You own University Heights Pizza, a pizza company that provides mostly home delivery. One of your drivers, Donald, routinely drives in excess of speed limits when delivering Pizza, and you are aware of these problems. One night while delivering pizzas, Donald decides to visit a girlfriend. You are aware that he sometimes does this, and you have not objected as long as the Pizza gets delivered on time. On the way to his girlfriend’s house, but on the way to deliver a customer’s pizza, Donald runs a red light at high speeds and seriously injures Alice, a driver in another car who had the right of way. Alice sues University Heights Pizza and Donald. You assert that University Heights is not liable for Donald’s fast driving.
Write a paper of 750- to 1,050-words answering the following questions posed by this scenario:
Cite to at least three scholarly references.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Click the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment
Here is the reading information :
In this chapter you will learn:
10-1. To compare how tort law is related to property.
10-2. To differentiate the three divisions of torts and to generate a theory
of why torts are so divided.
10-3. To explain the elements of negligence and to relate these elements
to the development of negligence law.
10-4. To analyze why tort litigation is so controversial in society today.
Just as contract law is the way owners
exchange what they own in a propertybased
legal system, so also tort law is an
important part of the same system. The property
fence protects our use of things. It is part of
what we own. But our protected use is not infinite.
It may be absolute but because we live with
other people and what is proper to them, we
may not use things just anyway we please. We
do not have a protected use of a thing if our use
harms what others own, including their persons.
Tort law helps define where the property fence is
when it comes to our use of things. It makes our
use legally wrongful and helps anyone injured
by our wrongful use to get compensation, called
T he word tort means “wrong.” Legally, a tort
is a civil wrong other than a breach of contract.
Tort law sets limits on how people can act and
use their resources so they do not violate the right
290 PART 3 Legal Foundations for Business
others have to their resources. If you think of property as a type of legal fence
surrounding resources, then tort law defines when someone has crossed that
fence wrongfully so that compensation is due to the owner.
Legal wrongs inflicted on the resources of others may be crimes as well as
torts (see Chapter 12), but the law of tort itself is civil rather than criminal.
The usual remedy for a tort is dollar damages. Behavior that constitutes a tort
is called tortious behavior. One who commits a tort is a tortfeasor.
This chapter divides torts into three main categories: intentional torts,
negligence torts, and strict liability torts. Intentional torts involve deliberate
actions that cause injury. Negligence torts involve injury following a failure to
use reasonable care. Strict liability torts impose legal responsibility for injury
even though a liable party neither intentionally nor negligently causes the
Important to torts are the concepts of duty and causation. One is not liable
for another’s injury unless he or she has a duty toward the person injured.
And, of course, there is usually no liability for injury unless one has caused the
injury. We explain these concepts under the discussion of negligence, where
they are most relevant.
This chapter also covers the topic of damages. The topic concerns the
business community because huge damage awards, frequently against businesses,
have become common in recent years.
>> Intentional Torts
An important element in the following torts is intent, as we are dealing with
intentional torts. Intent is usually defined as the desire to bring about certain
results. But in some circumstances the meaning is even broader, including not
only desired results but also results that are “substantially likely” to result
from an action. Recently, employers who knowingly exposed employees to
toxic substances without warning them of the dangers have been sued for
committing the intentional tort of battery. The employers did not desire their
employees’ injuries, but these injuries were “substantially likely” to result
from the failure to warn.
The following sections explain the basic types of intentional torts. Sidebar
10.1 lists these torts.
* Torts are divided
into intentional torts,
negligence, and strict
Intent is the desire
to bring about certain
• Assault and battery
• Intentional infliction of mental distress
• Invasion of privacy
• False imprisonment and malicious prosecution
• Common law business torts
>> sidebar 10.1
Types of Intentional Torts
CHAPTER 10 Torts Affecting Business 291
1. ASSAULT AND BATTERY
An assault is the placing of another in immediate apprehension for his or
her physical safety. “Apprehension” has a broader meaning than “fear.” It
includes the expectation that one is about to be physically injured. The person
who intentionally creates such apprehension in another is guilty of the tort of
assault. Many times a battery follows an assault. A battery is an illegal touching
of another. As used here, “illegal” means that the touching is done without
justification and without the consent of the person touched.
Hitting someone with a wrench causes physical injury, but as the following
case illustrates, the “touching” that constitutes part of a battery need not
cause physical injury.
case 10.1 >>
HARPER v. WINSTON COUNTY
892 So.2d 346 (Ala. Sup. Ct. 2004)
Sandra Wright, the revenue commissioner of Winston
County, Alabama, fired her employee, Sherry Harper.
Harper sued, claiming among other things that Wright
had committed an assault and battery in grabbing her
and jerking her arm in trying to force her to go to Wright’s
office. Before trial, the court granted summary judgment
in favor of Wright. The plaintiff, Harper, appealed, and
the case reached the Alabama Supreme Court.
SEE, J: . . . Harper argues that the trial court erred in
entering a summary judgment in favor of Wright, on
Harper’s assault and battery claim, because, she claims,
she presented substantial evidence in support of her
claim. Harper argues that Wright admits that she intentionally
grabbed Harper’s arm and, she asserts, Wright’s
grabbing of her arm was offensive. Harper states:
“[Wright] jerked my arm and tried to pull me back.”
She argues that Alabama law does not require that
Wright strike or hit her in order for a battery to occur.
In response, Wright argues that she merely “took a
hold of [Harper’s] hand.” Wright states that she did not
touch Harper in an offensive manner and that she was
only trying to coax Harper into stepping into her office
so that they could continue their conversation away
from the view of the customers and the employees of
the Department. The trial court stated in its summaryjudgment
order that “the undisputed evidence from
Sandra Wright clearly points out that the touching was
not in any way harmful or offensive, but was instead
done in an attempt to bring [Harper] under control.”
The plaintiff in an action alleging assault and battery
must prove “(1) that the defendant touched the
plaintiff; (2) that the defendant intended to touch the
plaintiff; and (3) that the touching was conducted in a
harmful or offensive manner.” In Atmore Community
Hospital, the plaintiff presented evidence indicating
that the defendant “touched her waist, rubbed against
her when passing her in the hall, poked her in the armpits
near the breast area, and touched her leg.” The
plaintiff also presented evidence indicating that “each
of these touchings was intentional, was conducted
with sexual overtones, and was unwelcome.” We held
that these factual assertions constituted substantial
evidence that the defendant had committed a battery.
In Surrency, we stated that an actual injury to the
body is not a necessary element for an assault-and-battery
claim. We also stated that when the evidence as to
whether a battery in fact occurred is conflicting, the
question whether a battery did occur is for the jury.
Quoting Singer Sewing Machine Co., this Court stated:
“To what acts will constitute a battery in a case like
this, the rule is well stated by Mr. Cooley in his work
on Torts. He says: ‘A successful assault becomes a
battery. A battery consists in an injury actually done
to the person of another in an angry or revengeful or
rude or insolent manner, as by spitting in the face, or
in any way touching him in anger, or violently jostling
him out of the way, or in doing any intentional
violence to the person of another.’ The wrong here
consists, not in the touching, so much as in the manner
or spirit in which it is done, and the question of
bodily pain is important only as affecting damages.
Thus, to lay hands on another in a hostile manner is
a battery, although no damage follows; but to touch
another, merely to attract his attention, is no battery
A store manager who threatens an unpleasant customer with a wrench,
for example, is guilty of assault. Actually hitting the customer with the wrench
would constitute battery.