Exploring Defamation: The Yeagle vs. Collegiate Times Case

Case Activities 2

Spotlight on Intentional Torts- Defamation In this scenario, Sharon Yeagle, assistant vice president of student affairs, brought a suit against the Collegiate Times for defamation. Yeagle worked at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Virginia Tech helping students participate in the Governor’s Fellows Program. The Collegiate Times published an article about the University’s success with placing students in this program and in the article under Yeagle’s name attributed the phrase “Director of Butt Licking”. Yeagle argued that the phrase implied the commission of sodomy and was actionable. The legal issue in this scenario questions if the phrase was defamatory or was it a deliberate exaggeration that no reasonable person would

According to our textbook, Business Law Text and Cases, proximate cause exists when the connection between an act and an injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving their negligence allegations by demonstrating "the existence of a duty" owed by Defendants to them, "breach of that duty, which is typically based upon a standard of reasonable care, and the breach being a proximate cause and cause in fact of" their damages (Chavez v. Desert Eagle Distrib. Co., 2006). According to Largo v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (2001), railroads have a common-law duty to provide and adequately maintain warnings at railroad crossings. Even though there were a stop sign and railroad crossing sign present , AMTRAK was negligent in not having the flashing lights working causing Stoller not to perceive any danger due to the fact that he could not see the train. The proximate cause of the accident was the poor maintenance of the railroad crossing signs and lack of flashing lights to indicate the passing of a train makes the light a liability. In the actual case on which this problem is based, the courts concluded that genuine issues of material fact as to proximate cause and comparative negligence existed, the New Mexico Supreme Court explained "`some degree of negligence on the part of

Scripto-Tokai Corp maintained that the Aim N Flame lighter was an alternative source of fire that was safer than a match. Calles correspondingly acknowledged that she was aware of the danger existent from lighters in the hands of children. Furthermore, Scripto-Tokai Corp admitted that they had been defendants in several suits for comparable injuries under similar circumstances. In addition to the consumer expectation test, the courts can engage in a risk- utility analysis to determine whether the risk of harm from the product as designed outweighs its utility to the user (Clarkson, Miller, and Cross, p.146). Under the risk-utility test, a plaintiff may prevail in a strict liability design-defect case if he or she demonstrates that the magnitude of the danger outweighs the utility of the product, as designed (Lamkin v. Towner, 1990). Due to the fact that there is an open and obvious nature of danger associated with the Aim N Flame lighter, it cannot be classified as an unreasonably dangerous product according to the risk-utility test. Therefore the courts should rule in favor of Scripto-Tokai Corp as the lighter is not an unreasonably dangerous product and there was not sufficient evidence to prove that Scripto-Tokai did not utilize reasonable care in the design of lighter. In the actual case on which this problem is based, a summary judgment