B-1
ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 6
TORT LAW
6-1A. Emotional distress
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 to grant its motion for summary judgment. Whether CCSI’s conduct was
outrageous—”exceeded the bounds tolerated by decent society”—was a question that should
be resolved by a jury, and a trial was thus necessary. The court pointed out that the tort of emo-
6-2A. Emotional distress
The court held that the officer could recover damages for emotional distress. The court pointed
out that it had recognized the traditional principle that “[t]here can be no recovery in tort for an
emotional and mental trouble alone without ascertainable physical injuries arising therefrom,
* * * through the simple negligence of the defendant[.]” In this case, there was evidence of
B-2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 6
6-3A. Wrongful interference
The union was not liable. This was a legal strike and therefore one of the permitted inter-
6-4A. Appropriation
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 appellate court, which affirmed the lower court’s decision. The state
intermediate appellate court pointed out that “Arroyo’s use of the USGA name and service
6–5A. Duty of care
The jury found in his favor, and the court denied Wal-Mart’s motion for a directed verdict. Wal–
Mart appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the judgment
of the lower court. The appellate court stated, “The traditional rule * * * required a plaintiff in a
slip and fall case to establish that the defendant store had either actual or constructive notice of
the dangerous condition.” The court, however, explained that this case involved the self-service
store exception to the traditional slip-and-fall rule. Under this exception, a self-service store is
6–6A. Elements of negligence
In the chapter, you learned the essential elements of negligence: duty, breach, damages, and
causation. A cause of action for negligence may be brought if the defendant breached a duty of
care owed to the plaintiff and the breach caused the plaintiff to suffer a legally recognizable
injury. In this case, the question that is most likely at the center of the dispute is whether the
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 6 B-3
defendant in this case (Speedway) owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (Mary) who was driving on
Route 106 rather than on Speedway’s property. If Speedway did not owe Mary such a duty, the
case will be dismissed. The issue boils down to this: Did Speedway, by voluntarily assuming
the task of directing traffic onto its property from Route 106, also assume a duty of care toward
drivers and passengers on Route 106? One could reasonably assume that it did. After all,
6–7A. Libel and invasion of privacy
Defamation involves wrongfully hurting a person’s good reputation. Doing so in writing is the tort
of libel. The basis of the tort of defamation is the publication of a statement that holds an
individual up to contempt, ridicule, or hatred. Publication means that the statement is
communicated to someone other than the defamed party. A person who republishes defamatory
statements is liable. The publication of information that places a person in a false light, such as
a story that she did something she did not actually do, could also constitute an invasion of
6-8A. Proximate cause
Proximate cause exists when the connection between an act and an injury is strong enough to
justify imposing liability. The law uses proximate cause to limit the scope of liability.
B-4 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 6
In this problem, the defendant was accused of negligence in the design and maintenance
of a railroad crossing. But the evidence did not show that the defendant breached its duty of
6–9A. Business torts
Under the category of business torts, a third party who interferes with and causes the breach of
a contract may be held liable for interference with a contract. This includes the intentional
interference with an employment agreement. The elements of a cause of action for wrongful
6-10A. 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
2. From the text’s phrasing of the court’s opinion, it appears that the court considered
the employees’ productivity, or at least their time and attention devoted towards that end, not to