The Legal Environment Of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach
11-1
Chapter 11
The Law of Torts
Introduction
Chapter Eleven addresses these questions:
• Why is tort law important to managers?
• What are the goals of tort law?
• What kinds of damages can plaintiffs receive in tort cases?
• How can we classify torts?
• What are the legal definitions of each of the major torts?
• What are the global dimensions of tort law?
Chapter Eleven is significant because three out of every four civil jury trials involves tort
Achieving Teaching Excellence
Weak-Sense and Strong-Sense Critical Thinking
This chapter of the Instructor’s Manual explains weak-sense and strong-sense critical
thinking. These ideas are important because instructors need to encourage their students to
become strong-sense critical thinkers. If students become strong-sense critical thinkers, they will
The Legal Environment Of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach
11-2
purpose of weak-sense critical thinking is to resist and annihilate opinions and reasoning
different from yours.” Professors Browne, Keeley, and Paul are concerned about weak-sense
critical thinking because its purpose is to achieve victory over those who disagree with
instructors. Weak–sense critical thinking “ruins the potentially humane and progressive aspects of
critical thinking.”
References
• M. Neil Browne & Stuart M. Keeley, ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS: A GUIDE TO
CRITICAL THINKING 8 (1994).
Chapter Overview, Topic Outline, and Discussion Questions
Chapter Overview
Although a given set of actions may constitute a crime or a wrong against the state and thus
may give rise to a criminal prosecution, the same set of actions may also constitute a tort, a civil
The Legal Environment Of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach
11-3
In terms of the legal content, the tort chapter was one of the easier chapters for students to
Topic Outline
I. The Goals of Tort Law
II. Damages Available in Tort Cases
A. Compensatory Damages
B. Nominal Damages
C. Punitive Damages
III. Classifications of Torts
IV. Intentional Torts
A. Intentional Torts against Persons
2. Defenses to Battery
4. Defenses to Defamation
6. False Imprisonment
7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
B. Intentional Torts against Property
C. Intentional Torts against Economic Interests
V. Negligent Torts
A. Elements of Negligence
B. Defenses to Negligence
2. Venkateswarlu Thota, and North Texas Cardiology Center, v. Margaret Young
VI. Strict Liability Torts
VII. Global Dimensions of Tort Law
VIII. Summary
Discussion Questions for Chapter Eleven
1. Explain why someone might think this statement is true: A plaintiff in a tort case would
prefer to receive compensatory and punitive damages over nominal damages.
The Legal Environment Of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach
11-4
whole again, and include money for medical bills, lost wages, property repair bills, and
compensation for pain and suffering, that is, to put the victim in the position he or she would
2. Why does the book devote so much space to punitive damages?
3. Explain relationships between intentional and negligent torts.
One relationship between the two is that they differ in terms of the degree of willfulness of
4. Explain relationships between disparagement and defamation.
5. List the elements a plaintiff must prove in a negligence case. Which would often be the most
difficult to prove? Which is usually the easiest to prove?
The Legal Environment Of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach
11-5
6. Explain relationships between negligence and res ipsa loquitur.
One relationship between the two is that res ipsa loquitur makes it easier for plaintiffs to
7. Explain why someone might think this statement is true: Even if a plaintiff proves the
elements of negligence, he or she could still lose the case.
8. Evaluate this statement: Strict liability torts consider whether a person or company was at
fault.
This statement is inadequate because strict liability torts do not consider fault. Under this
Answers to Critical Thinking about the Law Questions, Case Summaries,
Answers to Review Questions, Review Problems, and Case Problems
Suggested Answers to Critical Thinking about the Law Questions
1. In the area of tort law, a preference for freedom would mean a judge wants to refrain from
restricting people. Suppose the judge wants businesses to work with fewer restrictions, so he
11-6
2. A person who values efficiency would spend a lot of time talking about the alleged litigation
explosion and the out-of-control jury system. Efficiency means “to minimize costs,”
3. One aspect of the ambiguity is whether the injury must be physical. Some torts respond to
psychological injuries. If injury means physical injury, the number of tort cases will go
Case Summary—Young v. Becker & Poliakoff
In this case, Becker & Poliakoff was hired by Jacquelyn Young to represent her in a lawsuit
against her employers. One of the firm’s associates attached the wrong document while filing the
Case Summary—Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.
This case considered defamation in the context of Internet communications. The court ruled
when a false statement made over the Internet constitutes defamation, and who can be held liable
Suggested Answers to Critical Thinking about the Law Questions
1. The court concludes that that the defendant, Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., is immune from
liability for allowing users to post their opinions about Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. because of the
2. The main reasons provided by the court to support their conclusion are as follows:
• The Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides immunity to publishers and
The Legal Environment Of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach
11-7
3. The court prefers the ethical norm of freedom, for example, to be free from restrictions
Case Summary—Coomer v. Kansas City Royals
Coomer, a fan at a Kansas City Royals baseball game, was struck in the face by a hot dog
thrown by Sluggerrr, the Royals’ team mascot. He suffered a torn and detached retina that
required surgery and a replacement lens. Coomer sued for negligence and the jury was given
instruction for determining whether Coomer had assumed the risk of being injured by the flying
hot dog as well as for applying the comparative negligence doctrine. The jury found that Coomer
Case Summary—Venkateswarlu Thota, and North Texas Cardiology Center, v. Margaret
Young
This case demonstrates an interesting defense to negligence. Preceding his death, Ronnie
additionally suffered from angina, hypertension, a rare blood disorder called polycythemia vera,
• Not considering Ronnie’s other medical problems might interfere with Thota’s procedure
The Legal Environment Of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach
11-8
Answers to Review Questions
11-1. Students’ answers may vary. Overall, the availability of punitive damages is good for
society. Although some companies suffer, they do so only if their behavior is particularly
11-3. An assault is the intentional placing of another in fear or apprehension of an immediate,
offensive bodily contact. A battery is an intentional, unwanted, offensive bodily contact.
11-4. It is harder to win a defamation case for public figures because of the conditional
privilege called the public figure privilege. If a defendant makes a false statement about a
11-5. Both trespass to personalty and conversion are intentional torts against property. Trespass
11-6. This question would also make a good essay question or short paper assignment. Food
disparagement laws provide ranchers and farmers a cause of action when someone
The Legal Environment Of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach
11-9
Answers to Review Problems
11-7. On the claim of defamation, Bob will lose. He will lose because he showed the letter to
several colleagues, as well as to his boss. He damaged his own reputation. He will lose
11-8. Assumption of risk would not be a valid defense. That defense requires the defendant to
show that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered a known risk. The
11-9. If Jones quits, there is a tort. The tort would be intentional interference with contract.
11-10. Tort laws vary from state to state. In general, Suzanne would sue Sam for negligence and
11-11. Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable person would do under the same or
similar circumstances. Battery is offensive contact. Intentional infliction of emotional
distress is emotional pain and suffering that results from the defendant’s intentional,
11-12. This is a strict liability case, and Ron will probably win. Devo Dynamite was engaging in
The Legal Environment Of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach
11–10
Answers to Case Problems
11-13. The appellant court agreed with the trial court and found that the principal did have
probable cause. When the principal walked into his office he observed the women in a
11-14. The court found in favor of Mzamane with regards to the intentional infliction of
emotional distress. The damage to Mzamane was sufficient to cause emotional stress and,
11-15. The district court rejected the defendants’ claim of immunity because, in the judge’s
view, detainees’ right to medical care is clearly established—and because a reasonable
jury could find that Eilman needed care and the police knew it. The United States Court
11-16. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment
on Mrs. Rye’s claim for future medical expenses associated with future pregnancy and
11-17. In recognition of its state’s well-defined public policy of protection and respect for the
civil rights of people who are lesbian, gay or bisexual, The State of New York Supreme
11-18. In a summary judgment the court ruled in favor of the defendants. A suit for negligence
The Legal Environment Of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach
11–11
11-19. In this lawsuit, the Peshlakai family argued that Applebee’s negligently served Ruiz
drinks and that the corporation emphasized liquor sales during the recession. Ten people
11-20. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
defendants’ motion to dismiss the tortious interference with prospective economic
Thinking Critically about Relevant Legal Issues
1. The issue here is whether giving 75 percent of the punitive damages in tort cases to the state
2. One needs more information about the California program. One argument made is that juries
3. The author is focused on public good and punishing those who have done wrong. But the
4. The opposition would argue that punitive damages help the victim. If they get all the
damages, then they can remedy the injustice done to them, especially in a personal injury or