D. N Versus Face

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

Additional Damages– The Courts felt that the employer owes an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the way in which it dismisses an employee. They did not condone terminating employees in a callous and insensitive way and showing no regard for well-being when terminating an employee. The plaintiff Mr. Beatty stated that his termination was carried out in a dishonest, unfair and insensitive way even though the termination was “without cause”. He was called to Mr. Lebeter’s office and informed of his dismissal and given his letter of termination. He stated this

victim in the position he/she was before the tort was committed. Difficult to do, so we

2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great

1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra, 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra, 2011). The court meant that “negligent hiring and negligent retention do not rely on the scope of employment but address risks created by exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457).

Brohawn, supra, 276 Md. at 399. Subsequently, the other party to the altercation filed an action against Brohawn seeking damages for intentional torts and negligence. Id. at 399-400. Transamerica, Brohawn’s insurer, refused to defend Brohawn on the grounds that her coverage contained a policy exclusion whereby Transamerica was not responsible for intentional conduct. Id. at 400. Thereafter, Transamerica initiated a declaratory judgment action, in the same court, seeking to have the court declare that Brohawn’s conduct was intentional, and, therefore, fell within the policy exclusion. Id. at 401. The circuit court dismissed the declaratory judgment action because “the question of coverage would be ‘determined by the jury’s verdict in the tort suits]. . . .” Id. at

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

In the case of Varner v. National Super Markets, 94 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1110 (1997), I would have to rule in favor of National Super Market. Even though it is okay for a third-party to report harassment, he did not actually witness the harassment himself, and the fiance was also told the right channels, twice, to make a formal complaint. It also seems as though because National Super Market did have a policy and procedure in place or harassment they or the manager did not act in malice or neglect, they were simply trying to follow the company

Jose Carcamo et al., Defendants and Appellants in the Supreme Court of California held that tort liability based on negligent hiring and retention is a cause of action distinct from vicarious liability based on respondeat superior. In the case against Jose Carcamo, it was stated he hit a car while driving his truck for his employer, causing Renae Diaz to lose control of her vehicle. The jury awarded Diaz $22.5 million in damages in which Sugar Transport, Carcamo’s employer, was also help liable based on its negligent hiring of Carcamo. Sugar Transport contended that while it is liable for Carcamo’s driving, it should not be held liable for negligent hiring and retention. The court reviewed negligent hiring and retention as theories of liability independent of vicarious liability. The court stated that the liability comes from hiring and retaining an employee who is unfit to conduct his or her duties. Due to the fact that the employer had sufficient enough reason to believe that undue harm could exist with the employment of Carcamo, they were held liable for negligent hiring. Carcamo’s driving history included previous accidents that were relevant to his job assignment. Sugar Transport thus disregarded his past driving record and the danger that could come with his driving for the company. The jury properly considered that evidence when apportioning fault for the

RATIONALE: The court held that the "all-or-nothing" rule of contributory negligence ought to be superseded by a rule which assesses liability in proportion to fault, since the doctrine is inequitable for failing to distribute responsibility in a proportional manner.

Respondeat superior is latin for "let the master answer". This is a doctrine that suggests that an employer is responsible for an employees actions. In the United States, most employers are liable for the actions of employees performed during their length of employment. This is necessary and a favorable way to do business in most cases. This ensures that the employee is adquate training and attention. Companies are more likely to invest in their employees and provide them with the necessary training and encourage them to develop their skillset. Respondeat superior is necessary and protects the employee in case of a castrophe, who would ever wise be helpless.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming that it was vicariously liable for his assault by Cerantonio. The defendant argued that since Cerantonio was engaging in unauthorised conduct, the defendant could not be liable. The matter in contention was whether the assault was conducted in the course of employment.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

The basic foundation for the development of various communication phenomena are based on cultural and cross-cultural patterned practices. One such communication phenomenon in interpersonal communication is facework. Famous ethnographers of communication, Erving Goffman, Penelope Brown, and Stephen C. Levinson, developed compelling cases on the theory of facework that are often used as the basis for understanding issues of facework active in diverse cultures. Thus, this section of the paper will review works of Victoria Chen, and Brown and Levinson to better understand how the communicative practice of facework is performed in different situations.

the plaintiff concludes that the evidence will supports the jury’s finding that the T.B.Butler Publishing Company, Inc.-third party work injury, intentionally through its agents the Supervisor and Director caused his severe emotional distress through extreme and outrageous conduct, when the factual basis for this claim is distinct from the factual basis for the Discrimination claim under Title VII, ADA, ADEA, FLSA. Second, The Bell’s palsy condition is worse in every recurrence of this ailment when the plaintiff’s right eye waters most of the time and forms a film which accumulates in the corner of the eye constantly caused that the eye does not track correctly and that it feels uncomfortable all of the time, in addition to other symptoms that