Al, Bob, Carl, and Dolly were coworkers at Zco. Al, Bob, and Carl did not like D

Question

Al, Bob, Carl, and Dolly were coworkers at Zco. Al, Bob, and Carl did not like Dolly and wanted her fired from Zco.
On Monday, all employees of Zco were required to attend a mandatory meeting. Prior to the meeting, Al entered Dolly’s office and told her not to leave her office until the meeting was over. He then said to her, “If you leave this office before the meeting is over, some of my friends and I will come to your home and beat you up.” Al then left for the meeting. Dolly, scared for her safety, remained in her office, missed the meeting, and was reprimanded by Carl, her supervisor.
On Tuesday, Bob placed a sleeping pill in Dolly’s coffee when Dolly was not looking. Dolly drank the coffee and fell asleep at her desk twenty minutes later. She slept for four hours, and was again reprimanded by Carl for sleeping on the Job and was fired from her job.
Under what intentional tort theories might an action for damages be brought by Dolly against Al, Bob, and Carl, and what are the likely results? Discuss.

Explanation / Answer

Dolly would have false imprisonment claim against Al as well as assault. Dolly would have a battery claim against Bob. Dolly would have a defamation claim against Carl. Carl could assert the defense of privilege as he is her work supervisor but since he intentionally lied about this and new it was untrue, he would lose this privilege. Carl should be liable for defamation and the defense of privilege and the truth are not valid in this case. Carl knew she had been drugged and intentionally lied to HR waiving his managerial privilege. Injurious falsehood Carl would be liable for assault well as he caused HR not to deal with her and caused damages by getting her fired. Carl would be liable for interference with expectancy of a contract as he interfered with Dolly s job by telling lies about her alcohol use that got her fired.

For intentional torr of assault, since there was no imminent threat of harm (it was after work), AL would not be liable for assault. For false imprisonment, Dolly could have simply left her office (Al was no longer there) and there was a means of escape and probably coworkers to go to, there would likely be no liability for false imprisonment. A defense to this would be consent. Also could argue that Dolly consented to be there since she did not leave the office as he was not there to keep her there against her will. It is likely that the AL would prevail on the false imprisonment claim. Bob should be liable for assault and I don't see any defenses. He did this without her knowledge and it caused her harm by drugging her.

Dolly should recover general and punitive damages against Bob for the battery. Against Carl she should recover general and punitive damages as well as special damages for losing her job if the damages are reasonably calculated.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I hope I answered your query. Do give it a read. :)

Also if this answer helps you in any way please give it an up-rating.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.