Chapter 6 Tortes a violation of a duty imposed by the civil law it s up to the injured party to seek compensation Difference b w Contract Tort and Criminal Law Intentional torts harm caused by a deliberate action regardless if harm is intended as long as the act is intended see the snow ball example o Defamation written libel spoken slander Elements of a defamation cast that must be proved true to win a lawsuit Defamatory statement this is a statement likely to harm another person s reputation Falseness the statement must be false Communicated the statement must be communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff Injury the plaintiff generally must show some injury But in the case of Slander per se slander involving false statements about sexual behavior crimes and professional abilities the law is willing to assume injury w o requiring the plaintiff to prove it Opinion harsh opinions could be hard to count liable as libel slander Public Personalities the rules of the game change for those who play in the open Gov officials and other types of public figures such as actors and athletes receive less protection from defamation New York Times Co v Sullivan a public official or figure can win a defamation case only by providing actual malice by the defendant That means the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth Showing that the defendant newspaper printed incorrect statements even very damaging ones will not suffice to win the suit unless he had shown that Times knew the accusation was false Online Defamation Communications Decency Act CDA creates immunity for an Internet service provider Absolute Privilege a witness testifying in a court or legislature may never be sued for defamation o False Imprisonment the intentional restraint of another person w o reasonable cause and w o consent Most commonly in retail stores which detain employees or customers for suspected theft Generally a store may detain a customer or worker for alleged shoplifting provided there is a reasonable basis for the suspicion and the detention is done reasonably o Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress an intentional tort in which the harm results from extreme and outrageous conduct that causes serious emotional harm Jane Doe and Nancy Roe v Lynn Mills An anti abortion protestor Robert Thomas found doc Indicating that the plaintiffs were soon to have abortions from a dumpster Thomas gave the info to Lynn Mills who then with Sister Lois Mitoraj created signs using the women s names indicating that they were about to undergo abortions and urging them not to kill the babies Doe and Roe sued claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress The trial court dismissed the lawsuit ruling that the defendants conduct was not extreme and outrageous The plaintiffs appealed Have the plaintiff made a valid claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress While the defendants have a constitutional right to protest peaceably against abortion the defendants conduct doesn t relate to their views on abortion or their right to express those views but rather to the fact that defendants gave unreasonable or unnecessary publicity to purely private matters involving plaintiffs Summary judgment for the defendants is reversed and the case is remanded for trial o Additional Intentional Torts Battery an intentional touching e g spitting touching through a mutual object of another person in a way that is harmful or offensive There need be no intention to hurt the plaintiff If the defendant intended to do the physical act and a reasonable plaintiff would be offended by it Damages battery has occurred Assault an act that makes a person reasonably fear an imminent battery It is assault even though the battery never occurs Fraud injuring another person by deliberate deception o Compensatory Damages money intended to restore a plaintiff to the position he was in before the injury medical expenses lost wages pain and suffering o Single recovery principle requires a court to settle the matter once and for all by awarding a lump sum for past and future expenses o Punitive Damages damages that are intended to punish the defendant for conduct that is extreme and outrageous 3 guidepoints The reprehensibility of the defendant s conduct The ratio b w the harm suffered and the award The difference b w the punitive award and any civil penalties used in similar cases o State Farm v Campbell While attempting to pass several cars on a two lane road Campbell drove into oncoming traffic An innocent driver swerved to avoid Campbell and died in a collision with a third driver The family of the deceased driver and the surviving third driver both sued Campbell As Campbell s insurer State Farm represented him in the lawsuit It turned down an offer to settle the case for 50 000 the limit of Campbell s policy The company had nothing to gain by settling b c even if Campbell lost big at trial State Farm s liability was capped at 50 000 A jury returned a judgment against Campbell for 185K He was responsible for the 135K that exceeded his policy limit He argued with State Farm claiming that it should have settled the case Eventually State Farm paid the entire money but Campbell still sued the company alleging fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress His lawyers presented evidence that State Farm had deliberately acted in its own best interests rather than his The jury was convicted and in the end Campbell won an award of 1 million in compensatory damages and 145 million in punitive damages State Farm appealed What is the limit on punitive damages Courts must ensure that the measure of punishment is both reasonable and proportionate to the amount of harm to the plaintiff and to the general damages recovered In the context of this case we have no doubt that there is a presumption against an award that has a 145 to 1 ratio The compensatory award in the case was substantial This was complete compensation The harm arose from a transaction in the economic realm not from some physical assault or trauma there were no physical injuries and State Farm paid the excess verdict before the complaint was filed so the Campbells suffered only minor economic injuries The judgment of Utah Supreme Court is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion Business Torts o Tortious Interference with Business Relations when healthy competition becomes illegal