DOC PREVIEW
Mizzou MANGMT 3540 - Chapter 4 Continued and Chapter 5

This preview shows page 1 out of 3 pages.

Save
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

MGMT 3540 1nd Edition Lecture 6 Outline of Last Lecture Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Defamation Four Types of Invasion of Privacy Fraudulent Misrepresentation Property Torts Outline of Current Lecture Property Torts intentional Continued Negligence Defenses to Negligence Strict Liability Current Lecture Property Torts intentional Continued Business Tort intentional interference with contract or business relationship With a contract The defendant knew the plaintiff had a contract with a third party and The defendant intentionally induced the third party to break the contract usually to get the business for himself With a business relationship The defendant knew of the existing business between the plaintiff and a third party and The defendant used predatory practices to obtain business for herself Business implication for intentional torts employer often liable for actual and punitive damages Negligence Defined An unintentional violation of a legal duty to use a standard of care Four Required Elements of Proof Was there These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor s lecture GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes not as a substitute An unintentional act or nonfeasance If not look at the intentional torts and see if all the elements of proof are present for one or more torts A legal duty to use a standard of care Examples no duty Standard of care can vary with the actor and activity Actor higher standard for professionals lower standard for young children Activities higher standards for more dangerous activity A violation of that standard Typically a fact question for a judge or jury to decide Negligence per say when the act of the defendant violates a safety standard sometimes the jury only decides if there is a violation of the statute automatically presumed to be negligence Example who ran a run light Who breached a contract Plumber doesn t cap gas in the kitchen and causes an explosion violated statute requiring him to check a meter before leaving to see if gas was leaking AND must have all 4 elements of proof Causation of Damages Cause in fact negligence of defendant was an essential factor in the chain of events leading to the plaintiff s injury AND Proximate cause harm reasonably foreseeable to someone in the defendants position not too remote in the chain of events no superseding cause Examples Holding a bowling ball gets hit by car bowling bar goes into air and hits someone foreseeable Defenses to Negligence Comparative Negligence The recovery of the plaintiff is reduced by the plaintiff s percentage of fault in causing the damages Example Missouri system Contributory Negligence The recovery of the plaintiff is barred prevented by any negligence of the plaintiff in causing damages four states and DC Example If the plaintiff is negligent no recovery is possible Assumption of Risk The recovery of the plaintiff is barred if the plaintiff voluntarily encounters a known risk Example center fielder doesn t call off outfielder and they collide he assumed risk voluntarily Compare to defense of consent in a battery case Immunities Sovereign immunity can only sue the government if it gives you permission Traffic signals Official Immunity can only sue the government officials if the act complained of involves a matter of policy and there was no malice by the official Employer Liability Employer is liable for the torts of an employee in the scope and course of employment Examples Wrongful repossession conversion by a repo agent Excessive force battery by a bouncer False imprisonment of a shoplifter Negligence by a truck driver Strict Liability Definition Liability without fault No need to prove an intentional or negligence act Ultra Hazardous Activity An activity so abnormally dangerous that the actor is the guarantor of the safety Products Liability The defendant marketed the product The product was unreasonably dangerous defective at the time it was sold The plaintiff suffered physical injury as a result of the defect


View Full Document

Mizzou MANGMT 3540 - Chapter 4 Continued and Chapter 5

Download Chapter 4 Continued and Chapter 5
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Chapter 4 Continued and Chapter 5 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Chapter 4 Continued and Chapter 5 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?