Closed Memorandum Summary The standard for outrageous conduct according to Section 46 comment d in the Restatement is “one in which the recitation of facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, ‘Outrageous’”. Comments e and f in Section 46 further elaborate on conditions considered for outrageous conduct: “e.The extreme and outrageous character of conduct may arise from an abuse by the actor of a position, or a relation with the other which gives him actual or apparent authority over the other, or power to affect his interests”. “f.The extreme and outrageous character of the conduct may arise from the actor’s knowledge that the other is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress, by reason of some physical or mental peculiarity. The conduct may be heartless, flagrant and outrageous when the actor proceeds in the face of such knowledge, where it would not be so if they did not know”. The addition of comments e and f allow for the possibility that conduct that normally would not qualify as outrageous by the strict threshold set out in d, would be considered outrageous if other conditions are met. Here the two issues are whether (1) Schlecklich’s conduct is outrageous under comment d and …show more content…
In the Dominguez Supreme Court case, the “ unjustified assertion of power by one party” was used as grounds to meet the standard of outrageous conduct. There an agent for Equitable Life attempted to have a severely disabled man surrender his insurance policy by providing fraudulent medical documents stating he was no longer disabled. The court cited comment e in making the determination that the company’s control over his livelihood coupled with the action of stopping insurance payments was an abuse of power that made the conduct
Matter, Dave. “SEC official calls latest targeting rule dramatic.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 18 July 2013: Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 19 October 2013.
...ir problems or uncertainties. When people realize that they are capable of knowing the truth, they are able to overcome the illusions and to help others break their own boundaries.
Because the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against the removal of Nancy Cruzan’s artificial hydration and nutrition on the grounds that “clear and convincing” evidence of Nancy’s wishes was not provided, the Cruzan family appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court arguing that Nancy was being deprived of her right to refuse medical treatment. The Supreme Court ruling affirmed that competent patients have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, but also noted that incompetent patients are not capable of exercising this right. Consequently, states may establish their own safe-guards to govern cases in which a substituted decision maker wishes to refuse treatment for an incompetent patient. This ruling therefore upheld the decision of Missouri’s Supreme Court.
Aristotle elaborates further that what we might name our power of knowing is not in reference to actual begins, until it truly comprehends. This view is different of the early philosophers, who said that the power of knowing must include all things if it can know all things. But if it knew everything, then it would be an eternal intellect, and not just a possible intellect. Along the same lines he said that of the senses, if they were fundamentally composed of the things they observe, their observations would not assume any external practical things.(4)
one do a wrong, even in retaliation, nor may one do an injury; doing the latter
permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be
... be “taken too far” or simply “inhumane’. Piers has made a name for himself from a humble local British reporter to one of the most controversial journalists and TV personality in both Britain and America. He has used his talent for good and for bad causing controversy everywhere he goes. Piers considers his type of journalism the best kind of journalism in his own words he simply says, “We want mayhem.”
With respect to violent behavior, there are reports that Traquan has illegally used a weapon and bullied/threatened people. A weapon was used in the current offense. With respect to his disposition toward others, Traquan recognizes that most people do not have malicious intentions and/but he sometimes gets upset over small things. Traquan believes violence and verbal aggression are sometimes appropriate, as evidenced by his behavior in the present matters before the court. Insert an example in this section of what he did or said to justify this paragraph.
When somebody abuses a great amount of power, that individual can lose all their power. The struggle against someone who abuses power is perfectly depicted in the novel, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, by Ken Kesey. When someone abuses their power, they can impose certain feelings and actions onto others. If someone tries to conceal their personality, . Finally, if someone abuses power and is constantly challenged by another individual who is trying to take the power abuser’s power away from them, the power abuser will always be frightened of his or her challenger. When someone abuses power and takes full control, they can lose all their power and respect quickly.
Milgram, S. (1965a). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18(1): 57-70.
According to Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, a memorandum is meant to protect the writer instead of being issued to inform the reader. I believe that the quote by Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson is not accurate. This statement creates ambiguity because the primary purpose why the writer issues a memorandum is to inform the reader. If the purpose is just to protect the writer and not to inform the reader, just for the sake of issuance, then such memo is of no use. However, this paper seeks to discuss the relevance of both—a memorandum is intended to inform the reader and it is also used to protect the writer.
to accept as false and only then start to rebuild is foundation of knowledge. To insure the
A person burping in public is not offensive enough to be limited under this condition. But a man urinating as he walks down the street is significantly offensive and should be limited.The second condition states that the behavior must be offensive to almost everyone. This is an important condition because I think that if only a few people find something offensive, does not constitute the act to be limited. Many people may believe that someone picking his nose in public is offensive but not almost everyone believes this act to be offensive, therefore, this act could not be limited.
Defense." Southern Illinois University Law Journal 30.(2006): 533-571. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 2 Apr. 2014.
This action seems justified to the reader and for the most part it is. However,