Exam 4: Intentional Torts

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 would not be liable for the injury to Andy,because he had acted in self-defence.

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 assault on Baker.

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.T's actions constitute conversion,and would entitle D to take legal action to recover his automobile.

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.T is liable for the theft of D's automobile.D.T is liable for the theft of D's automobile.

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.

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,to the injury to the victim's reputation.

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

An intentional tort exists under which of the following circumstances?

When a person says "I am going to hit you!" and immediately smacks the other person on the cheek,resulting in a cut,he/she has

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.

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.

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.