Quiz 5: Intentional Torts and Negligence
Disparagement: An act of making an untrue statement about the services, property, reputation or product of another business is called disparagement. The plaintiff has to show the followings to prove disparagement: 1. When a person has made an untrue statement about another person's product, services, property and business reputation. 2. When a person publish an untrue statement to a third party. 3. When the person making untrue statement knew the statement made by him was not true. 4. When a person made the statement with an intention to injure the plaintiff. Company ZS publishes a series of travel, dining and leisure guides for different locations and cities. The restaurants were ranked from 0 to 30 in different categories like decor, loss, and services. These ratings were given on the basis of the result of a survey done. A restaurant LC was ranked in one of the series guide of ZS. LC's food was rated 9 and décor and services as 15 along with a negative statement. T.R. sued Z for disparagement. Disparagement is present when a person or business makes untrue statement about another person or business with an intention to injure the latter party. In the given case, the rating given by ZS in their guides was based on the basis of a survey of the restaurant customers. ZS has not made any negative comment by themselves or with an intention to defame LC. Thus, it can be concluded that the statement made in the Z's restaurant guide was a statement of opinion. Z can defend himself on the basis of statements of opinion.
Contributory Negligence: In this type of negligence the plaintiff is partially responsible for the consequences of the negligence and cannot blame the defendant fully for the accident suffered. Comparative Negligence: In this doctrine the fault will be attributed to the guilty party after thorough analysis of the actions of both the parties. Facts: C owned bee hives which he raised on his own premises and a customer wanted to buy them, the customer employed F; and C offered F a protective suit to wear, C forgot to warn about the consequences of bee stings and dealing with bees. F removed the head gear and immediately bees attacked him, the stings infected him and killed him. F's family sued him for negligence. Outcome: C had the duty to warn F about the possible dangers associated with working around bee hives. C failed to act responsibly by not warning F about dangers such as anaphylactic shock and other possible consequences of a bee sting. Thus, C acted negligently.
Proximate cause: In some cases the negligent action of a party may not be responsible for the cause of the damage. In such cases the proximate cause removes the negligent action of the party as a cause of the damage. It is a legal cause which is based on the concept of forseeability of the accident. Facts: RK General, a radio broad casting station runs a program called "chasing Steele". They offer a cash prize to any who identifies Steele's vehicle first. Two youngsters started chasing him and during the chase they collided with the car of W. W died during the accident and W's wife sued Radio Company and the two youngsters. Outcome: In this case W's wife is going to lose because the youngsters are not responsible for the action based on the proximate cause. The company is responsible for the death of W because one can foresee an accident by chasing Steele. Hence, the Radio Company assumes full liability for the death of W and the liability on the youngsters is removed. Thus, W's wife is not going to win the case.