PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS WITHIN 3~4 SENTENCES EACH. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER.
1. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church claim that the First Amendment protects them from intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuits since they are expressing a political opinion by picketing at soldier funerals. The pickets take place on public property and in compliance with local picketing laws. If the plaintiffs win the case, the church is unlikely to have the money to satisfy the judgment and may seek bankruptcy.
Question 1: Do you believe that this conduct is extreme and outrageous enough to constitute a tort? Why or why not?
2. In January 2001 a New York man attended a family birthday party at a Benihana restaurant, where chefs, while cooking at the table, routinely throw pieces of food for diners to catch with their mouths. The man wrenched his neck while ducking a piece of flying shrimp, requiring treatment by several doctors. By that summer, doctors determined surgery was necessary to treat numbness in his arm. Five months after surgery, he checked into the hospital with a high fever and died. The family sued Benihana for $10 million in damages, claiming that the fever was the result of surgery, which in turn was the result of the chefâ€™s actions in throwing food at diners.
Question 2: Do you believe that Benihana should be liable for the manâ€™s death? Why or why not?
3. In a November 1983 issue of Hustler magazine, a parody of an advertisement portrayed television evangelist Jerry Falwell as a drunken, incestuous hypocrite. The parody contained a disclaimer, â€œad parodyâ€”not to be taken seriously.â€ Falwell sued for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, although the statements were false, they were not libelous because Falwell was a public figure and there was no proof of actual malice.
Question 3: Should public figures be held to a different standard than private citizens when deciding whether intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel or other similar torts have been committed?
4. Medical malpractice claims tens of thousands of lives per year, leaving victims and their families little recourse except through the tort system. Most doctors purchase medical malpractice insurance policies to pay a claim in case they are sued, but in some cases these premiums can be exorbitantly high. The fear of medical malpractice suits also drives some doctors to practice â€œdefensive medicine,â€ which further increases the price of health care for everyone.
Question 4: How do you think the legal system can best balance the competing interests between business and the consumer with respect to negligence standards?
5. While helping a neighbor on his farm, Charles Tiede raised an auger that hit a high voltage electric power line, killing himself and two other workers. Tiedeâ€™s wife brought a suit against the owner of the farm and the electric company. In Tiede v. Loup Power District, 411 N.W.2d 312 (Neb. 1987), the court ruled that, because Tiede had been warned about the dangers of the electrical wire and had even warned others about it, Tiedeâ€™s contributory negligence precluded his wife from collecting any damages for his death.
Question 5: Should contributory negligence be a valid defense from a claim in tort litigation?
6. Suppose Boxes Inc. is a business and hires Ann to drive its delivery truck. This is an employer/employee relationship because Boxes Inc. has the right to control the details of how Ann does her job. If Ann drives negligently and injures Pedestrian, Pedestrian can sue Boxes Inc. for vicarious liability. Suppose instead that when Ann drove negligently, Ann was 30 miles from where she was supposed to be, having gone there to engage in gambling. Here, a court might conclude that Boxes Inc. is not vicariously liable because Ann was on a â€œfrolic.â€ On the other hand, if Ann had deviated from the appointed route in only a minor way, perhaps to get lunch, a court might find Boxes Inc. vicariously liable. In that case, Ann may not have been on a â€œfrolicâ€ (which cuts off vicarious liability), but merely on a â€œdetourâ€ (which does not). The dividing line between frolic and detour is often hazy.
Question 6: Lemonade Inc.â€™s employee Bill must pick up lemons each day from the student center using a cart. He usually likes to have a quick cigarette while he does so and walks around campus if itâ€™s a nice day. Unfortunately while walking around campus with the cart, he accidentally ran over a studentâ€™s foot injuring her. Explain why the student could claim Lemonade Inc. is liable for any damages? Also explain how Lemonade Inc. could defend itself as not responsible for Billâ€™s actions.