Chapter 06 – Intentional Torts
V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEM CASES:
1. Yes, Garley had the necessary intent for battery liability. The defendant either must desire to
2. Yes. The North Dakota Court of Appeals reasoned that the offensiveness element of a battery
claim is to be determined in light of a reasonable sense of personal dignity. Wishnatsky was
3. Yes. The Supreme Court of Nebraska emphasized that the statements should be evaluated in
light of the election campaign context in which they were communicated. That context often
4. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment for
the defendants on Millbrook’s assault and battery claims. There was no assault because
nothing in the facts indicated either an intent to commit a battery or the creation of an
5. CBC was entitled to a declaratory judgment in its favor. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit rested its decision largely on the First Amendment, concluding that
despite the commercial nature of the game, its entertainment aspects amounted to speech
6. Although the point is not certain, White’s distress looks sufficiently severe, even in a state
that requires physical symptoms. However, the court in White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So. 2d
susceptible to emotional distress.) What about the same tendency where the defendant or its
6-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 06 – Intentional Torts
7. As a public figure, Kipper needed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
defendants made the false statement about him with actual malice. He could not do so,
8. Yes. Although the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, the Supreme
Court of Indiana reversed the Court of Appeals decision and reinstated the jury verdict in favor
9. In this case, the jury returned a verdict for Calor. On appeal, however, the defendants argued
that that their statements were conditionally privileged statements in furtherance of a common
interest and that the trial judge erred in not instructing the jury on the possible application of
10. Yes as to both claims, according to the Supreme Court of Vermont. Although the court
recognized that courts in some states had permitted trespass claims on the basis of entry of
airborne particles, the court concluded that in light of the exclusion interest underlying
11. Yes. Rejecting defendant Saderup’s First Amendment defense, the Supreme Court of
California held in Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 21 P.3d 797 (Cal. Sup.
Ct. 2001), that Saderup violated the Three Stooges’ right of publicity. The court noted that
visual art usually is given the very substantial First Amendment protection extended to
6-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 06 – Intentional Torts
entitled to the protection of the fair use defense. (See Chapter 8 of the text for discussion of
copyright law.) The court concluded that Saderup’s drawing, as reproduced on the
12. The district court was correct. There was no intrusion on solitude in a manner that would be
considered highly offensive to a reasonable person. the conversation with Rivers, even though
it was filmed, was not in a place where Bogie would have had a reasonable expectation of
13. As a public figure, KKAC would be expected to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that
the defendant made the false statements at issue with actual malice. Actual malice means
knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, not ill will or spite motives. If KKAC
14. The defendants should succeed with an argument that their statements were nonactionable
expressions of opinion rather than statements of supposed fact. Although Mann won his case
6-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.