This is an introduction of low class, so the concept is a basic.

Please answer below questions as much as you can.

Note, The length of the answer can be short.

We learned about TORT LAW in this week.

Our civil legal system provides an avenue for someone who is injured or suffers damage which is caused by another person or business entity, to collect a reasonable value for the effects that such injury has caused. The key word, therefore, for the Torts chapter is "compensation." Think of the tort system as a mechanism for establishing the reasonable market value for a whole host of possible harms. As opposed to a system of worker's compensation, where a "scheduled benefit" dictates an amount of potential damages, the tort system provides for a more "customized" approach. In most states with worker's compensation systems, injured workers are ensured a swift, no-fault compensation system for injuries on the job and employers received immunity from civil suits by workers. Birklid v. Boeing Co., 127 Wn.2d 853, 859, 904 P.2d 278 (1995). As a result, "employees may receive less than full tort damages in exchange for the expense and uncertainty of litigation." Minton v. Ralston Purina Co., 146 Wn.2d 385, 390, 47 P.3d 556 (2002).

However, in the tort system, a jury typically determines a damage award based upon the unique specifics of each individual case.

In effect, we are all responsible for the consequences that our actions may have on others around us, or those that may have other dealings with us. This has been referred to as our duty of care, or the "neighbor principle," which we discuss more thoroughly in the next chapter. If harm befalls another person due to our actions, or inactions, then we would have the distinction be being legally referred to as a "tortfeasor" (one who commits a tort). Do not confuse a tortfeasor with a criminal. Recall that while crimes are committed against society as a whole, torts are typically committed against individuals within a community. Despite these fundamental differences, one act can be both a crime and a tort. A classic example would be the O.J. Simpson case of the late 90s. While Mr. Simpson was acquitted on murder charges, he was found liable for the tort of "wrongful death" and ordered to pay compensatory damages. Of course, this was due to the different burden of proof standards for crimes (beyond a reasonable doubt) compared to the burden in a tort case (a preponderance of the evidence, or "more likely than not").1 Also keep in mind that not all bad happenings are torts. There are still many, many unfortunate events that occur where no one is really to blame for injuries or damages. It is only where causation is established for a specific kind of tort, that a tortfeasor would be compelled to compensate the victim for their loss. In this way, a victim is said to be made whole, or otherwise compensated, by the tortfeasor through the tort system. This is usually achieved through monetary awards. The amount of compensation that can be quantified is referred to as special compensatory damages. This type of damage might include, but is not limited to, medical bills, lost wages, disability payments, as well as future medical bills and/or wage loss. General compensatory damages are for more intangible losses such as pain, disfigurement, and suffering. Some states might also award punitive damages on occasion for serious or reckless wrongdoing. Many states, including Washington, limit civil punitive damages to fraud cases, or where there is statutory authority to award excess damages. There is much variability among state laws in the tort area, so it is somewhat difficult to generalize. However, there are typical majority and minority views or rules on a variety of tort topics among the states, as well as internationally.2

As was the case with crimes, the "law is like chemistry" analogy still applies. Our ability to understand and appreciate the nature of torts is to know them by their elementary structure. The two broad classes of torts are "intentional" and "unintentional" or negligence torts. Intentional in the tort context is not quite the same as intentional in the criminal context. There is no mens rea requirement for torts. One only need to intend the natural consequences of their actions. That is to say, they intend to complete a particular act, but not necessarily its consequences.3

Below, the intentional torts will be divided according to how they affect different aspects of our protected rights.

SPECIFIC TORTS: AFFECTING PERSONS

1. Assault: Intentionally placing another in fear or apprehension of imminent harm. Example: Pointing a knife at someone in a threatening manner. The apprehension or fear must be perceived as imminent and reasonable. For example, pointing a dripping water pistol at someone would likely not place them in reasonable fear of immediate harm. As we shall see repeatedly, even a victim must be reasonable in their victimness!
2. Battery: Harmful or offensive contact: Example: Having the wrong organ removed during a surgery. Though assault and battery often go together, this example also points out that one may have an assault without battery, or vice versa. Also keep in mind that assault and battery could also rise to the level of criminal acts for which the perpetrator could end up in prison. Remember, however, that the tort system is concerned with compensating the victims for injuries arising out of such acts, while the criminal system is concerned with protecting society. That is, the same act could be both a crime and a tort. As you will recall from the previous chapter, however, the burden of proving a crime is much greater than that required for a tort.
3. False Imprisonment: One of America's strongest values is that of freedom. Therefore, the unjust or unreasonable restraint of a person's freedom of movement is considered tortious. By "unreasonable" we mean that there is no legitimate basis or reason for such restraint. This can take various forms including physical restraints, psychological restraints, and/or pharmacologic restraints through use of medications or drugs. The clearest examples are typically found among the very young or elderly, as these are the most vulnerable victims. For example, a patient in a nursing home may be restrained to their bed for no legitimate purpose, thus causing them injury. Interesting examples also appear in the news from time to time, as occurred in the Jet Blue case on Valentine's Day of 2007.4 Questions may arise in an individual case concerning the degree of the person's deprivation, whether the belief in the deprivation was reasonable, or whether there was consent to the deprivation. Each case is different, and must stand on its own merits. As one might imagine, the most vulnerable population for this tort is the very young or very old.

In each case, the physical deprivation may occur in one of more of the following ways:

1. Physical restraint
2. Psychological restraint (via threats or intimidation)
3. Pharmacologic restraint (via medications or drugs).

"False" Imprisonment?

Source: Needs a Source

SPECIFIC TORTS: AFFECTING REPUTATION

Tort law protects our ability to establish and maintain a positive regard within our communities. Our reputation is how others see or talk about us. For example, when one says "John is reputed to be a good business person," it means that John has a positive reputation for business. Such regard can be difficult to achieve and usually requires a good deal of time and effort. It can be so important that it can even enhance the intangible value of a business. For example, in the sale of a business with a good reputation, it is common that a value be placed on the "goodwill" or positive reputation that the business has had, which will continue to attract loyal customers. A counter example might be a sign on a business stating "under new management!" in an attempt to disassociate itself from the "bad will" of a prior owner!

The point is that reputation is something that a value can be placed upon. People can spend many years building up their reputations (think of credit scores). When someone unjustly taints or otherwise undermines one's hard-earned reputation, that is a cause for individual and societal concern, which is sufficient to warrant a tort action. The torts affecting such matters are as follows:

1. Defamation: Literally translated this means to take away someone's "fame," or to "de-fame" them. This tort comes in two main varieties:
2. Slander: defaming through the spoken word, and/or
3. Libel: defaming through writing or broadcast media, which might include radio, television, or Internet broadcasts.
4. Disparagement: This is analogous to defamation but is aimed at someone's products or services. For example, false claims that a certain fast food establishment sells tainted hamburgers, or that a particular service provider routinely gouges its customers.5

In either case above, the specificelementsof the defamatory conduct are:

1. That the statement made must be false (i.e., truth is always a defense),
2. Publically communicated (even a third party is sufficient), and
3. malice (ill will) may be required (depending on whether the defamed person is a "public figure"). A public figure is essentially one who is in the public spotlight and capable of defending his or her reputation in the media. Review the famous New York Times v. Sullivan case from Chapter 4. Also, the 1984 Supreme Court case Hustler v. Falwell defined the term "actual malice," as untrue statements made with blatant disregard for whether they were true or false. Establishing that a public figure could only win a defamation lawsuit if the statements made against him/her were not an honest mistake, and were made with the intent to cause harm. Note: There are several defenses or privileged situations which would allow a defamatory statement to be made without legal recourse.6

SPECIFIC TORTS: AFFECTING EMOTIONS

Historically, in order to prevail in a tort claim for damages, the plaintiff had the burden of proving the matter asserted by a preponderance of the evidence. As society recognized the importance of healthy emotions to the total well-being of a person, it began to protect such interests against tortfeasors who might cause them harm. Strategically, however, it was very difficult to prove damage to something that could not be seen, or adequately measured. Emotional damage, if sought at all, must have been linked to a physical manifestation or harm before the courts would recognize an emotional component sufficient enough to warrant some measure of compensation. In other words, a gaping wound or obviously broken bone would provide a reasonable basis for warranting a remedy for the emotions. A mere scratch or nonvisible injury would not be recognized as sufficient.

Things changed significantly in the late 1960s and early 1970sfor example, the Massachusetts case of Agis v. Howard Johnson in 1976.7 In this case, a waitress of the restaurant sued the owner and the manager of the restaurant alleging that the manager held a meeting with the waitresses at which he said that someone was stealing from the restaurant and until the identity of that person could be established he would begin firing all the waitresses in alphabetical order, that the manager then summarily dismissed the plaintiff solely because her name began with the letter "A," that, as a result of this act the plaintiff sustained emotional distress, mental anguish, and loss of wages, that the defendants' acts were reckless, extreme, outrageous, and intended to cause emotional distress and anguish, and that the defendants knew or should have known that their acts would cause such distress. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the basis that there was no physical manifestation. However, the plaintiff appealed and the court of appeals decided that the conduct of the defendants was sufficiently "extreme and outrageous," and "beyond the bounds of human decency" as to justify remanding the case to the trial court to consider compensation for the emotional injury. This became the standard pleading requirement for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The most widely adopted version of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress was actually published in 1948 as a supplement to the Restatement of Torts. In its standard, recognized form, the intentional infliction of emotional distress tort action requires the plaintiff to prove four major elements:

1. that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly;
2. that the defendant's conduct can be characterized as extreme and outrageous;
3. that the defendant's conduct was a proximate cause of the harm that the plaintiff suffered; and
4. that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress (often described as "beyond the bounds of human decency" as in the Agis v. Howard Johnson case, above.)

Much more controversial, and less accepted is the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Because it appears to have no definable limits and the potential claims that can be made under the theory are many, it is difficult to define what situations would give rise to such a claim. Due to this substantial uncertainty, most legal theorists find the theory to be unworkable. The case of Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1993) is illustrative. In this case, the defendant secretly videotaped himself engaging in sexual activities with the plaintiff. The defendant then showed this videotape to numerous individuals and caused severe distress to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, asserting a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. On appeal, the Texas Supreme Court observed that the facts did not support a claim of negligence. Rather, the Court noted, the facts clearly supported a claim of an intentional injury by the defendant and it was evident that the claim had been cast as "negligence" solely to obtain insurance coverage. The Court then went on to hold that Texas did not recognize a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress and remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Some state courts have even upheld third-party derivative claims in situations where someone may witness a family member enduring some traumatic experience.8

SPECIFIC TORTS: AFFECTING PRIVACY INTERESTS

The right of privacy, or even the word "privacy," is not to be found in the Constitution, yet the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that privacy is a right which is inherently implied by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and primarily the Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).9 The Ninth Amendment is particularly interesting in that it clearly leaves the door open to progressive judicial interpretation over time, stating: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What this essentially means is that just because certain rights are not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that they do not exist. Courts may infer from other amendments or circumstances that an unlisted right may be available to protect individuals from the government. This amendment is, in essence, a wonderful expression of intellectual humility! The kind referenced in the Paul-Elder critical thinking handbook we have used in class. The consequence of this license for broad interpretation by the Supreme Court has been criticized by strict constructionist conservatives such as the late Antonin Scalia, but nonetheless has resulted in a range of protections for privacy interests in the tort context. Thus, there are four torts that specifically affect the right of privacy:

1. Appropriation (of name or likeness): Our legal system protects an array of property interests ranging from tangible forms of property such as real estate, automobiles, clothing, appliances, etc., to intangible forms such as contract rights, intellectual property, or entitlements. Thus courts have held that our own names and likenesses are a part of the intangible property rights we each own in our identity. Thus if someone takes control of ownership of such interest at our detriment, and without permission, a tort cause of action may ensue. See White v. Samsung Electronics, 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992).10
2. Intentional Intrusion on Seclusion: Sometimes people living in cities will purchase telescopes, ostensibly to gaze upon the stars, but perhaps periodically to peek into a neighbor's house. Again, if injury or damage were to result, the tort of Intrusion might be argued. Keep in mind that the 1964 United States v. Katz case created the "expectation of privacy" test which must be satisfied before a tort can be committed. For example, taking a photo of a person sleeping in a public park would not be sufficiently private to constitute a tortious act. Surrounding circumstances and changes in society must also be taken into account to determine how privacy expectations may change over time. For example, the advent of smartphones makes photography much more common and accepted than might have been the case earlier.
3. Public Disclosure of Private Facts: Somewhat similar to the situation above is the tort of public disclosure. Each of us probably has some information that we dearly hold private, the disclosure of which could result in various sorts of harm, including emotional and financial. For example, a healthcare worker may become aware of delicate private information about a public figure that might be embarrassing or costly if disclosed. If the health worker were to disclose the information without permission, then a tort situation could arise, if harm results from the disclosed information.11 I have called the right of privacy the incredible shrinking right due to the amount of information that we voluntarily give away as consumers. It may be that privacy has become more meaningless in the tradeoffs that exist in an expedient commercial world. However, there are certainly sensitive aspects, such as identity and medical information, that still deserve protection from tortfeasors. As incredible as it sounds, it also appears that while human privacy has been declining, the right of corporate privacy has increased, due to its controversial status as a legal "person"12 (refer to Chapter 4).
4. False Light: With the advent of computer and graphic technology, it has become increasingly possible to create false or distorted images of persons. If such an image were to place someone in a negative context which resulted in financial or emotional damages, such person could potentially recover the value of that loss from the tortfeasor under the theory of "false light."

An example of a case that was incorrectly pled as a false light case emanated from the state of Florida where the founder of the Anderson road paving company was said to have "shot and killed" his wife in a newspaper article. Two sentences later, the article stated that she died in a hunting accident. Anderson said the description suggested he murdered his wife, successfully sued the paper under a false light claim and was awarded $18.3 million, but an appeals court reversed the verdict, holding that Anderson had inaccurately filed it as a false light claim in an attempt to skirt a 2-year statute of limitations on libel claims. False light suits have a 4-year statute of limitations.13 The Court suggested that because the claim was false, it should have been brought as a defamation claim.

SPECIFIC TORTS: AFFECTING PROPERTY INTERESTS

Historically, there are three major categories of property interests that tort law affects.

Real Property

Considered to be the land and anything that is appurtenant, or attached, to it. In other words, "real estate." In many states, the attachments are also known as "fixtures." Torts affecting this interest are twofold:

1. Trespass: Going onto to someone else's land, or leaving upon it something the owner does not wish there without permission.
2. Nuisance: This tort springs from the common law right of "quiet enjoyment." That is, an owner of property also has acquired the intangible right to enjoy the property peacefully, and without unreasonable interference from obnoxious or annoying actions of neighboring property owners.

Personal Property

This is tangible movable property, excepting financial instruments and related documents. Tortious interference of such property interests includes:

1. Trespass: Similar to trespass to real property, any unwanted and destructive action to one's personal property gives rise to this tort. For example, a person could mark up a student's book without that person's permission, thereby damaging the value of the book for resale.
2. Conversion: This is defined as taking "dominion and control" of another's property in a manner inconsistent with the expectations of the true owner. A person borrowing a car to go to the store, but then driving it around town for several hours might be an example. This could also be the sweater that you loaned to a friend which you never got back. Also the purchase or possession of a stolen car could be conversion, even if the purchaser did not know it was stolen. In this situation, the purchaser of a stolen car, could be out with both the money paid for the car as well as the car itself!

Intangible Property

As opposed to tangible forms of property, this is property that cannot be touched or even seen. Yet, our legal system provides property rights in such things. There are three main categories of this type of property: intellectual property (the ownership of ideas), contract rights (ownership of promised obligations), and entitlements such as Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc. The torts that affect these rights are:

1. Interference with Contractual relations: If two parties are already bound by contract, then it would be improper for someone to interfere to undermine the obligations between the parties. In essence, think of this tort as a form of trespass to intangible property.
2. Patent, Copyright, or Trademark infringement: If a person were to steal another's idea for a product, service, or advertising methods, this would be a tortious attack on such intangible rights of the patent, copyright, or trademark holder. For electronic and audiovisual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is referred to as piracy.
3. Fraudulent misrepresentation in attainment of property or entitlements: Making false claims for various government benefits would fall into this category. For example, providing false identification to become eligible for some benefits is a common concern of governmental agencies. The abuse of a charitable status has also been a problem, in that victims may often be reluctant to make any legal claims due to feelings of embarrassment which might result in making their situation public. See patterns of abuse at United Way.14
4. Identity theft: As stated in the prior chapter, this form of "white-collar" crime can also be the basis for a civil tort if the victim seeks compensation for harm or damages suffered at the hands of such tortfeasor. Unfortunately, for many victims, the tortfeasor/criminal may not have much in the way of assets to compensate the lowly victim.

This is a chapter that I have learned so far.

• The Thinking Process Applied to Law-Legal Briefing
• Chapter
• Substantive Law: The Historical Context
• Chapter
• Civil Legal Procedure
• Chapter
• Constitutional Law: A Question of Balance
• Chapter
• The Great Freedoms of the Constitution
• Chapter
• Basic Criminal Law Principles
• Chapter
• Tort Law: Intentional

1. Motivation: How motivated have you generally been to study the materials for this class? To help you answer this question, you should consider the following factors: a) State a topic or concept that you found of particular interest in your life b) State an incentive that is driving your desire to learn this concept or topic How would rate your state of confidence? Here I am looking for a response regarding the 3 parts of motivation: What is an emotionally Attractive topic for you to learn? , What tangible Incentives are you trying to gain, and what Degree of Self Confidence do you have regarding the topic?

2. Information Recall: What important information do you recall from the class so far? Name and define at least 3 facts or things that you were not aware of previous to taking this class. Simply state 3 facts you remember from class that you were not aware of previously.

3. Language Interpretation: State the name and definition of 3 legal terms you learned from class so far. Define 3 legal terms correctly and why you find them relevant to your studies.

4. Issue Identification: What new questions came to mind that you felt were relevant to your future work plans or life skills? State a major legal issue from class that may be relevant to your work plans or life situation.

5. Concept Recognition: What is an example of a legal concept that you learned this week. Name and list the "elementary structure" for at least 2 concepts. To what type of questions might these concepts apply? Recognizing that "Law is like Chemistry"...State 2 concepts along with the elementary structure for each.

6. Concept Differentiation: Compare and contrast 2 concepts listed above. How are they the same, and how are they different? Compare and Contrast the 2 legal concepts stated above.

7. Application of Concept: State how you were able to apply a legal concept learned in class to a set of facts in order to answer a question in the book, chapter problems, or in your life events. For Example, I was able to apply the legal concept of ____________to case problem #10 in Chapter 9 to answer a question about ______________.

8. Logical Analysis: (Paul-Elder, part 1). If you are not familiar with the Paul Elder Model or have not taken POLS 200 as a prerequisite for this class.... review the Critical Thinking Booklet for class, as well as Chapter 1 in the text. (or go to www.criticalthinking.org and read the foundation for this model). State a case or chapter problem in the book that you can analyze using the Paul-Elder logic Wheel.... Please draw out the "essential logic" (i.e. 8 parts of thinking) of that case or chapter problem below: Draw up or explain the Paul "logic wheel" as it relates to a case or chapter problem discussed in class.

9. Objective Assessment: (Paul- Elder, part 2) State a standard of thought that you feel you have understood and applied to your thinking about the class. See the CT booklet regarding Intellectual Standards for thinking. Pick and discuss any intellectual Standard that you are hoping to improve (See CT booklet) Name that standard and address how you were able to manifest or display this ability in your learning.

10. Synthesis of New Knowledge: Describe how were you able to assimilate information, issues and concepts in this class to make a new understanding or work product which demonstrates what you have learned. What new understanding or work product were you able to assimilate based on your study of the Business Law subject matter. For example, parts of a contract were developed in your work or life situation relevant to specific principles of contract law.

11. Trait Development: (Paul-Elder, part 3) Name and describe an intellectual trait (See CT booklet) that you feel you have improved upon this week. State the trait and provide a description of how you personally demonstrated improvement in that area. Describe intellectual Traits (from the CT booklet) that you hope to improve upon as you gain better command of your thinking process.