Top Law Schools

This is the hypo. I really appreciate all of your feedbacks!


David Dunn is a powerful businessman who passionately desired to have a sexual liaison with Samantha Sun. David’s frustration lay in the fact that Samantha was a loyal wife to Charlie Chun. Chun was a mid-level employee in the business that David owns and runs. David hit on an idea. He telephoned another employee, Thomas Tunn, and asked Tunn to do the following: “Break into Chun’s office and e-mail death threats that appear to come from Chun’s e-mail address to Chun’s suburban neighbor, Frank Fun. Also, take an afternoon off work and set off some small hand grenades on Chun’s property in the suburbs, so that they are audible to Frank Fun.” The plan was that Chun would be arrested and sent to jail for his death threats, combined with the grenades; then David could have his liaison with Samantha. All went according to plan, and Chun went to jail and David had a romance with Samantha. While doing time, however, Chun figured out what had occurred. He contacted Tunn and eventually led Tunn to admit to the whole sequence of events.

What causes of action does Chun have against Dunn and Tunn? What defenses will be available? What damages will be available?

Can you certify that this isn't for the purposes of an exam or anything that would otherwise be an honor code violation?

no, this is one of the previous practice problems

funkyar89 wrote:This is the hypo. I really appreciate all of your feedbacks!


David Dunn is a powerful businessman who passionately desired to have a sexual liaison with Samantha Sun. David’s frustration lay in the fact that Samantha was a loyal wife to Charlie Chun. Chun was a mid-level employee in the business that David owns and runs. David hit on an idea. He telephoned another employee, Thomas Tunn, and asked Tunn to do the following: “Break into Chun’s office and e-mail death threats that appear to come from Chun’s e-mail address to Chun’s suburban neighbor, Frank Fun. Also, take an afternoon off work and set off some small hand grenades on Chun’s property in the suburbs, so that they are audible to Frank Fun.” The plan was that Chun would be arrested and sent to jail for his death threats, combined with the grenades; then David could have his liaison with Samantha. All went according to plan, and Chun went to jail and David had a romance with Samantha. While doing time, however, Chun figured out what had occurred. He contacted Tunn and eventually led Tunn to admit to the whole sequence of events.

What causes of action does Chun have against Dunn and Tunn? What defenses will be available? What damages will be available?

Keeping in mind that I took torts 3 years ago, here are a few thoughts:

To hold Dunn liable for the actions of Tunn, you would need to show that Dunn is vicariously liable for Tunn (these names make it difficult to keep the parties straight. Why would your professor do that? that's just mean). You probably learned about the doctrine of respondeat superior, where an employer might be liable for the actions of an employee in the scope of their duty. Tunn appears to be an employee for Dunn, but did Tunn act within the scope of his employment? In my opinion, he clearly did not. The scope of Tunn's employment for Dunn's business would not include things such as breaking into a person's office, emailing death threats, and setting off small hand grenades.

I'm getting a little tired of torts now, but i'll try and return later. I would suggest start posting issues and defenses you spot and we can talk through them.