Philosophy 2080 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Intentional Tort, Summary Judgment, False Light
17 Feb 2016
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Jones discovered that tsige was looking at jones" banking records. Tsige was in a common-law relationship with jones" former husband because jones was getting child care payments. Looked at her account 174 times over 4 years. When jones first got suspicious, she told the bank and tsige admitted she had no legitimate reason for looking at her accounts, tsige was reprimanded, suspended for a week, denied her bonus. Summary judge said that she lost and had to pay k + own lawyer for bringing it to trial because no common law tort: said no common law tort because of euteneier vs. lee. Judge thought binds in that case were binding and dispositive of the question means that the words disposed of the case. Defendant conceded that there was no invasion of privacy. Canada, uk, america: us mentioned privacy in 1890. Because of photography: us 1890-1960 privacy essay 4 torts emerged.
