- D HAS SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP W/ VICTIM

- D HAS SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP W/ INJURER

- D TAKES VOLUNTARILY TAKES A DUTY

- D NEGLIGENTLY OR INTENTIONALLY CREATES THE RISK

- STATUTE IMPOSES A DUTY UPON THE D

GENERAL RULE REGARDING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS?

UTILITY COMPANIES VS. THE GENERAL RULE RE: CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS?

WHEN ARE THEY LIABLE?

DIFFERENT STANDARD BECAUSE OF PUBLIC POLICY REASONS; AND THEY USUALLY CONTRACT OUT OF LIABILITY.

STILL NEED TO USE REASONABLE CARE TO RESTORE.

NONE UNLESS INTENTIONAL OR MALICIOUS

WHEN A DUTY IS CREATED BY STATUTE, WHEN IS THERE A SPECIAL DUTY ON A GOV'T ENTITY?

6 FACTORS

1.) ESSENTIAL PART OF THE STATUTE IS TO PROTECT AGAINST A PARTIC. KIND OF HARM.

2.) STATUTE, DIRECTLY OR INDIR., IMPOSES A SPECIFIC PUBLIC OFFICER TO GUARD AGAINST, OR NOT CAUSE THAT HARM.

3.) THE CLASS OF PERSONS THE STATUTE INTENDS TO PROTECT IS IDENTIFIABLE BEFORE THE FACT;

4.) THE PLAINTIFF IS A PERSON WITHIN THE PROTECTED CLASS;

5.) THE PUBLIC OFFICER KNOWS OR HAS REASON TO KNOW THE LIKELIHOOD OF HARM TO MEMBERS OF THE CLASS IF HE FAILS TO DO HIS DUTY; AND

6.) THE OFFICER IS GIVEN SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY TO ACT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HE UNDERTAKES TO ACT IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICE.

PRE-EXISTING RELATIONSHIP;

BASED ON A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE PERPETRATOR;

INNOCENT CREATION OF RISK.

WHAT ARE GENERAL DAMAGES?

IE:?

HARM AND LOSSES THAT ARE NATURAL AND USUAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE TORT AND INJURY ASSERTED.

IE: PAIN AND SUFFERING.

WHAT ARE SPECIFIC DAMAGES?

IE:?

HARMS AND LOSSES THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED FOR.

IE: MEDICAL EXPENSES, LOST WAGES, AND FOR ANY UNUSUAL EFFECTS OF THE INJURY

WHAT ARE CONTINGENT FEES?

RATIONALE?

IF LAWYER GETS NOTHING, CLIENT GETS NOTHING.

RATIONALE: IF PLAINTIFF CAN'T AFFORD ALL THE THINGS NEEDED FOR AN EXPENSIVE TRIAL, IT GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

WHAT IS THE COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE?

RATIONALE?

DEFENDANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR P'S LOSSES EVEN THOUGH LOSSES ARE PAID BY A THIRD PARTY.

RATIONALE: D SHOULD NOT BENEFIT FROM P'S FORESIGHT IN PROTECTION.

WHAT CAN INSURANCE COMPANY DUE AFTER P RECOVERS FROM D AND INSURER ALREADY PAID P?

WHY DON'T THEY GET EVERYTHING BACK?

SUBROGATE

B/C P SUFFERED THE INJURY AND PAID FOR THE INSURANCE.

WHO SUGGESTS THESE R AND A?

WHAT IS REMITTUR?

WHAT IS ADDITUR?

JUDGE

R- GIVES P OPTION TO AVOID NEW TRIAL BY ACCEPTING A REDUCTION IN THE SIZE OF JURY AWARD.

A- D CAN AVOID NEW TIRAL BY CONSENTING TO LARGER VERDICT.

WHAT IS "FINISH THE JOB"?

WHAT'S THE RATIONALE?

IF ON APPEAL AND P DIES BEFORE CASE IS REMANDED, P ONLY GETS PRE DEATH DAMAGES.

NO ONGOING CARE. 

1.) JUSTICE REQUIRES P TO BE RESTORED TO PRE-INJURY CONDITION; SO FAR AS $ CAN.

2.) MOST NON ECONOMIC CAN BE REDUCED TO A $.

3.) SINGLE RECOVERY RULE.

PAIN AND SUFFERING;

MENTAL DISTRESS

WHAT IS ECONOMIC LOSS?

EX:?

PAST AND FUTURE PECUNIARY LOSSES AND OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES PROX. CAUSED BY THE INJURY.

EX: REASONABLE MEDICAL EXPENSES, LOST WAGES, EARNINGS, PROFITS.

WHAT ARE HEDONIC DAMAGES?

IE: ?

PLEASURE OF BEING ALIVE AND FREE, BEYOND PAIN AND SUFFERING.

IE: WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF SOMEONE IN JAIL AND HAS NO PAST EARNINGS, ETC..

WHAT IS LOSS TO SURVIVOR?

WHAT IS LOSS TO ESTATE?

THE DEFENDANT PAYS THE BENEFICIARIES COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.

DEFENDANT ONLY PAYS DAMAGES OF DECEDENT.

1 NIGHT OF CO HABITATION; AND

HOLDING YOURSELF OUT AS HUSBAND AND WIFE.

1.) IF INJURY IS INTANGIBLE OR ELUSIVE, HARD TO SHOW;

2.) TO DETER CONDUCT;

3.) PAST TORTIOUS ACTION IS CONCEALED AND WOULD BE UNDETERRED;

4.) EXPRESS COMMUNITY'S REVULSION;

5.) RELIEVES PRESSURE ON CRIMINAL SYSTEM;

6.) CHANNEL TRANSACTION THROUGH THE MARKET WHEN THE COST OF VOLUNTARY ACTIONS IS LOW;

7.) SELF HELP OPTION IF CRIMINAL WAS NOT FULLY PUNISHED.

HOW ARE PUNITIVE DAMAGES DECIDED?

WHAT DOES P NEED TO DO?

REVIEWING NET WORTH OF DEFENDANT.

ASK FOR TAX RETURNS DURING DISCOVERY; NOT ADMISSIBLE UNTIL COURT DECIDES PUNITIVES ARE GOOD TO GO.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE USUALLY NO MORE THAN 10 TIMES COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.

NORMALLY, 4 TIMES.

A.) WAS HARM PHYSICAL OR ECONOMIC?

B.) WAS TORTIOUS CONDUCT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OR INDIFFERENT TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OTHERS?

C.) DID THE TARGET OF CONDUCT HAVE FINANCIAL VULNERABILITY?

D.) WAS CONDUCT A REPEATED ACTION OR ISOLATED?

E.) HARM A RESULT OF MALICE; TRICKERY; OR DECEIT RATHER THAN MERE ACCIDENT?

1.) THE LIKELIHOOD THE AWARD WOULD DETER D FROM LIKE CONDUCT.

2.) WAS AWARD REASONABLY RELATED TO HARM RESULTING FROM LIKE CONDUCT.

3.) DEFENDANT'S ABILITY TO PAY.

1.) D'S DEGREE OF CULPABILITY.

2.) DURATION OF CONDUCT.

3.) D'S AWARENESS OR CONCEALMENT.

4.) SIMILAR PAST CONDUCT.

5.) LIKELIHOOD AWARD WILL DETER.

6.) REASONABLE IN COMPARISON TO OTHER CASES.

7.) D'S ABILITY TO PAY.

8.) ANY OTHER FACTOR DEEMD APPROPRIATE.

1.) HIGH DEGREE OF RISK TO PERSON, LAND, CHATTEL.

2.) LIKELIHOOD HARM WILL BE GREAT.

3.) IMPOSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE WITH DUE CARE.

4.) EXTENT OF ACT BEING COMMON.

5.) THE VALUE TO COMMUNITY.

6.) INAPPROPRIATE PLACE FOR ACTIVITY.

FALSE. ADA.

SPANO V. PERINI CORP.

1.) THE GRAVITY OF HARM OUTWEIGHS THE UTILITY OF THE ACTOR'S CONDUCT; OR

2.) THE HARM CAUSED BY THE CONDUCT IS SERIOUS AND FINANCIAL BURDEN OF COMPENSATING FOR THIS, AND SIMILAR HARM, TO OTHERS WOULD NOT MAKE THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONDUCT NOT FEASIBLE.

1.) THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY (SOCIAL JUDGMENT);

2.) GRAVITY OF HARM TO P;

3.) FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE;

4.) COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC INTERESTS BETWEEN D'S CONDUCT AND P'S HARM;

5.) ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT (NORMALCY);

6.) PRIORITY IN TIME.

TRUE.

VOGEL V. GRANT-LAFAYETTE

YES.

MICHALSON V. NUTTING

YES.

ROGERS V. ELLIOTT

INTERFERENCE WITH:

PUBLIC MORALS;

PUBLIC PEACE;

PUBLIC COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE.

WHAT CASE TRANSFORMED PRODUCT'S LIABILITY TO A STANDARD OF STRICT LIABILITY?

WHOSE CONCURRENCE SET THE STANDARD?

ESCOLA V. COCA COLA

TRAYNOR

1.) LOSS MINIMIZATION- MANUF. IN BEST POSITION TO INSPECT PRODUCT.

2.) LOSS SPREADING- MANUF. BEST POSITION TO BARE COST AND SPREAD THEM TO CUSTOM.

3.) ELIMINATION OF PROOF.

4.) FOODSTUFFS ANALOGY- SL IN FOODSTUFFS SHOWS LEGIS. POLICY TO PROTECT PUBLIC.

5.) CORRECTIVE JUSTICE- LOSS SHOULD BE ON PARTIES WHO CREATE CONDITION, NOT INJURED PARTY.

1.) IF THEY ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING SUCH PRODUCT; AND

2.) IT IS EXPECTED AND DOES REACH THE CONSUMER WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CONDITION.

PERSON IS NOT A CASUAL SELLER OF SUCH PRODUCT;

MANUFACTURER NOT LIABLE IF SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES OCCUR, GENERALLY.

A MANUFACTURING DEFECT;

DESIGN DEFECT; OR

DEFECT IN WARNING

WHAT IS SUCCESSOR LIABILITY?

WHEN IS IT LIKELY AND WHEN IS IT NOT?

IF YOU TAKE OVER A COMPANY AND TAKE OVER THEIR ASSETS YOUR ARE USUALLY LIABLE FOR THEIR PRODUCTS; BUT CAN BE CONTRACTED OUT.

IF YOUR BUYING OUT OF BANKRUPTCY YOU ARE USUALLY NOT LIABLE.

WHAT IS THE LEARNED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE?

WHAT IS THE EXCEPTION?

DRUG MANUFACTURERS OWE NO DUTY TO WARN CONSUMER ABOUT RISKS BECAUSE THEY CAN RELY ON THE PRESCRIBING PHYSICIAN TO DO SO.

WHEN MANUFACTURER GOES AROUND THE DR. AND ADVERTISES TO ASK THEIR DR ABOUT A PRODUCT.

WHAT IS THE STANDARD WHEN A PRODUCT OR DRUG IS FDA APPROVED?

FDA IS THE ____ NOT THE ____?

PROSTHETIC MANUFACTURERS HAVE A DEFENSE BUT DRUG MANUFACTURERS DO NOT (YET, IN CONGRESS).

FLOOR NOT THE CEILING.

1.) INJURED BY PRODUCT;

2.) INJURY OCCURRED BECAUSE THE PRODUCT WAS IN DEFECTIVE CONDITION UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS TO THE USE; AND

3.) PRODUCT WAS IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME CONDITION AS IT WAS WHEN LEAVING THE MANUFACTURER.

WHAT IS THE STANDARD FOR FOOD AND DEFECTS?

WHAT IS THE TEST?

ONLY FOREIGN OBJECTS.

WHAT A CONSUMER'S REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS TO WHAT IS  LIKELY TO BE PRESENT.

RISK-BENEFIT TEST; AND

CONSUMER EXPECTATIONS TEST

A METHOD OF IMPOSING PRODUCT LIABILITY ON A MANUFACTURER IF:

EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE BENEFIT OF A PRODUCT'S DESIGN, VERSUS THE FEASIBILITY FOR A SAFER DESIGN, DID NOT OUTWEIGH THE DANGERS INHERENT IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.

A METHOD OF IMPOSING PRODUCT LIABILITY ON A MANUFACTURER IF:

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT A PRODUCT'S DANGER IS GREATER THAN WHAT A REASONABLE CONSUMER WOULD EXPECT.

GRAVITY OF DANGER;

LIKELIHOOD OF DANGER;

MECHANICAL AND ECONOMICAL FEASIBILITY IN ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS;

ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES TO THE PRODUCT AND CONSUMER OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS.

FALSE.

LINEGAR V. ARMOUR OF AMERICA.

- THE EXTENT OF THE RISK;

- THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WILL ARISE;

- THE USER'S LIKELY UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE DANGER;

- THE MEANS AVAILABLE TO CONVEY A WARNING;

- THE LIKELIHOOD THAT TOO MANY WARNINGS WILL DECREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS;

- OTHER FACTORS

WARNING MUST PLAINLY DESCRIBE THE:

NATURE OF THE RISK;

ITS SEVERITY;

ITS SCOPE AND

THE MEANS OF AVOIDANCE

1.) WHEN THE STATE LAW IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL LAW;

2.) WHEN THE FEDERAL LAW IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPREHENSIVE TO OCCUPY THE FIELD; AND

3.) WHEN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE LAW FRUSTRATES THE FEDERAL SCHEME.

WHAT IS CGL?

AND WHAT IS CGL?

COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE.

STANDARD POLICY PRIMARY FOR COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COVERAGE OBTAINED BY BUSINESSES.

WHAT IS UM?

AND WHAT IS UM?

UN-INSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE.

MIN. COVERAGE PROTECTS OWNER/OPERATOR OF A VEHICLE AGAINST AN UN-INSURED AT-FAULT MOTORIST.

MANDATORY COVERAGE.

NAMES INSURED;

RESIDENT RELATIVE;

PERMISSIVE USERS.

WHAT IS UIM

AND WHAT IS UIM?

UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE.

VARIOUS AMOUNTS TO COVER THE OWNER/OPERATOR WHEN THE AT-FAULT DRIVER DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH COVERAGE TO COMPENSATE THE NON AT FAULT DRIVER.

NAMED INSURED;

RESIDENT RELATIVE;

PERMISSIVE USER.

THE NAMES INSURED; AND

RESIDENT SPOUSE AND RELATIVE.

WHAT IS PIP?

AND WHAT IS PIP?

PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION

NO-FAULT COVERAGE GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH CAR INSURANCE.

NON MANDATED, NO FAULT COVERAGE FOR MEDICAL BILLS

GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH REAL PROPERTY.

STATUTE STATING THAT MED PAY CANNOT BE ASSIGNED, SUBROGATED OR SUBJECT TO SET OFF.

HEALTH INSURANCE CANNOT SUBROGATE MED PAY.

IF THE BILLS EXCEED THE STATUTORY LIMIT ($2,000); OR INJURY RESULTED IN:

DEATH, LOSS OF LIMB, LOSS OF SIGHT/HEARING, DISFIGUREMENT, FRACTURE.

MAKE AVAILABLE COMPULSORY INSURANCE AT LOWER RATES DUE TO SAVINGS TO INSURANCE COMPANIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES;

WHERE MOTORIST IS NOT NEGLIGENT, HE AVOIDS THE UNCERTAINTY OF LITIGATION.

DID THE EMPLOYER ENCOURAGE THE ACT?

DID THEY PROVIDE A KEY?

DID THEY PROVIDE A PASS?

IS THERE OTHER EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE?

WAS IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYER?

WAS IT A MAJOR OR MINOR DEVIATION?

WAS IT IN THE PLACE AND TIME INCIDENTAL TO WORK?

INCREASED RISK;

POSITIONAL RISK;

ACTUAL RISK;

SOME RISK INHERENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT WAS A CONTRIBUTING CAUSE OF THE INJURY;

THE RISK MUST BE ONE TO WHICH THE GENERAL PUBLIC COULD NOT BE EQUALLY EXPOSED;

THE EMPLOYMENT MUST INCREASE THE RISK OF THE INJURY.

WHAT IS THE COMING AND GOING RULE?

EXCEPTION?

WORKER'S COMP DOES NOT ORDINARILY COMPENSATE INJURIES SUSTAINED WHILE THE EMPLOYEE TRAVELS TO OR FROM WORK.

WHEN EMPLOYER MAKES A SPECIAL TRIP TO WORK.

TRUE.

FRED MEYER V. HAYES.

ALLOWED.

LACROIX V. OMAHA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

ALLOWED.

CAPIZZI V. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS.

BETTER TO SUE UNDER WORKER'S COMP BECAUSE LESS BURDEN OF PROOF FOR SHOWING NEGLIGENCE;

GET AUTOMATIC PAYMENTS, THOUGH NO PUNITIVE OR FULL COMPENSATION.

INTENTIONAL INJURIES BY EMPLOYER TO EMPLOYEE.

RESTATEMENT SAYS INTENT=SUBSTANTIAL CERTAINTY TEST.

RANIER CASE SAYS DELIBERATE INTENTION (MINORITY)

SPECIFIED DIAGNOSIS FOR A CERTAIN INJURY RESULTING FROM THE VACCINATION;

CAUSATION IS PRESUMED AND BURDEN SHIFTS TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW OTHER CAUSATION.

NOT RECOGNIZED AS A USUAL INJURY RESULTING FROM VACCINATION.

PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW CAUSATION.

1.) THERE IS A MEDICAL THEORY WHICH CASUALLY CONNECTS THE TWO;

2.) A LOGICAL SEQUENCE OF CAUSE AND EFECT SHOWING THAT VACCINATION WAS THE REASON FOR THE INJURY;

3.) A PROX. TEMPORAL RELATIONSHIP.

WHAT ARE THE THREE ELEMENTS FOR DEFAMATION?

1.) A FALSE STATEMENT;

2.) UNPRIVILEGED INFORMATION;

3.) PUBLICATION.

WHAT IS DEFAMATION PER SE?

A STATEMENT THAT IS DEFAMATORY IN AND OF ITSELF AND IS IN NO WAY CAPABLE OF AN INNOCENT MEANING.

1.) COMMISSION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSE;

2.) INFECTION OF A VENEREAL DISEASE;

3.) INABILITY TO PERFORM OR WANT OF INTEGRITY TO DISCHARGE OF DUTIES OF PUBLIC OFFICE;

4.) FORNICATION OR ADULTERY;

5.) WORDS THAT PREJUDICE A PARTY IN HER TRADE, PROFESSION OR BUSINESS.

COURT WILL LOOK AT THE TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

MUZIKOWSKI V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES WENT WITH INNOCENT.

DEFAMATION THAT IS EITHER:

1.) NOT APPARENT BUT IS PROVEN BY EXTRINSIC SHOWING OF ITS INJURIOUS MEANING; OR

2.) IT IS APPARENT BUT IS NOT A STATEMENT THAT IS ACTIONABLE PER SE.

MUST PLEAD SPECIFIC DAMAGES OF ACTUAL FINANCIAL LOSS IN SOME JURISDICTIONS;

RESTATEMENT SAYS SPECIAL DAMAGES ONLY IF DEFENDANT WAS IGNORANT OF THE EXTRINSIC FACTS THAT MADE STATEMENT DEFAMATORY.

PUBLICATION OF DEFAMATORY MATERIAL BY SPOKEN WORD.

GESTURES COUNT.

SPECIAL DAMAGES;

LOATHSOME DISEASE;

CRIMINAL CONDUCT;

IMPUTATION OF UNCHASITY;

SLANDER OF PERSON'S TRADE OR PROFESSION.

WHAT IS LIBEL?

TRADITIONALLY LIBEL IS ACTIONABLE WITHOUT PROOF OF _______:

A WRITTEN DEFAMATORY COMMUNICATION EITHER PRINTED IN WORD OR EMBODIED IN PHYSICAL FORM. IE: CARTOON, PICTURES.

SPECIAL DAMAGES BECAUSE OF PERMANENCE.

THE GROUP OR CLASS IS SO SMALL THAT THE MATTER CAN REASONABLY BE UNDERSTOOD TO REFER TO THE MEMBER; OR

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PUBLICATION REASONABLY GIVE RISE TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE MEMBER.

WHAT IS THE SINGLE PUBLICATION RULE

EXCEPTION.

ALTHOUGH MASSED PRODUCED, A PUBLICATION GIVES RISE TO ONE CAUSE OF ACTION STARTING FROM THE DATE OF THAT PUBLICATION.

REPUBLICATION: RE STARTS SOL UPON A SEPARATE AGGREGATE PUBLICATION FROM THE ORIGINAL, ON A DIFFERENT OCCASION, WHICH IS NOT MERELY DELAYED CIRCULATION OF THE ORIGINAL; BECAUSE IT REACHES NEW AUDIENCES.

FALSE.

FIRTH V. STATE OF NY

HOW MANY ACTIONS CAN ARISE OUT OF A MASS PUBLICATION?

CAN A PERSON TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A BENEFICIAL SOL LAW IN ANOTHER STATE WHERE A DEFAMATORY STATEMENT WAS CIRCULATED?

ONE.

YES.

KEETON V. HUSTLER.

WHAT IS REPUBLICATION BY THIRD PARTIES?

TRUE.

ZERAN V. AOL.

MUST SHOW IT IS ESSENTIALLY TRUE.

THE RULE OF SUBSTANTIAL TRUTH IS BASED ON A RECOGNITION THAT FALSEHOODS WHICH DO NO INCREMENTAL DAMAGE TO THE PLAINTIFF'S REPUTATION, DO NOT INJURE THE ONLY INTEREST THAT THE LAW OF DEFAMATION PROTECTS.

WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR SHOWING THAT A STATEMENT IS OR ISN'T TRUE?

EXCEPTION?

DEFENDANT.

WHEN IT IS A 1ST AMENDMENT CASE; THEN P HAS BURDEN.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS;

LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS;

EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS;

HUSBAND AND WIFE;

PUBLICATION REQUIRED BY LAW.

WHAT IS A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE?

WHEN CAN THEY BE LOST?

WHEN A THIRD PERSON HAS COMMON INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT AND IS REASONABLY ENTITLED TO KNOW THE INFORMATION.

WHEN IT IS OUTSIDE THE PERSON'S OCB OR MADE WITH ACTUAL MALICE.

1.) MUST BELIEVE THE STATEMENT IS TRUE;

2.) IN SOME JURISDICTIONS MUST HAVE SOME GROUNDS TO BELIEVE IT IS TRUE; OR

3.) NOT HAVE ACTED RECKLESSLY IN FAILING TO ASCERTAIN ITS TRUTH OR FALSITY.

WHEN THE INFORMATION AFFECTS A SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT INTEREST; AND

THE INFORMATION WILL BE OF SERVICE TO THE RECIPIENT IN THE LAWFUL PROTECTION OF THAT INTEREST.

CIRCUMSTANCES CAUSED DEFENDANT TO CORRECTLY OR REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT INFORMATION AFFECTS A SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT INTEREST OF THE RECIPIENT OR THIRD PERSON; AND

1.) THE RECIPIENT IS ONE TO WHOM THE DEFENDANT IS UNDER A LEGAL DUTY TO PUBLISH; OR

2.) ITS PUBLICATION IS OTHERWISE WITHIN GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF DECENT CONDUCT.

IF IT IS IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST, RATHER THAN VOLUNTEERED; OR

A FAMILY OR OTHER RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES CAUSE DEFENDANT TO CORRECTLY OR REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT:

RECIPIENT'S KNOWLEDGE WILL HELP PROTECT THE WELL BEING OF MEMBERS OF DEFENDANT'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY;

RECIPIENT'S KNOWLEDGE WILL HELP PROTECT THE WELL BEING OF A MEMBER OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF THE RECIPIENT OR A THIRD PERSON; THE RECIPIENT HAS REQUESTED THE INFO; OR, FITS IN THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF DECENT CONDUCT.

WHAT IS A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE FOR INFERIOR STATE OFFICERS?

WHAT CONSTITUTES SPECIAL DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION?

WHAT CONSTITUTES GENERAL DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION?

MUST BE NATURAL, IMMEDIATE AND A LEGAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE WORDS.

CAN'T BE TOO SPECULATIVE, JUST A ROUGH ESTIMATE BASED ON PRIOR EARNINGS AND WHAT'S REASONABLE.

1.) INJURY TO REPUTATION;

2.) LOSS OF BUSINESS'

3.) WOUNDED FEELINGS AND BODILY INJURY SUFFERED RESULTING THEREFROM.

1.) INJUNCTIONS- HAS CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS;

2.) RETRACTIONS- USUALLY DONE BY PUBLISHING A WITHDRAWAL OF THE LIBEL IN THE SAME NEWSPAPER, NOT A COMPLETE DEFENSE BUT MITIGATES DAMAGES;

3.) REPLY STATUTES-USUALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT FORCES PAPER TO PRINT THINGS.

ONE WHO PUBLISHES A FALSE AND DEFAMATORY STATEMENT CONCERNING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR A PUBLIC FIGURE IS SUBJECT TO LIABILITY ONLY IF:

WHAT IS THIS?

ACTUAL MALICE IS SHOWN

IF DEFENDANT KNOWS STATEMENT IS FALSE AND:

A.) THAT IT DEFAMES THE PLAINTIFF; OR

B.) ACTS IN A RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THESE MATTERS

THEY INJECT THEMSELVES INTO THE PUBLIC DEBATE;

THEY HAVE ACCESS TO STRAIGHTEN THINGS OUT VIA THE MEDIA;

WE WANT PUBLIC DEBATE OVER PUBLIC MATTERS.

SHOW D WAS NEGLIGENT IN ASCERTAINING THE FALSITY AND DEFAMATORY CHARACTER OF THE STATEMENT;

STATE'S SET STANDARD BUT NEG. IS THE MIN.

NO PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNLESS ACTUAL MALICE IS SHOWN

1.) APPROPRIATION OF ONE'S NAME OR LIKENESS;

2.) INTRUSION UPON ONE'S PRIVACY OR PRIVATE AFFAIRS;

3.) PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF (TRUE) PRIVATE FACTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF;

4.) PLACING PLAINTIFF IN A FALSE LIGHT IN THE PUBLIC EYE.

WHAT IS APPROPRIATION?

EX.?

DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO LIABILITY FOR APPROPRIATING THE NAME OR LIKENESS OF PLAINTIFF FOR HIS OWN USE OR BENEFIT.

EX: USING THE NAME AND PIC OF A BBALL PLAYER W/OUT COMPENSATING HIM.

NEED NOT BE BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, HOWEVER MANY STATES DO REQUIRE IT;

DEFENDANTS MUST PLAINTIFF'S NAME FOR PURPOSES OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PLAINTIFF'S REPUTATION OR PRESTIGE.

DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO LIABILITY FOR INTRUSION (PHYSICAL OR OTHERWISE) UPON THE SOLITUDE OR PRIVATE LIFE AND AFFAIRS OF ANOTHER, PROVIDED:

THAT THE INTRUSION WOULD BE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TO A REASONABLE PERSON.

WHAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF INTRUSION?

WHAT ARE THE CAVEATS?

UNPERMITTED ENTRY TO PLAINTIFF'S HOME; OR HOSPITAL ROOM; ILLEGAL SEARCH OF PLAINTIFF'S PERSON OR PROPERTY; TAPPING PLAINTIFF'S TELEPHONE; OPENING MAIL

TORT IS COMPLETE UPON INTRUSION, NO PUBLICATION IS NEEDED;

INTRUSION MUST BE INTO WHAT IS, AND IT ENTITLED TO REMAIN, PRIVATE;

INTRUSTION MUST BE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TO AN ORDINARY/REASONABLE PERSON;

MAY INCLUDE GOVERNMENTAL INTRUSION.

DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO LIABILITY FOR GIVING PUBLICITY TO SOME PRIVATE FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF, PROVIDED:

THE FACT PUBLICIZED WOULD BE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TO A REASONABLE PERSON AND IS NOT A MATTER OF LEGITIMATE PUBLIC CONCERN.

INFORMATION NEED NOT BE PUBLISHED, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO BE LIKELY BECOME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE;

HERE, FACTS DISCLOSED ARE TRUE, SO NO LIABILITY FOR FACTS ALREADY KNOWN OR AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC.

DEFENDANT IS SUBJECT TO LIABILITY FOR GIVING PUBLICITY TO A MATTER WHICH PLACES PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE PUBLIC IN A FALSE LIGHT PROVIDED:

1.) THE FALSE LIGHT WOULD BE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TO A REASONABLE PERSON; AND

2.) DEFENDANT HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE FALSITY OF THE MATTER AND THE FALSE LIGHT IT CREATED, OR ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THESE MATTERS.

INFO COMMUNICATION MUST BE FALSE;

IF IT IS ALSO DEFAMATORY, AN ACTION FOR LIBEL OR SLANDER MAY BE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY;

HOWEVER, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO THIS ACTION THAT PLAINTIFF BE DEFAMED. IT IS ENOUGH THAT HE IS GIVEN UNREASONABLE AND HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE PUBLICITY THAT ATTRIBUTES TO HIM INFO THAT IS FALSE.

HIGHLY OFFENSIVE;

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS-1ST AMEND;

PRIVILEGES- SAME AS DEFAMATION;

DAMAGES: HARM TO HIS INTEREST IN PRIVACY, MENTAL DISTRESS, SPECIAL DAMAGES.