INTENTIONAL TORT ACTIONS DOLLY COULD BRING AGAINST CARL
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (p. 140). Dolly could show that:
1. Carl committed an act of extreme or outrageous conduct by lying to the human resources manager to get her fired;
2. He intended to cause her severe emotional distress by purposefully lying to the H.R. manager;
3. She suffered from severe emotional distress from being fired as a result of Carl’s false statements; and
4. Carl’s false statements were the cause of her termination (but for Carl lying to the H.R. manager, she would still have her job, p. 145).
Defamation – Slander (p. 514):
1. Oral defamatory statement was made by Carl;
2. It was about her;
3. Publication of the statement to a third person (by intentionally …show more content…
76). Dolly could try to prove that:
1. Bob acted by intentionally putting a sleeping pill in her coffee;
2. By doing so, he intended to cause an imminent contact with the plaintiff’s person;
3. Bob had contact with her that was harmful or offensive through her coffee mug, which was something closely related to her; and
4. Bob caused the harmful or offensive contact by drugging her.
My analysis: If Dolly can show that she was drugged by Bob, she would definitely have a case here. Her mug was “so closely associated with the body that they are practically identified with it at the time of the contact” (p. 78). However, Bob would most likely deny the allegation, and it would be up to the judge or jury as to whether or not to believe him.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (p. 140). Dolly could show that:
1. Bob committed an act of extreme or outrageous conduct by drugging her;
2. He intended to cause her severe emotional distress by purposefully physically placing a drug in her coffee, which caused her to fall asleep on the job;
3. She suffered from severe emotional distress from being caught sleeping on the job and being reprimanded and subsequently fired;
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (p. 140). Dolly could show that:
1. Carl committed an act of extreme or outrageous conduct by lying to the human resources manager to get her fired;
2. He intended to cause her severe emotional distress by purposefully lying to the H.R. manager;
3. She suffered from severe emotional distress from being fired as a result of Carl’s false statements; and
4. Carl’s false statements were the cause of her termination (but for Carl lying to the H.R. manager, she would still have her job, p. 145).
Defamation – Slander (p. 514):
1. Oral defamatory statement was made by Carl;
2. It was about her;
3. Publication of the statement to a third person (by intentionally …show more content…
76). Dolly could try to prove that:
1. Bob acted by intentionally putting a sleeping pill in her coffee;
2. By doing so, he intended to cause an imminent contact with the plaintiff’s person;
3. Bob had contact with her that was harmful or offensive through her coffee mug, which was something closely related to her; and
4. Bob caused the harmful or offensive contact by drugging her.
My analysis: If Dolly can show that she was drugged by Bob, she would definitely have a case here. Her mug was “so closely associated with the body that they are practically identified with it at the time of the contact” (p. 78). However, Bob would most likely deny the allegation, and it would be up to the judge or jury as to whether or not to believe him.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (p. 140). Dolly could show that:
1. Bob committed an act of extreme or outrageous conduct by drugging her;
2. He intended to cause her severe emotional distress by purposefully physically placing a drug in her coffee, which caused her to fall asleep on the job;
3. She suffered from severe emotional distress from being caught sleeping on the job and being reprimanded and subsequently fired;