Chat with AI
Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law 9th Edition by Arnold Goldman ,William Sigismond
Edition 9ISBN: 978-1133586562Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law 9th Edition by Arnold Goldman ,William Sigismond
Edition 9ISBN: 978-1133586562 Exercise 11
Facts
A fringe group that stages protests at military funerals attended the funeral of a soldier who had been killed in action. They hoisted revolting signs that said hateful things about the U.S. military, the U.S. government, and the phrase "Thank God for 9/11." Feeling that the protesters ruined his son's funeral, the father became very depressed. He could no longer drive his car for long stretches alone with his thoughts. He made the comment to his friends that the act of the protesters was just as bad, if not worse, than if they had taken a gun and shot him. The father felt that this was a private funeral and that the protesters were disturbing to the service and to him personally and that they had no right to be there. The father also claimed that the outrageous conduct of the protesters caused him severe emotional suffering. He sued the protesters in tort for $5 million. The protesters claimed that they were within their First Amendment right to protest. At Trial
Based on the case of Snyder v. Phelps, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the father. Chief Justice Roberts, speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court, overturned the lower court's damage award to the father. The decision shielded the protesters, stating that the speech on the signs was directed to matters of public concern and thus protected their First Amendment rights. "The hateful remarks on the signs were not directed in any way at the funeral for the young man who made the ultimate sacrifice of fighting for our country," stated Justice Roberts. Besides, the protesters were standing lawfully on public property (under police supervision) 1,000 feet from the memorial service.
Questions
1. The father sued the protesters, claiming the violation of two personal torts. Based on the information given in the facts above, identify these torts.
2. Was there grounds to sue the protesters for trespassing on public property? 3. Do you agree with the jury who ruled in favor of the father in the lower court?
A fringe group that stages protests at military funerals attended the funeral of a soldier who had been killed in action. They hoisted revolting signs that said hateful things about the U.S. military, the U.S. government, and the phrase "Thank God for 9/11." Feeling that the protesters ruined his son's funeral, the father became very depressed. He could no longer drive his car for long stretches alone with his thoughts. He made the comment to his friends that the act of the protesters was just as bad, if not worse, than if they had taken a gun and shot him. The father felt that this was a private funeral and that the protesters were disturbing to the service and to him personally and that they had no right to be there. The father also claimed that the outrageous conduct of the protesters caused him severe emotional suffering. He sued the protesters in tort for $5 million. The protesters claimed that they were within their First Amendment right to protest. At Trial
Based on the case of Snyder v. Phelps, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the father. Chief Justice Roberts, speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court, overturned the lower court's damage award to the father. The decision shielded the protesters, stating that the speech on the signs was directed to matters of public concern and thus protected their First Amendment rights. "The hateful remarks on the signs were not directed in any way at the funeral for the young man who made the ultimate sacrifice of fighting for our country," stated Justice Roberts. Besides, the protesters were standing lawfully on public property (under police supervision) 1,000 feet from the memorial service.
Questions
1. The father sued the protesters, claiming the violation of two personal torts. Based on the information given in the facts above, identify these torts.
2. Was there grounds to sue the protesters for trespassing on public property? 3. Do you agree with the jury who ruled in favor of the father in the lower court?
Explanation
Verified
Verified
Two Torts present in the case are given ...
Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law 9th Edition by Arnold Goldman ,William Sigismond
Why don’t you like this exercise?
Other Minimum 8 character and maximum 255 character
Character 255
