Accounting
Anthropology
Archaeology
Art History
Banking
Biology & Life Science
Business
Business Communication
Business Development
Business Ethics
Business Law
Chemistry
Communication
Computer Science
Counseling
Criminal Law
Curriculum & Instruction
Design
Earth Science
Economic
Education
Engineering
Finance
History & Theory
Humanities
Human Resource
International Business
Investments & Securities
Journalism
Law
Management
Marketing
Medicine
Medicine & Health Science
Nursing
Philosophy
Physic
Psychology
Real Estate
Science
Social Science
Sociology
Special Education
Speech
Visual Arts
Question
(p. 108-109) Which of the following statements supports the explanation of libel?
A. Broadcast defamation, which involves both oral and visual impressions, is generally considered to be libel.
B. Damages are presumed in libel cases even if the statement is not defamatory on its face.
C. Oral defamation, causing injury to a person's reputation and causing that person considerable anguish and harm, is considered to be libel.
D. Private statements between spouses may be defamatory and will be considered to be libel.
Since injury to a person's reputation can cause that person considerable anguish and harm, the torts of libel (written defamation) and slander (oral defamation) were designed to protect against such injury. Broadcast defamation, which involves both oral and visual impressions, is generally considered to be libel.
Answer
This answer is hidden. It contains 1 characters.
Related questions
Q:
(p. 128) One night, when Henry got home and flipped on the light switch, the kitchen exploded, leaving him severely injured. The explosion was caused by a failure of the gas connector, which allowed a large amount of gas to escape, and a small spark created by turning on the light caused it to explode. Henry sued the gas corporation, arguing that it knew the connector was defective but it did not warn its customers. Henry won the case. He is most likely to have won the lawsuit on the grounds of: A. negligence per se.
B. recklessness.
C. strict liability.
D. breach of duty.
Henry is most likely to have won the lawsuit on the grounds of strict liability. The most recent major application of strict liability is to the manufacturers of defective products that are "unreasonably dangerous"that is, defective in a way that endangers life or property and is not readily apparent to buyers.
Q:
(p. 127) Which of the following statements is true about recklessness? A. Assumption of risk is not a good defense for recklessness.
B. It is best defended with a plea of contributory negligence.
C. It is more morally objectionable than negligence but less than intentional wrongdoing.
D. It is identical to intentional wrongdoing.
When a defendant's behavior indicates a "conscious disregard for a known high degree of probable harm to another," the defendant is guilty of recklessness. Recklessness is more morally objectionable than negligence but less objectionable than intentional wrongdoing.
Q:
(p. 124) Rachel saw her sister Rebecca being hit by a car. She rushed to help her and later accompanied her to the hospital. Unfortunately, several hours later her sister died. Rachel, who received psychiatric treatment as a result of the traumatic experience, sued the car driver for emotional distress. Which of the following is most likely to be true in this case? A. Rachel is not entitled to recovery because she was not in the "zone of danger" created by the negligent act.
B. The courts will allow recovery for battery because Rachel is related to the victim of the accident.
C. The courts will not allow recovery because Rachel suffered only emotional trauma with no visible signs of physical injury.
D. Rachel will be awarded recovery because she bore witness to the accident during which her sister was killed.
Rachel will be awarded recovery because she bore witness to the accident during which her sister was killed. Courts are increasingly allowing third parties to recover for emotional distress resulting from witnessing harm caused to another person by defendant's negligent acts. Generally, these courts require that the person actually witness the injury, that it be to a close relative, and that he or she suffer serious emotional distress as a result.
Q:
(p. 123-124) Negligent persons are generally held jointly liable (along with the negligent physician) for negligent medical care their victims receive for their injuries. This is true according to: A. the general causation rules.
B. res ipsa loquitur.
C. intentional tort.
D. proximate cause.
Regardless of what test for proximate cause the courts adopt, they generally agree on certain basic principles of causation. Negligent persons are generally held liable for diseases their victims contract while weakened by their injuries and jointly liable (along with the negligent physician) for negligent medical care their victims receive for their injuries.
Q:
(p. 124) Penny had carelessly left marbles on the steps of her house. When Bijou came to visit, she broke her leg by slipping on those marbles and severely damaged her spine. While in the hospital recovering from her fall, her body being weak from all the antibiotics, readily contracted a viral infection. Under these circumstances, Penny is most likely to be liable: A. only for the damage to Bijou resulting from her fall.
B. only for Bijou's viral infection.
C. for injuries sustained by Bijou and also for the viral infection.
D. for neither problems because Bijou should have been careful.
Negligent persons are generally held liable for diseases their victims contract while weakened by their injuries, and jointly liable for negligent medical care their victims receive for their injuries. Therefore, Penny is most likely to be liable for injuries sustained by Bijou and also for her viral infection.
Q:
(p. 123) An intervening force, which happens after the defendant's negligent act and contributes to the plaintiff's injury, can excuse the defendant from liability if it: A. could have been anticipated.
B. was proximate.
C. was unforeseeable.
D. was an intentional tort and not an unintentional one.
Courts consider whether an intervening force, which happens after the defendant's negligent act and contributes to the plaintiff's injury, should excuse the defendant from liability. Usually, the courts say that only if the intervening force was foreseeable, it will not excuse the defendant from liability.
Q:
(p. 121-122) Emmy worked late nights at a convenience store. One night, Emmy discovered that the "emergency alert" security system was not working. The owner of the store told her that he would have the system repaired immediately. Nevertheless, a month went by before the system was repaired. In the meantime, the store was robbed while Emmy was working and, in the course of the robbery, the perpetrator broke Emmy's leg. Under these circumstances, if Emmy presses charges, she is most likely to recover from the store owner: A. for negligence because the harm was foreseeable.
B. for battery because his inaction was the reason for her injury.
C. for intentional tort.
D. only for emotional distress.
In this scenario, Emmy is most likely to recover from the store owner for negligence because the harm was foreseeable. If a defendant does not guard against all foreseeable harms and exercises reasonable care, he or she is liable. Some courts hold defendants liable only for the reasonably foreseeable results of their negligence. Others hold defendants liable only for injuries to plaintiffs who are within the scope of the foreseeable risk.
Q:
(p. 124) To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a third party, the plaintiff does not always have to establish some physical symptoms resulting from the said distress.
Q:
(p. 123) A defendant is always free of liabilities if the intervening force was foreseeable.
Q:
(p. 122) The idea of placing a legal limit on the extent of a negligent person's liability is called proximate cause.
Q:
(p. 121) If Jamal is carefully driving his car within the speed limit and an inebriated Eddie darts into his car and is hit, Jamal is liable for Eddie's injuries.
Q:
(p. 117) A common defense to the tort of interference with contract is: A. lack of capacity.
B. privilege.
C. probable cause.
D. inducing a breach of contract.
One who intentionally induces a person to breach a contract with another or who prevents performance of another's contract may be liable in damages to the party deprived of the benefits of the contract is said to have committed a tort called interference with contract. Privilege is a common defense to this tort.
Q:
(p. 112; 117) Which of the following is most likely to be a common defense to the tort of malicious prosecution? A. Improper purpose
B. Lack of capacity
C. Probable cause
D. Inducing a breach of contract
Malicious prosecution, wrongful use of civil proceedings, and abuse of process are three tort theories that protect people from harms resulting from wrongfully brought lawsuits. Malicious prosecution gives a remedy for the financial, emotional, and reputational harm that can result when criminal proceedings are wrongfully brought. Probable cause can be a defense to this tort.
Q:
(p. 115) Which of the following is a classic example of interference with economic relations? A. Trespass
B. False imprisonment
C. Disparagement
D. Defamation
Disparagement is an example of interference with economic relations. False statements about the quality of a seller's product or services, or the seller's ownership of goods offered for sale, may give rise to the tort of disparagement. Proof of actual damage (e.g., lost sales or other opportunities) is necessary for a successful disparagement action.
Q:
(p. 115) Conversion is defined as: A. intrusion on a person's solitude or seclusion and publishing private facts about a person.
B. the unlawful taking of or exercise of control over the personal property of another person.
C. the intentional confinement of a person for an appreciable time without the person's consent.
D. the use of force to drive away a person's customers or employees.
Conversion is the unlawful taking of or exercise of control over the personal property of another person. The essence of conversion is the wrongful deprivation of a person's personal property rights. One who unlawfully takes goods from the possession of another is liable for conversion even though the taker mistakenly believes he or she is entitled to possession.
Q:
(p. 54) Which of the following is a teleological theory based on the laissez-faire theory of capitalism? A. Act utilitarianism
B. Profit maximization
C. Rule utilitarianism
D. Difference principle
Profit maximization is a teleological theory that is based on the laissez-faire theory of capitalism first espoused by Adam Smith in the 18th century. It contends that business managers should maximize a business's long-run profits within the limits of the law.
Q:
(p. 54) Under "act utilitarianism," _____. A. an ethical decision is one that minimizes utility for society as a whole
B. each person has an equal right to basic rights and liberties
C. the action is viewed as part of a rule or habit
D. the decision maker considers each action separately
Under "act utilitarianism," the decision maker considers each action separately, assessing its costs and benefits to society.
Q:
(p. 62) For companies transacting business across the globe, the identification of common values may be very daunting because culture may have strong influences on the ethical attitudes of business managers.
Q:
(p. 50) Critics of capitalism and Corporate America increasingly argue that corporations should follow socially responsible standards higher than that imposed by law.
Q:
(p. 46) In order to appeal a decision, _____. A. a party must claim that the court made an error of law or that the evidence in the trial did not support the trial court's decision.
B. a party need not have objected to a judge's action at the time the alleged error was made.
C. a party must prepare for a new fact-finding process and must be dissatisfied with the judgment of the court.
D. the defendant must show that the errors made were not material.
To be able to appeal, a party must claim that the court made an error of law or that the evidence in the trial did not support the trial court's decision. The appellate courts hear no witnesses and gather no new evidence.
Q:
(p. 46) The term amicus curiae means: A. friendly cure or the amicable resolution to a mediated dispute.
B. friend of the court and refers to briefs filed by third parties interested in the outcome of a certain appeal.
C. small couriers or the briefs, originally used by foot messengers, which are used to communicate between lawyers and the courts.
D. the name for the conductor of an arbitration, a position originally filled by medieval clergy.
When people or groups other than the parties involved are interested in the outcome of a certain appeal, they may request to be permitted to file amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs.
Q:
(p. 46) A _____ is designed to reach things belonging to the debtor that are in the hands of third parties. A. writ of quo warranto
B. writ of garnishment
C. writ of certiorari
D. writ of mandamus
A writ of garnishment is designed to reach things belonging to the debtor that are in the hands of third parties, such as wages, bank accounts, and accounts receivable. Garnishment proceedings, like execution sales, are highly regulated by statute.
Q:
(p. 37) Which of the following is a criticism of the adversary system? A. Honest witnesses can be confused by hostile questioning.
B. The system concentrates on the competition to win, which discourages overstatement of the truth.
C. The judge's role, in the adversary system, is active.
D. The system does not work when the opposing lawyers are of unequal skill, giving an advantage to the poor and the needy.
Critics argue that honest witnesses can be confused by hostile questioning in the adversary system. They say that the system does not work when the opposing lawyers are of unequal skill.
Q:
(p. 36) The primary way a case can be appealed to the Supreme Court is through a _____. A. writ of habeas corpus
B. writ of quo warranto
C. writ of certiorari
D. writ of mandamus
The primary way a case can be appealed to the Supreme Court is through writ of certiorari (cert.).
Q:
(p. 47) A new trial is required for cases remanded by an appellate court.
Q:
(p. 33) Small claims courts are courts of record.
Q:
(p. 107) Seth was shopping at a local music store looking for a CD, when he suddenly remembered that he had an appointment with his math professor. He pulled his calendar out of his backpack only to discover that he was late for the appointment. Seth quickly put the calendar back into his backpack and hurried out of the store. As he made his exit from the store, a security guard asked Seth to accompany him to an office at the back of the store to which he consented. Once there, in private, the guard quickly searched Seth and his backpack thinking him to be a shoplifter, but found nothing. The whole incident took less than three minutes. Which of the following is most likely to be true regarding this incident? A. Seth has enough evidence against the store to sue them for defamation.
B. Seth has enough evidence against the store to sue them for false imprisonment, emotional distress, and battery.
C. If the store belongs to a state that allows conditional privilege to store owners, the store can stop persons it feels are shoplifting.
D. The store has no conditional privileges to stop persons it feels are shoplifting, but it is liable for punitive damages.
If the store belongs to a state that has passed statutes allowing conditional privilege to store owners, the store has conditional privilege to stop persons it feels are shoplifting as long as the owner acts in a reasonable manner and detains the suspect only for a reasonable length of time. In this scenario, the guard did not behave in an unreasonable manner and did not detain Seth for an unreasonable length of time. The store cannot be sued for false imprisonment, since false imprisonment is the intentional confinement of a person for an appreciable time without the person's consent.
Q:
(p. 106) Which of the following constitutes the elements of an intentional tort? A. Intent and harm to another person or property
B. Intent and harm to another person or property and violation of a statute
C. Intent and violation of a statute
D. Violation of a statute and harm to another person or property
Torts are private (civil) wrongs against persons or property. The elements of an intentional tort are harm to another person or property, and intent.
Q:
(p. 107) In order to keep Jamila from leaving the house, Sabah locked the front door of her house but forgot to lock the back door. Sabah has falsely imprisoned Jamila.
Q:
(p. 94) Why does the legal system of the United States have safeguards to protect the accused? Name a few of these safeguards.