The basis for the proposed ruling is that lettered torts atomic number 18 inappropriate remedies for Internet-related actions such as those alleged. Although it is true that intentional torts are more difficult to prove than negligence, it is not true that they put up never been applicable to Internet-related actions. For example, in a federal intentional infliction of emotional distress case, Secretary, United States Department of Hous. and urban Dev. v. Wilson, No. 03-98-0692-8, 2000 988268) (H.H.D. A.L.J. July 19, 2000), a civil action under the median(a) Housing Act was held to lie against a party which o'er the Internet made public hate threats against plaintiff. The state tort of slander or defamation still exists with respect to maliciously false statements made over the Internet, etc. Therefore, it cannot be tell intentional torts cannot, as a matter of law, be act over the Internet.
It is unclear from the pleading precisely what sort of intentional tort defendants allegedly committed. The court might rule for plaintiffs on the grounds that technically they have not stated a cause of action. However, the allegations in substance amount to a demand that Phishy invaded plaintiffs' privacy and caused their confidential bank and credit information to be abused. These are clearly recognized causes of action outside the Int
McPherson v. Buick Motor Company, 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment