US legal methods
The graduate student workers of UC Broccoli , organized in the Union of Angry Academic Workers (UAAW), have been on strike for several weeks to ask for higher wages and to protest against rising housing costs on campus. As part of the protest, they staged a rally in front of the Chairmans Mansion. The Chairman, Will Notlissen, lives in a big mansion in Broccoli Heights, an upscale neighborhood in the vicinity of campus.
Several hundred members of the UAAW, led by union leaders John Destrike and Winnie Daraise, assemble in front the Chairmans mansion. They chant slogans and unions songs, and make noise with pots and pans. As part of the protest, the UAAW members also throw paper planes in the Chairmans mansion garden, with slogans written on them. They also fly kites above the property, with union slogans on them.
In addition, the UAAW members have decided to block the main entrance of the mansion. After one hour of this, the Chairman, who is inside his mansion, gets irritated. There is a lot of noise outside, and he cant watch his favorite drama, Cash landing on you (the story of a rich heiress falling in love with a starving teaching assistant). Because he cant get out by the main door, he quietly leaves the property by jumping out of a first-floor window in the back of the mansion. When he tries to come back to his mansion one hour later, the UAAW members have surrounded the mansion with a human chain. The Chairman cannot access the doors or the windows, and he has to spend the night at a friends house.
Meanwhile, a group of radical protesters, led by anarchist student Dina Myte, enter the University Zoo, and paint slogans on the elephants of the zoo. They use natural and skin-friendly colors that do not hurt the animals, but that are quite resistant. The colors cannot be erased, but will fade away and disappear in about 2 weeks. Although the public of the zoo does not seem to be bothered by the painted elephants, and the elephants do not seem upset, the University decides to hide the elephants from the public until the paint disappears, in order to avoid spreading union propaganda.
The next day, the protest escalates. A group of radical students, led by Barry Cade, decides to shadow the Chairman for the day. Each time he goes out of his office, Barry follows him with a big sign. On the sign, he has drawn a portrait of the Chairman, with a writing in big letters: Who wants to be a millionaire?. The Chairman is furious, because he does not like to be followed all day, and he only makes 500K a year, not a million.
Chairman Will Notlissen would like to bring a tort lawsuit against the UAAW, Dina Myte and Barry Cade. He asks for your legal advice on actions that could be brought in his personal name or on behalf of the university. Discuss potential claims and their chances of success.
(Additional instructions: Only discuss the torts we studied in class (do not discuss negligence, nuisance or defamation). Assume that UAAW can be held liable for the actions of its members, but that Dina and Barry will bear the liability for their own actions. Assume that personal and privacy claims can be brought on behalf of the Chairman, and property claims on behalf of the university).
-
- Application: While the protest actions, including noise, chanting, and sign-carrying, may be disruptive and annoying, they likely do not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required for IIED. The blocking of the entrance and the painting of the elephants, however, could potentially be considered extreme and outrageous.
- Viability: The success of an IIED claim would depend on the specific facts and circumstances, including the severity of the emotional distress caused.
-
Trespass to Land:
- Elements: Intentional entry onto the land of another without permission.
- Application: The UAAW members who blocked the entrance to the Chairman's mansion and the students who painted the elephants clearly committed trespass.
- Viability: This claim is likely to be successful, as the elements of trespass are clearly met.
-
Conversion:
- Elements: Wrongful exercise of dominion and control over the property of another.
- Application: While the painting of the elephants did not permanently damage them, it temporarily deprived the university of their use and enjoyment.
- Viability: This claim might be successful, particularly if the university can demonstrate significant economic loss due to the temporary closure of the elephant exhibit.
-
False Imprisonment:
- Elements: Intentional confinement of another person without lawful justification.
- Application: The blocking of the Chairman's entrance to his home could potentially be considered false imprisonment.
- Viability: The success of this claim would depend on the severity of the confinement and whether the Chairman was deprived of his liberty for a significant period.
Conclusion
While the protest actions were disruptive and may have caused emotional distress, it is unlikely that the Chairman would be successful in an IIED claim. However, the claims of trespass and conversion have stronger legal grounds. The false imprisonment claim might be more challenging to prove, as it would require demonstrating significant deprivation of liberty.
It is important to note that the specific outcome of any legal action would depend on the specific facts and circu
Understanding the Scenario
The scenario presents a complex interplay of protest actions, property damage, and personal harassment. To assess the potential tort claims, we must examine specific actions and their legal implications.
Potential Claims and Their Viability
-
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED):
- Elements: Extreme and outrageous conduct, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and severe emotional distress.