quarter Two : assignment 2

2

Exercise 1

A party is held liable if they publish any statements that can damage the reputation of another such that other people cannot associate with them and as well lower their regard. This statement is from the restatement of Torts under section 559 (Tyz, 2003). Based on the commentary given, there exists differences between two parties. The commentary creates two opposing sides however, the plaintiff is unable to prove that he was defamed by the defendant. According to the commentary, it was written in response to a media conversation on one of the TV channels. The commentary was aimed at commenting on matters education and in particular the show. Furthermore, the statements were inline with what the public was interested with and could soundly resonate with (Vohra, 2019). Therefore, the issue of the plaintiff could no surface anywhere especially if one read the contents of the publication. They would be more interested in understanding the education system than an individual and his character. A party must prove that the publication was done with full knowledge that it was false (Russomanno, 2020). Since the statements were not aimed at tainting anyone’s image in particular, the defendant did not defame the plaintiff, Mr Barnes (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

References

Russomanno, J. (2020). Kalven Jr., Harry. The New York Times Case: A Note on “The Central Meaning of the First Amendment,” 1964 Sup. Ct. Rev. 191. Communication Law and Policy, 25(3), 400-405.

Tyz, R. A. (2003). Oregon Law Review: Vol. 82, No. 2, p. 559-580: Searching for a Corporate Liability Standard Under the Alien Tort Claims Act in Doe v. Unocal.

Vohra, A. (2019). Defamation. Journal of Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Law, 2(1), 21-25.

Exercise 2

The pharmacy chief section of CDSS, DM was not to attend the APA annual meeting because he was in the NO to attend register. But on 6th of April, DM and his associates had dinner at RSH. His associates had come for a meeting and booked a room adjacent to DM, room NHM. The friends visited DM later to discuss tomorrow’s meeting. DM was later found unconscious after 3hrs in the parking lot. He was taken to the hospital by the police with the believe that he was drunk. However, DM remembered that his room had been unlocked by two men who beat him up on the head and shoulder after which they took him to a dark alley. The injuries were so bad that they lead to permanent effects. He therefore, sued NHM for negligence but the management maintains he was drunk and probably met the ordeal outside the hotel.

Based on the case, NHM is liable because; DM returned to his room at around 10:30 or 11:00 PM and it can be proved from the CCTV footage and his friends who were just adjacent. Also, NHM has a responsibility to protect its guests against any form of insecurity however, there was negligent access to the elevators and guests. Third, DM was injured impacting his professional and personal life due to the failure of the hotel. The police only assumed that he was drunk hence could be proven otherwise. Therefore, NHM is fully liable for DM’s predicaments.

Exercise 3

Here, Rhodes could not recover from the hospital because she tripped over a black cord from a hospital room whereby the cord ran from the foot of the bed to the floor along the side of the bed and up the bed side. Here the condition was not unavoidable since a reasonable person would have seen the cord even with slight inspection. The lighting was adequate and cord contrasted with tiled floor that was grey. Therefore, there was no issue of material fact to the case. Rhodes would have avoided the cord due to the availability of enough space. The cord did not pose a likely threat to anyone.

Reference

Bagley v. JC Penney Corporation, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-76

Exercise 4

According to (Hawkins, 2016) tortious interference is the interference with an individual or an individual’s property causing harm to the individual or the property. A breach of contract is a tortious interference with the contractual relations or rights. Since it is intentional, it is classified under tort law.

The case involves CBS news interfering with the confidentiality contract between Brown and Williams and Jeffery Wigand (Mishra, 2019). The depiction by the Wall Street Journal clearly shows the unusual arrangement between CBS and Wignad with the intention to hurt Brown and Williams. Reference

Hawkins, D. (2016). Tortious Interference-Employment. Wisconsin Law Journal.

Mishra, N. (2019). Economic Torts. Journal of Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Law, 1(1), 8-14.