Exam 4: Intentional Torts

At a social club meeting that was held to discuss an environmental problem in a community, Brown made a speech in favour of a particular course of action that he thought the club should follow. Smith, who did not like the suggestions made by Brown, also made a short speech in which he called Brown an "idiot," and his suggestions "rubbish." Statements made at a social club meeting are subject to qualified privilege.

At a social club meeting that was held to discuss an environmental problem in a community, Brown made a speech in favour of a particular course of action that he thought the club should follow. Smith, who did not like the suggestions made by Brown, also made a short speech in which he called Brown an "idiot," and his suggestions "rubbish." Injury to one's reputation by a false statement, where the statement is not subject to privilege, is a tort.

Injurious falsehood is closely related to slander of goods, but its scope is wider. Which of the following statements are also true about injurious falsehood?

The rising issue of Internet defamation does not change the principles of Common Law surrounding defamation: published slander (libel), whose untruth is given wide circulation as fact, resulting in injury to the victim's reputation.

T borrowed D's automobile for the purpose of delivering a parcel to the post office. On his return, T parked D's automobile in his own garage, and refused to return it to D. Conversion is an actionable tort. TRUE

Mr. and Mrs. Lacroix purchased a fireplace insert from Dan's Hearth Shop. Dan's was the only local distributor and installer of such units in the town in which the Lacroix's lived. Dan's supplied the unit with the requisite chimney pieces and also performed the installation. Within a month, the Lacroix's revisited Dan's shop to complain about the performance of the fireplace. In particular, they complained that the unit was prone to chimney fires. Dan came to the Lacroix's home to inspect the unit but could not find any evidence of chimney fires. He further advised the Lacroix's to burn only dry wood in the insert and to have the chimney cleaned. On several other occasions, the Lacroix's complained to Dan about chimney fires and eventually demanded their money back. Dan refused, and claimed that the fault was not in the fireplace but in the Lacroix's failure to operate it properly and to have the chimney cleaned. The following week Mrs. Lacroix placed the following advertisement in the local newspaper: 'FIREPLACE INSERT - Comes equipped with rusting steel flue connector. Locally purchased, installed by local vendor, used only 3 months. Poor quality material and workmanship. Has proven record of chimney fires. Brass kettle will be thrown in. Phone 97-62734 after 5 p.m.' Discuss the arguments which both sides might raise if Dan's Hearth Shop took legal action against the Lacroix's. Render a decision. C.C.L.T. 37 (B.C.S.C.), this case examines both the torts of libel and slander of goods. Dan's arguments will point out that the Lacroix's language in the advertisement made it clear that they were less interested in selling the fireplace than in publicising its allegedly dangerous deficiencies and the poor quality of material and workmanship of the "local vendor" who installed it. Any reasonable person reading the advertisement would conclude that it referred to Dan and was maliciously intended to injure the reputation of his business Dan may further argue that the untrue statements made by the Lacroixes concerning his goods and business practices constitute slander of goods (as they may be highly injurious to his business). The Lacroixes in their defence may argue that the truth of their statements is a full defence to Dan's claims or, at least, that the statements were made on facts which they believed to be true. As such there is neither libel nor slander of goods but rather, a fair statement regarding their experience with Dan. The court in its decision held on the basis of other facts that there was insufficient evidence suggesting that the average reader would interpret the advertisement as referring to the plaintiff's business.

Andy entered a small restaurant and sat on a stool at the lunch counter. Baker entered the restaurant a few moments later and sat down at the lunch counter next to Andy. For no apparent reason, Andy suddenly struck Baker on the side of the head with his fist, knocking Baker to the floor. Baker raised himself from the floor, then seized Andy, and tossed him through the large glass window at the front of the restaurant. Andy was seriously injured and hospitalized as a result of the incident. Baker is liable for the injury to Andy because it was not necessary for him to act in self-defence and his response was excessive.

Jason, a department store detective, saw Andrew slip some merchandise into his pocket. Jason followed him out of the store and stopped Andrew without touching him. He then quietly and politely asked him to accompany him to the security office. Andrew agreed, but when his pockets were searched, nothing was found. Andrew can successfully sue the department store for false imprisonment.

While driving, Charles "rear-ended" Francine's car at a stop sign.

George borrowed a very valuable art book from the library. He liked it so much that he decided to pay the $20 maximum fine and keep the book. The library is entitled to damages equal to the value of the book since George has committed the tort of conversion.

At an all-candidates meeting prior to the election, Jones accused the incumbent, Wilson, of having used her office to improperly improve her financial position. This was later proved to be true. Wilson argued that her reputation had been seriously damaged, and sued Jones for slander. Wilson will lose.

Dan had been notified by his landlord, Kevin, that he was being evicted and was to vacate the premises within one month's time. Dan ignored all of Kevin's subsequent notices of the deadline, refused Kevin's help in moving and caused many confrontations on the issue that almost escalated to physical altercations. After the deadline passed, Dan's belongings were still in the apartment, but Dan was nowhere to be found. Kevin put on a new lock, moved Dan's things to the apartment storage units and left a note on the door explaining the arrangement and for Dan to come and talk to him about the situation. Upon investigation the next day, Kevin found the lock smashed and the apartment to be severely damaged. As well, Dan's possessions had been removed from the storage.

Rashid saw Charles "rear-end" Francine's car at a stop sign. Immediately following the accident he told Charles that he would testify that Francine had been over the white line and had backed up into Charles, if Charles paid him $200. Charles agreed and Rashid provided his testimony in court. The police can prove Rashid is lying.

Nadeem was a blogger who provided comments about corporate performance. On his blog he stated that Widget Company was in serious financial trouble and was preparing to lay off 200 employees. The price of Widget Company's stock immediately dropped $1.50. The law of defamation states that Nadeem is liable for the loss of Widget Company whether or not the statement was true.

Andy entered a small restaurant and sat on a stool at the lunch counter. Baker entered the restaurant a few moments later and sat down at the lunch counter next to Andy. For no apparent reason, Andy suddenly struck Baker on the side of the head with his fist, knocking Baker to the floor. Baker raised himself from the floor, then seized Andy, and tossed him through the large glass window at the front of the restaurant. Andy was seriously injured and hospitalized as a result of the incident. Andy would be liable for his battery of Baker

Which of the following fact patterns does NOT constitute trespass?

Peter, a professional water skier, was very prominent in his field, having won numerous international championships prior to turning professional. As part of his work he was himself actively involved in promoting and marketing his name and reputation for commercial benefits. Waterski Summer Camps Inc. operated a summer camp for children at which water-skiing was a central part of its camp program. In February, the camp hired ABC Advertising Co. to prepare promotional material for the summer camp. At this time, it attempted to engage Peter to promote and participate in the summer camp. However, due to other engagements and a busy summer work schedule, Peter refused. In connection with Peter's promotional activities he frequently used a famous photograph of himself skiing. ABC Advertising prepared without Peter's consent a live drawing stylisation of this photograph. There was a striking similarity between the drawing and the well-known photograph of Peter. It used the drawing in a pamphlet and advertisement prepared to promote the camp. The camp's general manager approved the use of the drawings in the advertising material. When Peter discovered the drawing, he confronted the camp about its use. The manager stated that the camp did not intend to represent Peter in the drawing, rather to convey the impression of water-skiing. Peter instituted legal proceedings against the camp and the advertising company. Discuss the basis of his claim and the arguments he may use. C.C.L.T. 20 (Ont. S.C.) The plaintiff's action is based in the tort of slander of title, more particularly, in passing-off and the wrongful appropriation of his personality or image. He may argue that the unauthorized use of the drawing by the camp was a deliberate attempt to market him as promoting and participating in the camp, thus creating confusion between the camp's business and the plaintiff's business. The camp was, in fact, attempting to convey to potential customers that Peter was associated with it and was thereby, trading on the goodwill and reputation he had built up for himself by pursuing his own commercial promotion. Moreover, he was the rightful owner of his own image which could not lawfully be employed without his consent. At trial, the court held that on the balance of probabilities the use of the drawing would not confuse that segment of the public likely to read the brochure between the business of the camp and that of the plaintiff. Nor could any harm to the plaintiff's image be shown. Therefore, the claim for passing-off failed. The claim for misappropriation of personality succeeded, as the plaintiff's exclusive proprietary right to market his personality for gain had been interfered with by the camp.

Natasha was enraged when another driver cut her off, so she deliberately rammed his car. This was a crime but not a tort.

A newspaper cartoon depicted a well-known international entrepreneur as a greedy villain dressed as Robin Hood who was "stealing from the poor and giving to himself." The entrepreneur would be precluded from seeking damages from the cartoonist because cartoons are exempt from the defamation laws.

From a legal perspective discuss those aspects of designing a marketing strategy which a business must keep in mind.