Emotional and dignitary harm on both sides? Probably not – mere threats, insults, indignities Spitting on the steak – assault? Apprehension of harm? Probably not. Could James argue that he was acting in self-defense like the D in Courvoisier, because he believed his life to be in danger, and that by initiating the contact, Paul was consenting to whatever happened afterwards? Probably not. Jeff – duty of care? Duty to aid another harmed by your conduct? Sort of like Yania … but does it narrow the scope to one cause? Not here; Paul was also responsible. Failure of Jeff to exercise reasonably care to secure the safety of the other while within the actor’s charge? Never really started aid, just promised to Kevin – emotional distress – Dillon test. D has to foresee that the injury would emotionally harm Kevin. The relationship and proximity factors are here. Defamation? Trial by press is not optimal and these statements do not get absolute privilege. James is a public figure, so he would have to prove that there was actual malice behind Paul’s statements to E Network for a slander per se suit (Butts). He would also have to prove that statements were true, because truth is no longer an affirmative defense. Also, he would have to show that the statements would harm his reputation, not just his self-esteem.
1 comment:
Emotional and dignitary harm on both sides? Probably not – mere threats, insults, indignities
Spitting on the steak – assault? Apprehension of harm? Probably not. Could James argue that he was acting in self-defense like the D in Courvoisier, because he believed his life to be in danger, and that by initiating the contact, Paul was consenting to whatever happened afterwards? Probably not.
Jeff – duty of care? Duty to aid another harmed by your conduct? Sort of like Yania … but does it narrow the scope to one cause? Not here; Paul was also responsible. Failure of Jeff to exercise reasonably care to secure the safety of the other while within the actor’s charge? Never really started aid, just promised to
Kevin – emotional distress – Dillon test. D has to foresee that the injury would emotionally harm Kevin. The relationship and proximity factors are here.
Defamation? Trial by press is not optimal and these statements do not get absolute privilege. James is a public figure, so he would have to prove that there was actual malice behind Paul’s statements to E Network for a slander per se suit (Butts). He would also have to prove that statements were true, because truth is no longer an affirmative defense. Also, he would have to show that the statements would harm his reputation, not just his self-esteem.
Post a Comment