ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 6
INTENTIONAL TORTS AND PRIVACY
6-1A. Emotional distress
(Chapter 6—Pages 118–119)
Yes, according to the court. CCSI had claimed that, as a matter of law, its actions could not be described
as tortious and therefore moved for summary judgment. The court did not agree with CCSI and refused
6-2A. Emotional distress
(Chapter 6—Pages 118–119)
The court held that the officer could recover damages for emotional distress. The court pointed out that
B-22 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 6
regulations by posting a warning that the patient possessed an infectious disease is a critical factor in
6-3A. Wrongful interference
(Chapter 6—Pages 124–126)
The Supreme Court of California held that there had been no disruption of the PG&E–Agency contract as
a result of Bear Stearns’ activities. Bear Stearns was assisting Agency in obtaining a legal determination
as to whether Agency could legally terminate its contract with PG&E under the contract’s own terms,
not inducing Agency to breach the contract. The essential question before the court was thus whether
inducing a third party to bring litigation on a colorable claim could be the basis for tort liability for
wrongful interference with a contractual relationship. A deciding factor in the court’s decision was the
constitutional right of free access to the courts. Agency, with Bear Stearns’ assistance, wished to
petition the court for a judicial determination of its rights under its contract with PG&E. This, the court
determined, Agency had a constitutional right to do. But did a third party, such as Bear Stearns, have a
right to induce Agency to submit such a petition? The court held that it did. In the court’s view, there
6-4A. Wrongful interference
(Chapter 6—Pages 124–126)
No. According to the court, American’s refusal to approve the sale of the shopping center to the Hall
Corp. did not constitute wrongful interference with a business relationship, nor did American breach its
6-5A. Wrongful interference
(Chapter 6—Pages 124–126)
6-6A. Wrongful interference
(Chapter 6—Pages 124–126)
Yes, if inducement was shown. This case illustrates the general rule that a person is not justified in
6-7A. Appropriation
(Chapter 6—Pages 122123)
The court granted the injunction that USGA sought. Arroyo was prohibited from any unauthorized
commercial use of USGA’s Handicap System. Arroyo appealed to a California state intermediate
6-8A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. No, because it is an invasion of a protected interest, for which tort law provides relief.
Without an injury, any damages award would be small, but an injunction could be issued to prevent
2. From the text’s phrasing of the court’s opinion, it appears that the court considered the
