Question Presented:
A. Can a defendant’s actions be considered extreme and outrageous when she is not in a position of authority over the plaintiff, the plaintiff volunteered to be on a show which gets viewership through revealing sensational secrets, and the defendant’s statements haven’t been proven false?
B. Did the producer and owner of WSLZ have a duty to protect Suzy Ann from the criminal act of a third party when the show had a similar, previous altercation, and when the atmosphere of the show itself is volatile?
Brief Answer:
A. Most likely no. To determine extreme and outrageous conduct for the purposes of an IIED claim courts look the prevailing cultural norms and values Bradley v. Hall, 720 N.E.2d 747, 753, (Ind. App. 1999), the …show more content…
The guests volunteer to be on the show and each audience member purchases a ticket in order to view the filming. There are security guards that check each audience member for weapons before they are admitted into the studio. The security guards then outside the studio doors for the filming of the shows. Prior to the altercation between Suzy Ann and Ginny there had only been one prior incident, which occurred between two audience members caused by one member saying something to upset the other. Both times the security was able to break the fight up in about a …show more content…
In addition, Suzy Anne is suing the owner and producer of WSLZ for negligence to protect her from being assaulted by Ginny Jones. This brief will only focus on whether Ginny Jones’s behavior was extreme and outrageous and whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the criminal attack by Ginny Jones was foreseeable, thereby establishing a duty for WSLZ. The courts will likely find that Ginny’s conduct was not outrageous and extreme because even though some of her remarks may be untrue, this is outweighed by Ginny’s telling Suzy Ann’s secret wasn’t outside of the cultural norms of the forums of the Sherry Springer show, and that the relationship between Suzy Ann and Ginny wasn’t one of authority. In addition, based on the totality of the circumstances a court will most likely find that the criminal act was foreseeable and therefore WLSZ had a duty to protect Suzy
A. Can a defendant’s actions be considered extreme and outrageous when she is not in a position of authority over the plaintiff, the plaintiff volunteered to be on a show which gets viewership through revealing sensational secrets, and the defendant’s statements haven’t been proven false?
B. Did the producer and owner of WSLZ have a duty to protect Suzy Ann from the criminal act of a third party when the show had a similar, previous altercation, and when the atmosphere of the show itself is volatile?
Brief Answer:
A. Most likely no. To determine extreme and outrageous conduct for the purposes of an IIED claim courts look the prevailing cultural norms and values Bradley v. Hall, 720 N.E.2d 747, 753, (Ind. App. 1999), the …show more content…
The guests volunteer to be on the show and each audience member purchases a ticket in order to view the filming. There are security guards that check each audience member for weapons before they are admitted into the studio. The security guards then outside the studio doors for the filming of the shows. Prior to the altercation between Suzy Ann and Ginny there had only been one prior incident, which occurred between two audience members caused by one member saying something to upset the other. Both times the security was able to break the fight up in about a …show more content…
In addition, Suzy Anne is suing the owner and producer of WSLZ for negligence to protect her from being assaulted by Ginny Jones. This brief will only focus on whether Ginny Jones’s behavior was extreme and outrageous and whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the criminal attack by Ginny Jones was foreseeable, thereby establishing a duty for WSLZ. The courts will likely find that Ginny’s conduct was not outrageous and extreme because even though some of her remarks may be untrue, this is outweighed by Ginny’s telling Suzy Ann’s secret wasn’t outside of the cultural norms of the forums of the Sherry Springer show, and that the relationship between Suzy Ann and Ginny wasn’t one of authority. In addition, based on the totality of the circumstances a court will most likely find that the criminal act was foreseeable and therefore WLSZ had a duty to protect Suzy