Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Name that Cause of Action!

Click on the headline and read this story first for the background.

Of all the things that disturbed me about the story, this took the cake:

"We're told the employee is recovering, but will have to live without his finger tip, because Clarence didn't return it. Clarence is keeping the finger in his freezer, hoping to use it as evidence in his lawsuit."

Not only that, apparently, the customer returned with the finger, told they needed it to reattach, and he refused to give it to them. See, here.

Okay. Assume that finger likely could have been reattached and become useable again if it had gotten to the hospital with employee.

Name the causes of action EMPLOYEE has and against what party. I did horrible in torts, so I can't think what the cause of action should be. Somehow, I just can't put my finger on it.

5 comments:

Kathy said...

you're about to graduate, and you're thinking of tort exams!

Modern Esquire said...

Of course, because I'm already thinking about the bar exam. I noticed you didn't give an answer, though.

I'm going with conversion?

Kathy said...

I took & passed the bar 4 years ago, and that's when I quit answering questions like this. conversion against finger thief w/defenses of finders keepers and necessity? negligence against employer? plus the extras of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against employer and finger thief. Defamation against blogger ... .

Anonymous said...

Here ya go:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/bizarre/3170030

Modern Esquire said...

Suddenly, "blogger" feels very nervous, but is comfortable with his "truth as defense" defendse to defamation action. False light action on the other hand....

However, blogger realizes that when your own hometown corporate newspaper attacks your character, an insolvent, piddly lil' law student in Ohio has nothing to worry about.

See: http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050505/EDITORIAL/505050303/1016/editorial

Of course, there's workers comp for the employee, and it looks like a products liability claim for the machine since this has happened twice now.

Luv the defense of finders keepers, but does keeping the finger to test for diseases seem, I dunno, somewhat weak?