The document discusses four legal cases related to tort law: 1) A defamation case where a plaintiff sued for comments made during a TV segment but could not prove the comments were specifically about them or intended to damage their reputation. 2) A negligence case where a hotel guest sued the hotel for injuries suffered after two men broke into his room and assaulted him. 3) A premises liability case where a plaintiff tripped over a cord in a hospital room but the court found the cord was not a hidden hazard. 4) A tortious interference case involving a news network interfering with a confidentiality agreement between two other parties.

1. 2
Exercise 1
A party is held liable if they publish any statements that can
damage the reputation of another such that other people cannot
associate with them and as well lower their regard. This
statement is from the restatement of Torts under section 559
(Tyz, 2003). Based on the commentary given, there exists
differences between two parties. The commentary creates two
opposing sides however, the plaintiff is unable to prove that he
was defamed by the defendant. According to the commentary, it
was written in response to a media conversation on one of the
TV channels. The commentary was aimed at commenting on
matters education and in particular the show. Furthermore, the
statements were inline with what the public was interested with
and could soundly resonate with (Vohra, 2019). Therefore, the
issue of the plaintiff could no surface anywhere especially if
one read the contents of the publication. They would be more
interested in understanding the education system than an
individual and his character. A party must prove that the
publication was done with full knowledge that it was false
(Russomanno, 2020). Since the statements were not aimed at
tainting anyone’s image in particular, the defendant did not
defame the plaintiff, Mr Barnes (New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
References
Russomanno, J. (2020). Kalven Jr., Harry. The New York Times
Case: A Note on “The Central Meaning of the First
Amendment,” 1964 Sup. Ct. Rev. 191. Communication Law and
Policy, 25(3), 400-405.
Tyz, R. A. (2003). Oregon Law Review: Vol. 82, No. 2, p. 559-
580: Searching for a Corporate Liability Standard Under the
Alien Tort Claims Act in Doe v. Unocal.
Vohra, A. (2019). Defamation. Journal of Law of Torts and

2. Consumer Protection Law, 2(1), 21-25.
Exercise 2
The pharmacy chief section of CDSS, DM was not to attend the
APA annual meeting because he was in the NO to attend
register. But on 6th of April, DM and his associates had dinner
at RSH. His associates had come for a meeting and booked a
room adjacent to DM, room NHM. The friends visited DM later
to discuss tomorrow’s meeting. DM was later found
unconscious after 3hrs in the parking lot. He was taken to the
hospital by the police with the believe that he was drunk.
However, DM remembered that his room had been unlocked by
two men who beat him up on the head and shoulder after which
they took him to a dark alley. The injuries were so bad that they
lead to permanent effects. He therefore, sued NHM for
negligence but the management maintains he was drunk and
probably met the ordeal outside the hotel.
Based on the case, NHM is liable because; DM returned to his
room at around 10:30 or 11:00 PM and it can be proved from
the CCTV footage and his friends who were just adjacent. Also,
NHM has a responsibility to protect its guests against any form
of insecurity however, there was negligent access to the
elevators and guests. Third, DM was injured impacting his
professional and personal life due to the failure of the hotel.
The police only assumed that he was drunk hence could be
proven otherwise. Therefore, NHM is fully liable for DM’s
predicaments.
Exercise 3
Here, Rhodes could not recover from the hospital because she
tripped over a black cord from a hospital room whereby the cord
ran from the foot of the bed to the floor along the side of the
bed and up the bed side. Here the condition was not unavoidable
since a reasonable person would have seen the cord even with
slight inspection. The lighting was adequate and cord contrasted
with tiled floor that was grey. Therefore, there was no issue of

3. material fact to the case. Rhodes would have avoided the cord
due to the availability of enough space. The cord did not pose a
likely threat to anyone.
Reference
Bagley v. JC Penney Corporation, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-76
Exercise 4
According to (Hawkins, 2016) tortious interference is the
interference with an individual or an individual’s property
causing harm to the individual or the property. A breach of
contract is a tortious interference with the contractual relations
or rights. Since it is intentional, it is classified under tort law.
The case involves CBS news interfering with the confidentiality
contract between Brown and Williams and Jeffery Wigand
(Mishra, 2019). The depiction by the Wall Street Journal clearly
shows the unusual arrangement between CBS and Wignad with
the intention to hurt Brown and Williams.
Reference
Hawkins, D. (2016). Tortious Interference-
Employment. Wisconsin Law Journal.
Mishra, N. (2019). Economic Torts. Journal of Law of Torts and
Consumer Protection Law, 1(1), 8-14.