Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
- Homepage »
- Torts »
- Other Torts
6. In a suit for slander by the employee against the owner, the employee will
When the employee reported to the owner's office for the test, it was not administered. Instead, without hearing the employee's story, the owner shouted at him, «You're a thief!» and fired him. At the time the owner accused the employee of stealing, the owner believed the charge to be true. The owner's shout was overheard by several other employees who were in another office that was separated from the owner's office by a thin partition. The next day, the employee accepted another job at a higher salary. Several weeks later, upon discovering that the money had not been stolen, the owner offered to rehire the employee.
The owner of a truck leasing company asked one of his employees to deliver $1,000 to the dealership's main office. The following week, as a result of a dispute over whether the money had been delivered, the owner instructed the employee to come to the office to submit to a lie detector test.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Further, where defamation is spoken (slander), the plaintiff must prove special (i.e., pecuniary) damages, unless the verbal defamation falls within one of four exceptions, which are considered slander per se: (i) criminal activity; (ii) occupational misconduct; (iii) sexual misconduct; or (iv) loathsome disease.
B is correct. The owner slandered the employee by falsely accusing him of theft and published the accusation to third parties by shouting it in the presence of several other employees. The employee was a private individual, and the accusation was not a matter of public concern, so the employee would not need to prove ill intent by the owner. As an accusation of both criminal activity and employment misconduct, the owner's defamatory statement was slander per se, eliminating the requirement that the employee prove special damages. Thus, because the owner slandered the employee and published this slander to third parties, the employee would prevail against the owner on a defamation claim.
A is incorrect. Although the employee will prevail against the owner on a defamation claim, the owner's inducement to the employee to come into the office would largely be irrelevant. The employee's presence in the office is relevant because other employees were also present, enabling the owner's accusation to be heard by the third parties. The employer's «fraudulent inducement» to engineer the employee's presence is completely irrelevant to a slander claim.
C is incorrect. The owner's good faith belief in his accusation would not be a bar to the employee's recovery. Traditionally, because the employee was a private individual and the facts did not involve a matter of public concern, falsity would be presumed and the employee would not need to prove ill intent by the owner. Note, however, that a growing number of states now require proof of negligence as a matter of state law even for defamation on matters of private concern. The owner's good faith belief in the truth of his statement would not be a complete defense. Thus, the owner would still be liable, despite honestly believing that his accusations were true.
D is incorrect. The owner cannot avoid liability based on intending for his statement to be heard solely by the employee. In order to be actionable, slander must be published to a third party. Publication may occur both intentionally or negligently. In this case, although the owner did not intentionally publish the slander, he did so negligently by shouting out the accusation when multiple other employees were present. Therefore, the owner's intent for his statement to only be heard only by the employee would not cut short his liability.