Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

Chapter 11 - pages 327 and 328

11-1 Evaluate the arguments for and against restricting the availability of punitive
damages. Explain why you tend to agree more with one position than the other.

I believe that there should not be a restriction on this. This is because without
these costs there might be manufacturers that produce unsafe products as they do not
have the extra safeguard. The manufacturer gets a cost safeguard that is good for

11-2 Distinguish intentional torts from negligent torts.

Intentional – this is an intentional act done by the defendant which harmed the
plaintiff. Normally there is some time of harm involved in the act.

Negligent – This is an act that is done out of carelessness without any kind of
intent in the action. It is known as an unintentional act. This is also known as an act
that has some type of harm.

11-3 Define an assault and a battery and explain how the two are related.

Assault – This is an intentional physical attack on someone

Battery – This is where someone makes physical contact with someone not
necessarily as in an attack but for a menacing or threatening effect.

They are related because they both involve someone using physical contact on another
person without consent.

11-5 Explain the relationship between trespass to personality and conversion.

Trespass is going onto someone’s land without permission.

Personality – This happens when someone interferes with someone personal

property. This normally happens when someone tries to use someone else’s land for
their own benefit.

Conversion – This happens when someone deprives someone of their owned

land. Something like preventing them from going outside because you keep flooding
the land with water would be an example.
11-6 Your state is proposing to pass a food disparagement law. Construct the strongest
arguments you can in support of and in opposition to such a law. Explain how
emphasizing the importance of different ethical norms could lead to a different
attitude toward the proposed law.

Support of – It helps to protect the reputation of the food manufacturer in a

positive light.

Support Against – It could put the manufacturers into a position to abuse the
new gained power. They would do this by neglecting their responsibilities.

11-7 Karen writes Bob a long letter in which she falsely accuses him of stealing her bike. Bob is
outraged because no one has ever questioned his character in that way before. He is so incensed
that he shows the letter to several colleagues, as well as to his boss. A few weeks later, he
applies for a promotion and is turned down. When he asks his boss why he lost the promotion,
his boss, very reluctantly, says that a number of people were concerned about Bob’s integrity in
light of the recent accusations about his involvement in a bicycle theft. Bob sues Karen for
defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Why will he probably succeed or fail
on each claim?

In this case they lose the claim for defamation. They also lose the claim of intentional
infliction of emotional distress. This is because the letter that was sent to them was a personal
letter not mean to be shown to the world.

11-9 Action Advertising hired Alice Jones as an account executive. She signed an employment
contract under which she agreed to work for the agency for a one-year term for an annual salary
of $45,000. After the manager of Creative Ads saw an exceptional set of ads that Jones had
created, he called Jones, asking her whether she would be interested in changing jobs. When
Jones explained that she was bound by contract for six more months, the manager said that the
contract was unenforceable and further offered to double her salary if she came to work for him,
because he did not believe that she was being paid what she was worth. If Jones quits and goes
to work for Creative, is there a tort? If so, what would the remedy be? If not, why not?

If they quit and go to the other company, there is a tort. The remedy for the tort might be
an injunction order that would bind Alice to their current job.
11-11 Bill is having marital difficulties and has an affair with Sara, from whom he
contracts herpes. Hoping to work out his marital problems, he does not inform his
wife of his infection. Four years later, Bill and his wife, Eva, divorce. A month later,
before she has had any relationships with other men, Eva discovers that she has
herpes. Knowing she could have contracted the disease from only one person, she
sues her husband for negligence, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. What arguments would she make to support each of these causes of action?
Explain how you believe the court would respond to each argument.

Eva would have made arguments in her favor like her husband’s disease that
she should have been told about. They gain the same disease because she was not told
about it. The court would 100% decided the case in the favor of Eva

Chapter 12 page 355-356

12-1 Explain what privity is and what impact it had on the development of product
liability law.

Privity – The principle of law that provides that any contract cannot impose an
obligation to the person who is not a party to the contract.

Impact – Privity has a large impact on the development of production liability.

Mostly in the case where the plaintiff is not the purchaser of the product.

12-2 Explain the elements one would have to prove to bring a successful product
liability case based on negligence.

They must provide the failure to warn part of negligence. They must also
provide products consist of ingredients that do not match the standards that are
acceptable in the trade. The products contain insufficient safety devices, determining
if it is dangerous. Last, they must have negligent per se.

12-3 Explain the defenses one can raise in a product liability case based on

They must provide a few things. One contributory negligence, two the
assumption of risk, three Comparative negligence.

12-4 Explain the various types of warranties that provide the basis for product liability
cases based on breach of warranty.

There are Express warranty’s and there are implied warranty’s.

Express warranty – Warranty that is a statement of fact. It reflects the guarantee
of the seller.

Implied warranty – This is a warranty that is implied by the law for some
situations of sales that are not given by the seller.

12-5 Explain the difference between the foreign natural and consumer-expectations

Foreign natural test – This is the test that dictates that if the material naturally
occurs in the food items like seed or bone.

Consumer-expectations test – The test that considers what a consumer should

expect from the food item in place of warning.

12-8 Five people died of carbon monoxide poisoning from a gas heater that had been
improperly installed in a cabin by the owner, who had not extended the vent pipe far
enough above the roofline. The instruction manual stated that the pipe had to be
vented outside but did not specify how far outside the vent pipe should extend, other
than having a drawing that showed it extending beyond the roofline. The manual also
said, “Warning: To ensure compliance with local codes, have installed by a gas or
utility inspector.” Do the decedents’ estates have a product liability action for failure
to warn? Why or why not?

The production liability must be taken on by the owner of the company not the
manufacturer as the issue was because of the installation not the product itself.
Therefore, this makes it the owner’s responsibility.

12-9 The plaintiff was injured when a fire extinguisher failed to work when it was
needed to put out a fire. Could the defendant manufacturer of the fire extinguisher
raise the defense of contributory negligence against the plaintiff if the plaintiff’s
negligence started the fire? Why or why not?

The plaintiff cased the fire thus the defendant can raise the defense of
contributory negligence against the person. This is because the plaintiff did not take
the necessary safety precautions when it comes to the risk of harm from the activities.

12-10 Mattie was injured when she lost control of the car, she was driving because of
a tire blowout. The tire was guaranteed by the manufacturer “against failure from
blowouts.” The guarantee also limited the manufacturer’s liability to repair or
replacement of any defective tire. Can Mattie sue under strict liability breach of
warranty and recover damages for her injury? Why or why not?
They can sue the manufacturers over the breach of warranty. They however can not directly
claim for recovery in this type of case. This is because there must be an investigation into the matter.
After the investigation their can be a claim for damages for their injury