Chapter 8
Question 3
Baker and others are prosecuted for larceny after they broke into Wal-Mart and moved some of the store’s merchandise to the rear door. However, the police caught them before they could move the merchandise out of the store. Baker, however, pleads not guilty, arguing that no merchandise was moved out of the store. Larceny is a crime that involves the intentional taking of other people’s personal property without their consent to deprive the owners of the property permanently. The fact that Baker and the others broke into the store and started moving some merchandise to the rear door proves sufficient intent and action to commit larceny crime. If the police were not fast enough to catch them, they would have permanently deprived Wal-Mart of their property by taking the merchandise out of the store.
Question 4
Gail finds herself prosecuted for manslaughter after enjoying her dinner and several drinks; she falls asleep while driving and kills a pedestrian. Gail defends herself by arguing that she had no intention of hurting anyone and blames the alcohol she drank. Gail can be charged under criminal liability based on mental state as well as act or omission, which do not require the awareness of guilt. Even if Gail did not intend to kill anyone, as she claims, her mental state and the act of killing a pedestrian with her vehicle is a crime, just like driving while drunk is not a valid defense.
Chapter 9
Question 1
Tiger Woods, a celebrity, contracted Christensen Shipyards, a ship-building Company, to construct him a yacht. The contract entailed a privacy agreement stating that Tiger would not be disclosed as the buyer. Yet, the company leaked Tiger’s image.
Publicity tort right includes using a celebrity’s image for commercial gains without their consent. As a result, Tiger has a case since the company used his name and photos to endorse their items without his permission.
The first amendment gives the company the right and protection to free speech. Yet, the use of a celebrity’s name and image without his consent is a commercial speech that is not guaranteed protection and mainly devoid of a non-disclosure agreement.
The fact that the ship was named privacy does not have any effect on this case.
There would be a big difference in the case’s outcome if the contract for building the yacht banned the use of Tiger’s photos and name without his consent. Such a clause would improve Tiger’s breach of privacy argument. The celebrity would be guaranteed more protection. All in all, Tiger can still sue Christensen Shipyards for violation of his right to publicity tort.
Question 6
Elliot Shultz sued Barberton Glass Co to recover damages after suffering an emotional shock. The company’s negligence led to a sheet falling from their truck and hitting the windshield of Elliot’s car. Barberton Glass Co denied the liability arguing that Elliot had no physical injuries. Such an act is an offense based on the infliction of emotional stress. As a result, the people that suffer emotional distress due to negligence stand a chance to recover damages. In this case, the Barberton Glass Co negligence inflicted emotional distress on Eliot, and he has a chance to recover the damages related to emotional distress. It does not matter whether he was physically injured or not.