course material

1. Will the Kinseys prevail? If so, for what tort?-Should Carson
ASSIGNMENT1. Bill Kinsey was charged with murdering his wife while working for the
Peace Corps in Tanzania. After waiting six months in jail, he was acquitted at a trial that
attracted wide publicity. Five years later, while a graduate student at Stanford University,
Kinsey had a brief affair with Mary Macur. He abruptly ended the affair by telling Macur he
would no longer be seeing her because another woman, Sally Allen, was coming from
England to live with him. A few months later, Kinsey and Allen moved to Africa and were
subsequently married.Soon after Bill ended their affair, Macur began a letter- writing
campaign designed to expose Bill and his mistreatment of her. Macur sent several letters to
both Bill and Sally Kinsey, their parents, their neighbors, their parents’ neighbors, members
of Bill’s dissertation committee, other faculty, and the president of Stanford University. The
letters contained statements accusing Bill of murdering his first wife, spending six months
in jail for the crime, being a rapist, and exhibiting other questionable behavior. The Kinseys
brought an action for invasion of privacy, seeking damages and a permanent injunction. Will
the Kinseys prevail? If so, for what tort?2. The Brineys (defendants) owned a large farm on
which was located an abandoned farmhouse. For a ten-year period the house had been the
subject of several trespassings and housebreakings. In an attempt to stop the intrusions,
Briney boarded up the windows and doors and posted “no trespassing” signs. After one
break-in, however, Briney set a spring gun in a bedroom. It was placed over the bedroom
window so that the gun could not be seen from outside, and no warning of its presence was
posted. The gun was set to hit an intruder in the legs. Briney loaded the gun with a live shell,
but he claimed that he did not intend to injure anyone. Katko (plaintiff) and a friend,
McDonough, had broken into the abandoned farmhouse on an earlier occasion to steal old
bottles and fruit jars for their antique collection. They returned for a second time after the
spring gun had been set, and Katko was seriously wounded in the leg when the gun
discharged as he entered the bedroom. He then brought action for damages. Decision?3.
Plaintiff, John W. Carson, was the host and star of The Tonight Show, a well-known
television program broad- cast by the National Broadcasting Company. Carson also
appeared as an entertainer in nightclubs and theaters around the country. From the time he
began hosting The Tonight Show, he had been introduced on the show each night with the
phrase “Here’s Johnny.” The phrase “Here’s Johnny” is still generally associated with Carson
by a substantial segment of the television viewing public. To earn additional income, Carson
began authorizing use of this phrase by outside business ventures. Defendant, Here’s
Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., is a Michigan corporation engaged in the business of renting

2. and selling “Here’s Johnny” portable toilets. Defendant’s founder was aware at the time he
formed the corporation that “Here’s Johnny” was the introductory slogan for Carson on The
Tonight Show. He indicated that he coupled the phrase with a second one, “The World’s
Foremost Commodian,” to make “a good play on a phrase.” Carson brought suit for invasion
of privacy. Should Carson recover? If so, for which tort?4. Susan Jungclaus Peterson was a
twenty-one-year-old student at Moorhead State University who had lived most of her life on
her family farm in Minnesota. Though Susan was a dean’s list student during her first year,
her academic performance declined after she became deeply involved in an international
religious cult organization known locally as The Way of Minnesota, Inc. The cult demanded
an enormous psychological and monetary commitment from Susan. Near the end of her
junior year, her parents became alarmed by the changes in Susan’s physical and mental
well-being and concluded that she had been “reduced to a condition of psychological
bondage by The Way.” They sought help from Kathy Mills, a self-styled “deprogrammer” of
minds brain washed by cults.On May 24, Norman Jungclaus, Susan’s father, picked up Susan
at Moorhead State. Instead of returning home, they went to the residence of Veronica
Morgel, where Kathy Mills attempted to deprogram Susan. For the first few days of her stay,
Susan was unwilling to discuss her involvement. She lay curled in a fetal position in her
bedroom, plugging her ears and hysterically screaming and crying while her father pleaded
with her to listen. By the third day, however, Susan’s demeanor changed completely. She
became friendly and vivacious and communicated with her father. Susan also went roller-
skating and played softball at a nearby park over the following weekend. She spent the next
week in Columbus, Ohio, with a former cult member who had shared her experiences of the
previous week. While in Columbus, she spoke daily by telephone with her fiance, a member
of The Way, who begged her to return to the cult. Susan expressed the desire to get her
fiance out of the organization, but a meeting between them could not be arranged outside
the presence of other members of The Way. Her parents attempted to persuade Susan to
sign an agreement releasing them from liability for their actions, but Susan refused. After
nearly sixteen days of “deprogramming,” Susan left the Morgel residence and returned to
her fiance and The Way. Upon the direction of The Way ministry, she brought this action
against her parents for false imprisonment. Will Susan prevail? Explain.5. Debra Agis was a
waitress in a restaurant owned by the Howard Johnson Company. On May 23, Roger Dionne,
manager of the restaurant, called a meeting of all waitresses at which he informed them that
“there was some stealing going on.” Dionne also stated that the identity of the party or
parties responsible was not known and that he would begin firing all waitresses in
alphabetical order until the guilty party or parties were detected. He then fired Debra Agis,
who allegedly “became greatly upset, began to cry, sustained emotional distress, mental
anguish, and loss of wages and earnings.” Mrs. Agis brought a complaint against the Howard
Johnson Company and Roger Dionne, alleging that the defendants acted recklessly and
outrageously, intending to cause emotional distress and anguish. The defendants argued
that damages for emotional distress are not recoverable unless physical injury occurs as a
result of the distress. Will Agis be successful on her complaint? Why or why not?