Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 130 views

    Intentional Torts

    Uploaded by

    Anas Al Zoabi
    The animal rights group snuck onto Hannah's Holiday Foods property and installed cameras, filming the slaughtering process. The film shows rabbits in distress before being killed. The group delivered the film to a TV station, which plans to broadcast it. Hannah's Holiday Foods is seeking an injunction, claiming this would constitute public disclosure of private facts. For the tort to apply: the matter must concern Hannah's private life; broadcasting must be highly offensive and not a legitimate public concern. It appears the requirements are likely met here as the slaughtering process was private and not something most would want publicly disclosed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Intentional Torts

    Uploaded by

    Anas Al Zoabi
    130 views1 page
    The animal rights group snuck onto Hannah's Holiday Foods property and installed cameras, filming the slaughtering process. The film shows rabbits in distress before being killed. The group delivered the film to a TV station, which plans to broadcast it. Hannah's Holiday Foods is seeking an injunction, claiming this would constitute public disclosure of private facts. For the tort to apply: the matter must concern Hannah's private life; broadcasting must be highly offensive and not a legitimate public concern. It appears the requirements are likely met here as the slaughtering process was private and not something most would want publicly disclosed.

    Original Description:

    business law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The animal rights group snuck onto Hannah's Holiday Foods property and installed cameras, filming the slaughtering process. The film shows rabbits in distress before being killed. The group delivered the film to a TV station, which plans to broadcast it. Hannah's Holiday Foods is seeking an injunction, claiming this would constitute public disclosure of private facts. For the tort to apply: the matter must concern Hannah's private life; broadcasting must be highly offensive and not a legitimate public concern. It appears the requirements are likely met here as the slaughtering process was private and not something most would want publicly disclosed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    130 views1 page

    Intentional Torts

    Uploaded by

    Anas Al Zoabi
    The animal rights group snuck onto Hannah's Holiday Foods property and installed cameras, filming the slaughtering process. The film shows rabbits in distress before being killed. The group delivered the film to a TV station, which plans to broadcast it. Hannah's Holiday Foods is seeking an injunction, claiming this would constitute public disclosure of private facts. For the tort to apply: the matter must concern Hannah's private life; broadcasting must be highly offensive and not a legitimate public concern. It appears the requirements are likely met here as the slaughtering process was private and not something most would want publicly disclosed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Public Disclosure of Private Facts

    Hannah's Holiday Foods Inc. (HHF) operated a slaughterhouse where it killed, butchered and packaged "exotic"
    animals, including rabbits and possums. HHF's business was fully licensed and entirely legal. An unknown animal
    rights group nevertheless believed that the public would be horrified to learn about the conditions under which
    the animals were killed. It therefore sneaked onto the premises one night and installed video surveillance cameras.
    The end product was a film showing rabbits in great distress before being slaughtered. That film was then
    delivered to a national television station, which announced its intention to broadcast the footage during its nightly
    news program.  HHF has now gone to court and asked a judge to grant an injunction prohibiting the broadcast.
    HHF alleges that the television station will be committing the tort of public disclosure of private facts should it
    broadcast the film.  Please provide a full legal analysis.

    Legal Analysis

    Facts:
     HHF running a legal business slaughtering animals
     Animal Rights Group (hereinafter "ARG") snuck onto HHF property & took video of slaughtering
    animals - delivered film to National TV Station ("TV")
     HHF wanted injunction to stop broadcast by TV - alleging this will be "public disclosure of private
    facts" if it is broadcasted

    Issue: Is TV committing the tort of public disclosure of private facts by broadcasting the video [Yes/No]?

    Law: IF "public disclosure of private facts" THEN:


     Defendant = publicized (or plans to publicize) a matter;
     Matter concerns private life of the Plaintiff;
     Matter =[a] AND [b]
    o [a] Highly offensive to a reasonable person; AND
    o [b] NOT of legitimate concern to the public.

    Analysis: IF TV engaged in "public disclosure of private facts" THEN TV would have


     TV - plans to publicize the video - it announced its intention to publish during its nightly news
    program - this requirement has likely been met;
     Matter of slaughtering rabbits concerns the private life of HHF - if this is considered a private
    matter - the bar for this will be determined by relevant case law - but given HHF is a private
    business and they are engaged in legal activities, we can safely assume that this is a private
    matter and this threshold has likely been met;
     Matter = [a] AND [b]
    o [a] Yes - because the slaughtering of rabbits would likely be highly offensive to a
    reasonable person as this isn't something that most of society in Canada sees or would
    be desensitized to.
    o [b] Yes - because the slaughtering of rabbits - although if done in an inhumane manner -
    would be a concern to the public, given HHF had a license to operate and do this (it was
    legal), this threshold has likely been met. A factor here which may lead things in the
    opposite direction could be if they were not slaughtering animals according to
    regulations or the requirements outlined in their license.

    You might also like