NAME: Nicholas Gavalas

DATE:4/18/2019
COURSE: BUL2241
ASSIGNMENT: chapter 7/ intentional tort
PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT: to teach us about how intentional torts can cause you to get in
trouble without necessarily meaning to.

Cases
Philip Morris USA v. Williams
Facts: Williams died at 67 after a life of smoking 3 packs a day. Claimed that they deliberately
misinformed people on the dangers of cigarette consumption. She was awarded 820k in compensatory
damages and 79.5m in punitive danger.
Courts: The Oregon Supreme Court’s judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.
Legal Concepts: punitive damages
How is it applied: this case is saying that the punitive damage was way too much.
Reason: Since Morris did give a risk of hard to everyone out there, it made the case for them even worse.
Since the award wasn’t increased due to the destress of Williams it wasn’t claimed that 79.5m was
excessive.
Ferrell v. Mikula
Facts: 18 and 13-year-old R and K were accused of not paying there bill and they were followed without
sufficient proof of who was driving away from the restaurant. They were followed by a off duty police
and directed a police officer to pull them over. They charged for false imprisonment and intentional
inflection of emotional distress.
Courts response: Summary judgment on the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is
affirmed; summary judgment on the claim for false imprisonment is reversed.
Legal concept: inflection of emotional distress.
How its applied: Due to the recklessness of the manager to claim that people leaving in a car without
confirming who they were was an intentional inflection of emotional distress.
Reason: it is undisputable that they were put under distress from this event at such a young age, but the
false imprisonment claim was reversed since there was probable cause it wasn’t overturned.
Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc. v. Buck
Facts: Buck was working for an insurance company. He brought many major accounts and produced
commission for the firm. They fired him and made false claims that he was a classical sociopath. They
made many other derogatory claims against him.
Courts response: Judgment for Buck affirmed.
Legal concept: Defamation
How its applied: he couldn’t find a subsequent employment due to the defamation/slander of his name to
third parties.
Reason: he won the case because defamation are statements that are false, affect his reputation and are
published.
White v. Samsung Electronics
Facts: Samsung made an advertisement of a robot dressed and acting like Vanna white while standing
besides a game board that looked just like the one from the show she’s famous for. She wasn’t paid or
consented to the ads.
Courts response: Judgment reversed
Legal concept: Appropriation.
How its applied: to Vanna the ad was using her name for their own personal gain without her consent.
Reason: since it wasn’t her and anyone could be doing what the ad was saying means it’s not actual
appropriation as the definition states.
Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co
Facts: Texaco heard of a stock being sold to Pennzoil and hired someone to go in and try to out buy their
contract.
Courts response: Judgment of trial court affirmed.
Legal concept: Interference with Contractual Relations
How its applied: Texaco tried to get in between Pennzoil and Getty oil.
Reason: since Pennzoil and Getty were already in a well-known contract, Texaco’s attempt to procure the
shares with the knowledge of the already in progress contract for the shares they are interfering with the
contract already in place.