Mr. Noah Itall, manager of the Whole Paycheck Grocery Store, believed that Miss D. Nuance had been shoplifting in the store. After Nuance left the store, Noah asked Nuance to stop. Noah told Nuance quietly that he saw Nuance shoplifting and asked Nuance to follow Noah to his office, which Nuance voluntarily did. It was discovered in the office that Nuance was innocent of any shoplifting. A bystander, Cebrix Earwig, heard Noah talking to Nuance outside the store. Which of the following statements is true?

Question

Mr. Noah Itall, manager of the Whole Paycheck Grocery Store, believed that Miss D. Nuance had been shoplifting in the store.  After Nuance left the store, Noah asked Nuance to stop.  Noah told Nuance quietly that he saw Nuance shoplifting and asked Nuance to follow Noah to his office, which Nuance voluntarily did.  It was discovered in the office that Nuance was innocent of any shoplifting.  A bystander, Cebrix Earwig, heard Noah talking to Nuance outside the store.  Which of the following statements is true?

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The scenario centers on Miss Nuance's interaction with Mr. Noah Itall and a bystander, with four potential liability options to evaluate.
Option 1: 'Whole Paycheck is liable to Nuance for false imprisonment.' False imprisonment requires intentional confinement or restraint of a person’s liberty without consent or legal justification. In this case, Nuance voluntarily followed Noah to his office after being asked to do so, and there is no evidence that she was physically restrained or coerced against her will. The key flaw is voluntariness: since Nuance walked to the office of her own accord, the element of confinement or restraint necessary for false imprisonment is not established.
Option 2: 'Cebrix Earwig is liable to Nuance for invasion of privacy.' Invasion of privacy typically involves intrusion upon seclusion or public disclosure of private facts. Earwig merely overheard a private conversation from a bystander perspective; there is no indication Earwig intruded into Nuance’s private sphere or disclosed private information. The mere act of overhearing does not amount to third-party liability for invasion of privacy.
Option 3: 'Nobody is liable to Nuance.' This statement asserts that none of the parties involved committed a tort. Given the voluntary nature of Nuance’s walk to the office (which undermines false imprisonment), the lack of outrageous conduct or intentional infliction (yet to be examined) lowers the likelihood of IIED against Noah, and Earwig’s mere overhearing does not constitute invasion of privacy. Taken together, there is no clear tort committed by any party under typical tort principles here.
Option 4: 'Noah Itall is liable to Nuance for intentional infliction of emotional distress.' IIED requires outrageous, extreme conduct intended to cause severe distress or reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, resulting in severe emotional distress. Asking someone to follow to a private office after a shoplifting accusation, especially when the accusation is later found to be unfounded, does not automatically meet the threshold for IIED. The conduct would have to be characterized as extreme and outrageous beyond all bounds of decency; simply suspecting someone and asking them to accompany you to an office does not typically meet that standard.
In sum, each option challenges a potential tort, but the facts as stated do not show confinement (false imprisonment), an intrusion by Earwig (invasion of privacy), or extreme, outrageous conduct causing severe distress (IIED). Moreover, the idea that nobody is liable aligns with the absence of these tort elements in the given details. The reasoning above focuses on how the essential elements for each tort are not satisfied in this scenario, which supports the conclusion that liability does not attach to the parties described.

BUSFIN 3500 SP2025 (4686) Final Exam- Requires Respondus LockDown Browser

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

On what floor of the library would you find the following book: Green, D. (2001). Torts law (4th ed). Cavendish.

A tort is wrongful conduct against a

Which of the following does NOT fall under Tort Law?

The fundamental question that tort law seeks to answer is who pays when someone is injured or their property is damaged.

If damages are consistently assessed to be 10% lower than the actual harm done...

Tort law is the area of civil law that protects people from bad acts of others.

The fundamental question that tort law seeks to answer is who pays when someone is injured or their property is damaged.

Tort cases are a type of

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler