Student No. 190824
Veg v. Duncan and News
Vicarious Liability rest on a special relationship between the tort feasor and the person to whom the tortious conduct is imputed. Here, News may be found vicariously liable for actions of Duncan. Duncan is a reporter for News. News will be, at least, vicarious liable under a Respondent Superior Relationship.
the scope of his employment.
WRONGFUL INVASION OF PRIVACY
Commercial Appropriation. Unauthorized use of plaintiffs name or likeness for a commercial purpose. Here, Veg’s action is not for invasion of privacy but for interference with the celebrity’s right to publicity. However, Duncan/ News will likely prevail on the defense of News Worthiness. Veg will likely not prevail on commercial …show more content…
Defendant makes a disclosure to general public attributing actions or beliefs to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff has not done nor holds, that when judged by a reasonable person would be found to be highly offensive. Here, Duncan/ News stated in their news story that Veg and Star both enjoyed eating meat, contrary to the positions they advocated. Veg could argue that he did not enjoy eating steak and that Duncan/ News knew or at least reckless in publishing he was. This is probably irrelevant and Veg will not prevail on this argument.
STAR v Duncan and News
Defamation. A false defaming assertion of the fact about the Plaintiff that is intentionally or negligently published and understood as defamatory by third person, casing dame to the Plaintiff’s reputation.
A false statement. Here, Duncan/ News made the false statement that Veg and Star both enjoyed eating meat, contrary to their positions they advocated. There was a false stament by News.
Intentionally or negligently published. Here, it could easily be proven that Duncan and News were negligent, since Duncan falsely stated that the photograph included Star and the News was not only negligent, but likely intentional, since they had a story on the very next page of their paper reporting Star at a Movie Premier, in another state. News was at least
Veg v. Duncan and News
Vicarious Liability rest on a special relationship between the tort feasor and the person to whom the tortious conduct is imputed. Here, News may be found vicariously liable for actions of Duncan. Duncan is a reporter for News. News will be, at least, vicarious liable under a Respondent Superior Relationship.
the scope of his employment.
WRONGFUL INVASION OF PRIVACY
Commercial Appropriation. Unauthorized use of plaintiffs name or likeness for a commercial purpose. Here, Veg’s action is not for invasion of privacy but for interference with the celebrity’s right to publicity. However, Duncan/ News will likely prevail on the defense of News Worthiness. Veg will likely not prevail on commercial …show more content…
Defendant makes a disclosure to general public attributing actions or beliefs to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff has not done nor holds, that when judged by a reasonable person would be found to be highly offensive. Here, Duncan/ News stated in their news story that Veg and Star both enjoyed eating meat, contrary to the positions they advocated. Veg could argue that he did not enjoy eating steak and that Duncan/ News knew or at least reckless in publishing he was. This is probably irrelevant and Veg will not prevail on this argument.
STAR v Duncan and News
Defamation. A false defaming assertion of the fact about the Plaintiff that is intentionally or negligently published and understood as defamatory by third person, casing dame to the Plaintiff’s reputation.
A false statement. Here, Duncan/ News made the false statement that Veg and Star both enjoyed eating meat, contrary to their positions they advocated. There was a false stament by News.
Intentionally or negligently published. Here, it could easily be proven that Duncan and News were negligent, since Duncan falsely stated that the photograph included Star and the News was not only negligent, but likely intentional, since they had a story on the very next page of their paper reporting Star at a Movie Premier, in another state. News was at least