Extreme and Outrageous Conduct?

Since the Supreme Court reversed  the lower court ruling in Snyder v. Westboro Baptist Church, I have been looking for a new example of a fact pattern meeting the "extreme and outrageous conduct" requirement for an Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim.  I think there is a new candidate. A Florida man who underwent a lower leg amputation at the hospital was surprised a month later when homicide detectives knocked on his door to ask if there had been any foul play.  It seems that his leg turned up in a landfill.  The police were able to trace it to the victim because it still had the hospital identification tags attached.   Apparently the hospital did not incinerate the leg as was called for by sound medical practice. The victim has filed a suit for IIED claiming, consistent with the language of the Restatement of Torts, conduct that was,"outrageous and beyond the bounds of human decency as to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

According to the Miami Herald, "Doctors Hospital told him 'they would provide no explanation for what had occurred,'according to the lawsuit." The hospital is apparently lacking in the damage control department as well.

Falwell v. Hustler Supreme Court Oral Argument

There is great movie clip from The People v. Larry Flynt portraying the oral argument before the US Supreme Court in Hustler v. Falwell.

Unfortunately, I can't find an easily accessed public video of the whole argument.  The following video has part of it:



The video below has the whole audio part set to images of dogs as Supreme Court justices:

WalMart's Highly Trained Counterfeit Bill Experts Buy Lawsuit

Here'a a real-life hypothetical for your torts lecture.

It's nearly Christmas and you have no money to buy presents for your kids.  So, you sell your car for cash and go to WalMart to get what you can. It's 2:00 AM after an exhausting day and you finally get your purchases to the checkout counter. When you pay for your kids' Christmas gifts with the $100 bills you just got from selling your car, the cashier tells you they are fake and tears them up. When you protest, she marks the bills with the counterfeit detecting pen and the pen fails to detect a fake. It doesn't matter.  The Manager has determined the bills are fakes.  They call the police.  You are told to wait.  In the meantime, WalMart employees engage in loud public conversations about your attempt to pay for goods with counterfeit bills. The police arrive, inspect the bills and deem them to be real. The manager argues with them.  Finally, the manager tries to give you back your ripped up bills.  The police insist that that the manager give you replacement bills. Finally, at 5:00 AM, you leave the store.

The subsequent lawsuit is based in Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and False Imprisonment.  Read the complaint, here.

What result?

Example of the type of counterfeit detecting device that WalMart uses but apparently doesn't trust:

We Owe a Lot to Lindsay Lohan

There are a few important contributors to the law who seem to pop up  as examples or exemplars in my Legal Environment course on more than a few occasions during the semester. If I give it some thought, I can readily name a few that come to mind; Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo and Antonin Scalia, Presidents John Adams, Woodrow Wilson and Abraham Lincoln, Economic Philosopher Adam Smith, and commentators Bill O'Reilly and Stephen Colbert and, of course, Lindsay Lohan.

With the addition of the case described below, the actress and celebrity accounts for three separate examples of legal principles applied to real facts.  First, there was the lawsuit for civil assault brought against her by the passenger in a car that she apparently chased at high speeds through the streets of LA in 2007; an incident that also resulted in her arrest.  It allows for explanation of all the elements of civil assault - apprehension or fear of imminent bodily harm without the element of physical contact.

Then, there was the $10M lawsuit against e-trade that was the subject of this post.

And now we have a federal court ruling in a lawsuit that Ms. Lohan brought against musical artist "Pit Bull" for the use of her name in the lyrics of his song, Give Me Everything.

This is insane: the way the name growin'

Money keep flowin'

Hustlers move aside

So, I'm tiptoein', to keep flowin'

I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan

According to the complaint, the use of Ms. Lohan's name in the above quoted lyrics constituted an alleged violation of NY State Civil Rights law, and gave rise to claims for unjust enrichment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Not surprisingly, the Defendant's 12(b)(6) motion was granted. Judge Hurley's decision may be read here. The lyrics are protected from the Civil Rights claim as artistic expression and fall well below the liability threshold of "extreme and outrageous conduct."

Although he rejected the imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 for filing a frivolous claim, the judge did not let plaintiff's counsel off the hook. His order imposes a $750 fine for alleged misrepresentations in a letter to the court and an additional $750 for filing an Opposition Brief with content plagiarized from websites and  prior filings and missing legal citation.

So, my thanks goes out to Lindsay Lohan.  Her contributions to the law allow my students to see past the stuffy and stayed reputation of the law as the province of dead rich white guys.

Give Me Everything by Pit Bull and friends:

Westboro Baptist Church Protests at Military Funerals Protected by First Amendment

The SCOTUS, in an 8-1 decision (Alito dissenting) upheld the First Amendment Rights of the Westboro Baptist Church members to picket military funerals.  The protestors; tactics include proclaiming that the slain soldier has gone to "hell" because he fought for a country that supported a homosexual agenda. 



 Westboro Baptist Church Protestors:


Snyder and related case prior to this decision:



Al Snyder speaks to the press on day of oral argument:

Featured Case - Hustler v. Falwell: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion in this case is well known both in and out of the academy. Access to a picture of the "ad parody" is readily available.  A copy is reproduced below.  Less available is a picture of the Campari ad campaign which the Hustler ad parodied. A copy is provided, below. Also provided below is a clip from "The People vs. Larry Flint" dramatizing the argument before the Supreme Court in Falwell.