ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS
1. The Penguin intentionally hits Batman with his umbrella. Batman, stunned by the blow, falls
backwards, knocking Robin down. Robin’s leg is broken in the fall, and he cries out, “Holy
broken bat bones! My leg is broken.” Who, if anyone, is liable to Robin? Why?
Answer: Battery. The Penguin is liable to Robin for battery. Section 13 of the Restatement imposes
liability if the actor (Penguin) intends to injure a third person (Batman) and causes injury
2. CEO was convinced by his employee, M. Ploy, that a coworker, A. Cused, had been stealing
money from the company. At lunch that day in the company cafeteria, CEO discharges Cused
from her employment, accuses her of stealing from the company, searches through her purse
over her objections, and finally forcibly escorts her to his office to await the arrival of the
police, which he has his secretary summon. Cused is indicted for embezzlement but subsequently
is acquitted upon establishing her innocence. What rights, if any, does Cused have against
CEO?
Answer: Injury or Damage to the Person CEO might be liable for slander if there was no basis for
the embezzlement accusation and there was a publication of the defamatory information to
someone else in the cafeteria. By taking the employee’s purse, CEO committed a trespass to
3. Ralph kisses Edith while she is asleep but does not waken or harm her. Edith sues Ralph for
battery. Has a battery been committed?
Answer: Battery. Yes. Decision for Edith. Section 18 provides: “(1) An actor is subject to liability
to another for battery if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the
4. Claude, a creditor seeking to collect a debt, calls on Dianne and demands payment in a rude
and insolent manner. When Dianne says that she cannot pay, Claude calls Dianne a deadbeat
and says that he will never trust her again. Is Claude liable to Dianne? If so, for what tort?
Answer: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. No. Liability for infliction of emotional
distress would not arise out of these facts. Liability clearly does not extend to mere insults,
5. Lana, a ten-year-old child, is run over by a car negligently driven by Mitchell. Lana, at the time
of the accident, was acting reasonably and without negligence. Clark, a newspaper reporter,
photographs Lana while she is lying in the street in great pain. Two years later, Perry, the
publisher of a newspaper, prints Clark’s picture of Lana in his newspaper as a lead to an article
concerning the negligence of children. The caption under the picture reads: “They ask to be
killed.” Lana, who has recovered from the accident, brings suit against Clark and Perry. What
result?
Answer: Invasion of Privacy: False Light. Judgment for Lana against Perry but not against Clark.
6. In 1963, the Saturday Evening Post featured an article entitled “The Story of a College Football
Fix,” characterized in the subtitle as “A Shocking Report of How Wally Butts and Bear Bryant
Rigged a Game Last Fall.” Butts was athletic director of the University of Georgia, and Bryant
was head coach of the University of Alabama. The article was based on a claim by one George
Burnett that he had accidentally overheard a long-distance telephone conversation between
Butts and Bryant in the course of which Butts divulged information on plays Georgia would use
in the upcoming game against Alabama. The writer assigned to the story by the Post was not a
football expert, did not interview either Butts or Bryant, and did not personally see the notes
Burnett had made of the telephone conversation. Butts admitted that he had a long-distance
telephone conversation with Bryant but denied that any advance information on prospective
football plays was given. Has Butts been defamed by the Post?
Answer: Defamation. Yes. Decision for Butts. The publication was defamatory because it was a
7. Joan, a patient confined in a hospital, has a rare disease that is of great interest to the public.
Carol, a television reporter, requests Joan to consent to an interview. Joan refuses, but Carol,
nonetheless, enters Joan’s room over her objection and photographs her. Joan brings a suit
against Carol. Is Carol liable? If so, for what tort?
Answer: Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion. Yes, Carol is liable to Joan. Carol has committed the tort
of intrusion, the invasion of privacy with unreasonable and highly offensive interference with
the solitude or seclusion of another. Restatement, Section 652B. Such unreasonable
8. Owner has a place on his land where he piles trash. The pile has been there for three months.
John, a neighbor of Owner and without Owner’s consent or knowledge, throws trash onto the
trashpile. Owner learns that John has done this and sues him. What tort, if any, has John
committed?
Answer: Real Property: Trespass John is liable for trespass. Section 158 provides:
“One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes
9. Chris leaves her car parked in front of a store. There are no signs that say Chris cannot park
there. The store owner, however, needs the car moved to enable a delivery truck to unload. He
releases the brake and pushes Chris’s car three or four feet, doing no harm to the car. Chris
returns and sees that her car has been moved and is very angry. She threatens to sue the store
owner for trespass to her personal property. Can she recover?
Answer: Personal Property: Trespass. Probably not. Liability for trespass to a chattel (movable
personal property) is imposed only if–(a) the actor dispossesses the other of the chattel, or (b)
10. Carr borrowed John’s brand-new Ford Escort for the purpose of going to the store. He told John
he would be right back. Carr then decided, however, to go to the beach while he had the car.
Can John recover from Carr the value of the automobile? If so, for what tort?
Answer: Conversion. The tort for which John can recover depends in part on the amount of time
Carr has the vehicle. John can definitely recover for a trespass to personal property since Carr
11. Marcia Samms claimed that David Eccles had repeatedly and persistently called her at various
hours, including late at night, from May to December, soliciting her to have illicit sexual
relations with him. She also claimed that on one occasion Eccles came over to her residence to
again solicit sex and indecently exposed himself to her. Mrs. Samms had never encouraged
Eccles but had continuously repulsed his “insulting, indecent, and obscene” proposals. She
brought suit against Eccles, claiming she suffered great anxiety and fear for her personal safety
and severe emotional distress, demanding actual and punitive damages. Can she recover? If so,
for what tort?
Answer: Infliction of Emotional Distress. Yes, Samms could recover for Infliction of Emotional
Distress. The courts recognize a cause of action for severe emotional distress even if not
accompanied by bodily impact or physical injury, where defendant engaged in intentional
12. National Bond and Investment Company sent two of its employees to repossess Whithorn’s car
after he failed to complete the payments. The two repossessors located Whithorn while he was
driving his car. They followed him and hailed him down in order to make the repossession.
Whithorn refused to abandon his car and demanded evidence of their authority. The two
repossessors became impatient and called a wrecker. They ordered the driver of the wrecker to
hook Whithorn’s car and move it down the street while Whithorn was still inside the vehicle.
Whithorn started the car and tried to escape, but the wrecker lifted the car off the road and
progressed seventy-five to one hundred feet until Whithorn managed to stall the wrecker. Has
National Bond committed the tort of false imprisonment?
Answer: False imprisonment. Yes, National Bond falsely imprisoned Whithorn. The result of
Whithorn’s departure would have been an automatic parting with his automobile, which he did
13. In March William Proxmire, a US senator from Wisconsin, initiated the “Golden Fleece of the
Month Award” to publicize what he believed to be wasteful government spending. The second of
these awards was given to the Federal agencies that had for seven years funded Dr.
Hutchinson’s research on stress levels in animals. The award was made in a speech Proxmire
gave in the Senate; the text was also incorporated into an advance press release that was sent to
275 members of the national news media. Proxmire also referred to the research again in two
subsequent newsletters letters sent to one hundred thousand constituents and during a television
interview. Hutchinson then brought this action alleging defamation resulting in personal and
economic injury. Assuming that Hutchinson proved that the statements were false and
defamatory, would he prevail?
Answer: Defamation/Constitutional Privilege. Yes, Dr. Hutchinson would prevail. Proxmire’s
speech on the Senate floor was immune from liability, but the advance news release, the
14. Capune was attempting a trip from New York to Florida on an eighteen-foot-long paddleboard.
The trip was being covered by various media to gain publicity for Capune and certain products
he endorsed. By water, Capune approached a pier owned by Robbins, who had posted signs
prohibiting surfing and swimming around the pier. Capune was unaware of these notices and
attempted to continue his journey by passing under the pier. Robbins ran up yelling and threw
two bottles at Capune. Capune was frightened and tried to maneuver his paddleboard to go
around the pier. Robbins then threw a third bottle that hit Capune on the head. Capune had to be
helped out of the water and taken to the hospital. He suffered a physical wound which required
twenty-four sutures and, as a result, had to discontinue his trip. Capune brought suit in tort
against Robbins. Is Robbins liable? If so, for which tort or torts?
15. Ralph Nader, who has been a critic of General Motors Corp. for several years, claims that when
General Motors learned that Nader was about to publish a book entitled Unsafe at any Speed,
criticizing one of its automobiles, it decided to conduct a campaign of intimidation against him.
Specifically, Nader claims that GMC (a) conducted a series of interviews with Nader’s
acquaintances, questioning them about his political, social, racial, and religious views; (b) kept
him under surveillance in public places for an unreasonable length of time including close
observation of him in a bank; (c) caused him to be accosted by women for the purpose of
entrapping him into illicit relationships; (d) made threatening, harassing, and obnoxious
telephone calls to him; (e) tapped his telephone and eavesdropped by means of mechanical and
electronic equipment on his private conversations with others; and (f) conducted a “continuing”
and harassing investigation of him. Nader brought suit against GMC for invasion of privacy.
Which, if any, of the alleged actions would constitute invasion of privacy?
Answer: Intrusion. Judgment in part for Nader. The tort of invasion of one’s privacy includes
instances of intrusion by physical trespass or otherwise into areas from which an ordinary man
would reasonably expect that others should be excluded. The concern is not with one’s broad
16. Bill Kinsey was charged with murdering his wife while working for the Peace Corps in Tanzania.
After waiting six months in jail he was acquitted at a trial that attracted wide publicity. Five
years later, while a graduate student at Stanford University, Kinsey had a brief affair with Mary
Macur. He abruptly ended the affair by telling Macur he would no longer be seeing her because
another woman, Sally Allen, was coming from England to live with him. A few months later,
Kinsey and Allen moved to Africa and were subsequently married. Soon after Bill ended their
affair, Macur began a letter writing campaign designed to expose Bill and his mistreatment of
her. Macur sent several letters to both Bill and Sally Kinsey, their parents, their neighbors, their
parents’ neighbors, members of Bill’s dissertation committee, other faculty, and the president of
Stanford University. The letters contained statements accusing Bill of murdering his first wife,
spending six months in jail for the crime, being a rapist, and other questionable behavior. The
Kinseys brought an action for invasion of privacy, seeking damages and a permanent injunction.
Will the Kinseys prevail? If so, for what tort?
Answer: Invasion of Privacy. Judgment for the Kinseys. The tort of invasion of privacy includes
four separate torts, two of which are involved here: (1) the public disclosure of true,
embarrassing private facts concerning the plaintiff; and (2) publicity that places the plaintiff in a
17. The Brineys (defendants) owned a large farm on which was located an abandoned farmhouse.
For a ten-year period the house had been the subject of several trespassings and house
breakings. In an attempt to stop the intrusions, Briney boarded up the windows and doors and
posted “no trespassing” signs. After one break-in, however, Briney set a spring gun in a
bedroom. It was placed over the bedroom window so that the gun could not be seen from
outside, and no warning of its presence was posted. The gun was set to hit an intruder in the
legs. Briney loaded the gun with a live shell, but he claimed that he did not intend to injure
anyone.
Katko (plaintiff) and a friend, McDonough, had broken into the abandoned farmhouse on an
earlier occasion to steal old bottles and fruit jars for their antique collection. They returned for
a second time after the spring gun had been set, and Katko was seriously wounded in the leg
when the gun discharged as he entered the bedroom. He then brought this action for damages.
Decision?
Answer: Defense of Property. The primary issue presented is whether an owner may protect
personal property in an unoccupied boarded-up farmhouse against trespassers and thieves by a
spring gun capable of inflicting death or serious injury. The value of human life and limb, not
18. Plaintiff, John W. Carson, was the host and star of “The Tonight Show,” a well-known television
program broadcast by the National Broadcasting Company. Carson also appeared as an
entertainer in nightclubs and theaters around the country. From the time he began hosting “The
Tonight Show” in 1962, he had been introduced on the show each night with the phrase “Here’s
Johnny.” The phrase “Here’s Johnny” is still generally associated with Carson by a substantial
segment of the television-viewing public. In 1967, to earn additional income, Carson began
authorizing use of this phrase by outside business ventures.
Defendant, Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., is a Michigan corporation engaged in the
business of renting and selling “Here’s Johnny” portable toilets. Defendant’s founder was aware
at the time he formed the corporation that “Here’s Johnny” was the introductory slogan for
Carson on “The Tonight Show.” He indicated that he coupled the phrase with a second one,
“The World’s Foremost Commodian,” to make “a good play on a phrase.” Carson brought suit
for invasion of privacy. Should Carson recover? If so, for which tort?
Answer: Appropriation. Yes, Carson should recover for violation of his right of privacy. The right
of privacy involves four distinct torts, one of which is the appropriation of a person’s name or
19. Susan Jungclaus Peterson was a twenty-one-year-old student at Moorhead State University who
had lived most of her life on her family farm in Minnesota. Though Susan was a dean’s list
student during her first year, her academic performance declined after she became deeply
involved in an international religious cult organization known locally as The Way of Minnesota,
Inc. The cult demanded an enormous psychological and monetary commitment from Susan. Near
the end of her junior year, her parents became alarmed by the changes in Susan’s physical and
mental well-being and concluded that she had been “reduced to a condition of psychological
bondage by The Way.” They sought help from Kathy Mills, a self-styled “deprogrammer” of
minds brainwashed by cults.
On May 24, Norman Jungclaus, Susan’s father, picked up Susan at Moorhead State. Instead of
returning home, they went to the residence of Veronica Morgel, where Kathy Mills attempted to
deprogram Susan. For the first few days of her stay, Susan was unwilling to discuss her
involvement. She lay curled in a fetal position in her bedroom, plugging her ears and
hysterically screaming and crying while her father pleaded with her to listen. By the third day,
however, Susan’s demeanor changed completely. She became friendly and vivacious and
communicated with her father. Susan also went roller skating and played softball at a nearby
park over the following weekend. She spent the next week in Columbus, Ohio, with a former cult
member who had shared her experiences of the previous week. While in Columbus, she spoke
daily by telephone with her fiancé, a member of The Way, who begged her to return to the cult.
Susan expressed the desire to get her fiancé out of the organization, but a meeting between them
could not be arranged outside the presence of other members of The Way. Her parents attempted
to persuade Susan to sign an agreement releasing them from liability for their actions, but Susan
refused. After nearly sixteen days of “deprogramming” Susan left the Morgel residence and
returned to her fiancé and The Way. Upon the direction of The Way ministry, she brought this
action against her parents for false imprisonment. Will Susan prevail? Explain.
Answer: False Imprisonment. Judgment for Mr. and Mrs. Jungclaus. “If a person is aware of a
reasonable means of escape that does not present a danger of bodily or material harm, a
20. Debra Agis was a waitress in a restaurant owned by the Howard Johnson Company. On May 23,
Roger Dionne, manager of the restaurant, called a meeting of all waitresses at which he
informed them that “there was some stealing going on.” Dionne also stated that the identity of
the party or parties responsible was not known and that he would begin firing all waitresses in
alphabetical order until the guilty party or parties were detected. He then fired Debra Agis, who
allegedly “became greatly upset, began to cry, sustained emotional distress, mental anguish, and
loss of wages and earnings.” Mrs. Agis brought this complaint against the Howard Johnson
Company and Roger Dionne, alleging that the defendants acted recklessly and outrageously,
intending to cause emotional distress and anguish. The defendants argued that damages for
emotional distress are not recoverable unless physical injury occurs as a result of the distress.
Will Agis be successful on her complaint?
Answer: Infliction of Emotional Distress. Yes. An individual “who, by extreme and outrageous
conduct and without privilege, causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability
for such emotional distress even though no bodily harm may result.” Mrs. Agis successfully
21. On July 31, Amanda Vaughn and Jason Vaughn accompanied their mother, Emma Simpson
Vaughn, to a Wal-Mart store. Amanda’s friend, Kimberly Dickerson, was also with them. Once
they entered the store, Mrs. Vaughn and Jason went into separate areas of the store. The two
girls remained together in the front of the store and selected a stamp album to purchase.
Kimberly took the album to the checkout register, and while she was at the register, she also
selected a pack of gum. Once Kimberly paid for her two items, they were placed in a bag and
she was given her change. Kimberly testified that she did not immediately put the change in her
wallet while she was at the register. Instead, Kimberly walked back into the merchandise area
where Amanda had remained. Kimberly was in the merchandise area, away from the registers,
when she placed her change in her purse. Kimberly proceeded to place her hand in the
Wal-Mart bag to retrieve the gum she had just purchased.
At this time, Ms. Clara Lynn Neal, a customer service manager, observed Kimberly’s hand
coming out of her Wal-Mart bag. According to Ms. Neal, because the two girls were in a
somewhat secluded area of the store, Ms. Neal walked past the two girls twice to observe them
before she walked over to them.
Ms. Neal testified that she asked Kimberly if she could see her bag and her receipt and that
Kimberly voluntarily gave her the bag. Plaintiffs alleged that Ms. Neal “detained the girls,
snatched Kimberly’s bag from her, searched the bag, discovered a receipt, tied the bag, and then
personally escorted the girls to an area near the front door away from the registers.” However,
Kimberly’s testimony stated that “[Ms. Neal] said she was going to have to check my bag
because she doesn’t know if I’m stealing something. So I didn’t say anything. I didn’t really give
it to her because I was shocked. So she took it, and she was like searching through it.”
Once Ms. Neal checked the purchases with the receipt, the girls were told to go to the front of the
store and wait for their party. The girls were never told that they could not leave the store and
the girls were not detained by anyone else. According to all parties, from the time Ms. Neal
walked up to the girls, verified the purchases, and returned the bag to Kimberly, the entire
incident only lasted about one minute. While the girls were waiting at the front of the store,
Jason was asked by his mother to inform the girls that she was ready to go. Jason approached
the girls, and they responded that they could not leave. When Jason reported to his mother that
the girls stated they could not leave the area, Mrs. Vaughn then went to the front of the store to
investigate. Before Mrs. Vaughn took the children home, she explained to a store manager what
had occurred. Do the girls have a cause of action against Wal-Mart?
Answer: False Imprisonment. Under normal circumstances, private citizens have no authority to
ANSWERS TO “TAKING SIDES” PROBLEMS
Edith Mitchell, accompanied by her thirteen-year-old daughter, went through the checkout at
Walmart and purchased several items. As they exited, the Mitchells passed through an electronic
antitheft device, which sounded an alarm. Robert Canady, employed by Walmart as a “people
greeter” and security guard, forcibly stopped Edith Mitchell at the exit, grabbed her bag, and
told her to step back inside. The security guard never touched Edith or her daughter and never
threatened to touch either of them. Nevertheless, Edith Mitchell described the security guard’s
actions in her affidavit as “gruff, loud, rude behavior.” The security guard removed every item
Mitchell had just purchased and ran it through the security gate. One of the items still had a
security code unit on it, which an employee admitted could have been overlooked by the cashier.
When the security guard finished examining the contents of Mitchell’s bag, he put it on the
checkout counter. This examination of her bag took ten or fifteen minutes. Once her bag had been
checked, no employee of Walmart ever told Mitchell she could not leave. Mitchell was never
threatened with arrest. Mitchell brought a tort action against Walmart.
(a) Explain on which torts should Mitchell base her claim against Walmart?
(b) What arguments would support Walmart denial of liability for these torts?
(c) Which party should prevail? Explain.
ANSWER:
(a) Mitchell could base her claim against Wal-Mart on false imprisonment, assault, battery,
defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
