publication?

          Holding:  Yes.  Publication to any third person counts.

          Reasoning:  Publication is communication of the defamatory statement to a third person.  Court reject argument that Buck invited the communication to his own agent.  He did not know what would be said.

 

Criticism:  Huh?  Speaking to an agent is like speaking to the person himself.  Also, he asked for it.  Also, how does this statement harm Buck?

 

2. Defenses to defamation

                                                              i.      Absolute privilege.  Judicial proceeding, etc.

                                                           ii.      Conditional privilege.  Protection of own interests, or if there is a common interest, like a letter of recommendation.

                                                         iii.      Constitutional privilege.  Public official or figure must prove malice.

 

3. Invasion of Privacy

                                                              i.      Appropriation of person’s name or likeness

                                                           ii.      Unreasonable intrusion into seclusion of another

                                                         iii.      Unreasonable public disclosure of private facts

                                                          iv.      Unreasonable publicity that puts person in false light

 

White v. Samsung Electronics, 971 F.2d 1395 (9^th Cir. 1992); cert denied 508 U.S. 951 (1993)

 

Facts: Vanna is the letter turner on Wheel of Fortune.  Samsung made an ad with a robot resembling her, doing her trademark letter turning routine.  Punch line was “longest running game show, 2012 a.d.”  Samsung called it the Vanna White ad.  Vanna did not get paid and did not consent to the ad.

 

Trial court granted summary judgment against Vanna.  She appealed.

 

Issue:  Was this a misappropriation of Vanna’s image?

Holding: Yes.  You do not have to use the name or photographic likeness to misappropriate an image.

 

                                                            v.      Intrusion

                                                          vi.      Public disclosure of private facts

                                                       vii.      False light

                                                     viii.      Defenses. Privileges.

 

4. Misuse of Legal procedure

                                                              i.      Malicious prosecution

                                                           ii.      Wrongful civil proceedings

                                                         iii.      Abuse of process

 

4. Harm to Property
1. Real property

                                                              i.      Trespass

                                                           ii.      Nuisance

2. Personal property

                                                              i.      Trespass to personal property

                                                           ii.      Conversion

 

5. Harm to Economic Interests
1. Interference with contractual relations

Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., 729 S.W.2d 768 (Tex.App 1987); cert denied 485 U.S. 994.

Facts: Pennzoil offered to buy Getty oil.  Getty voted to accept increased offer, at $110/sh.  They both issued press releases announcing the deal.

Texaco hears of the deal.  Texaco offers Getty $125/sh.  Getty goes for the higher offer.

Pennzoil sues, gets $7.5b in compensatory damages, $3b in punitive damages.  Theory was tortious interference with contract.

Issue:  Was this tortious interference with contract?

Holding: Yes. Texaco knew of earlier contract, and actively got Getty to break it.

 

2. Disparagement

                                                              i.      False statement harming someone else’s monetary interests.

 

3. Fraudulent misrepresentation