Asked by Bryce McCoy on Jun 04, 2024
Verified
Rashid saw Charles "rear-end" Francine's car at a stop sign. Immediately following the accident he told Charles that he would testify that Francine had been over the white line and had backed up into Charles, if Charles paid him $200. Charles agreed and Rashid provided his testimony in court. The police can prove Rashid is lying.
A) Francine could successfully sue Rashid for slander.
B) Francine could successfully sue Rashid for slander and would be awarded punitive damages.
C) Francine would lose a slander suit because Rashid could raise the defence of absolute privilege, though Rashid could be charged with the crime of perjury.
D) Francine would lose a slander suit because Rashid could raise the defence of qualified privilege, although Rashid could be charged with the crime of perjury.
E) If Rashid had lied only out of friendship, rather than for money, he could not be sued by Francine nor charged by the police.
Slander
Defamatory statements or gestures.
Absolute Privilege
A legal immunity shielding individuals from liability for statements made in certain contexts, no matter the content or intent.
Perjury
The act of lying or making verifiably false statements under oath in a legal proceeding.
- Identify and outline various purposeful torts and their subsequent outcomes.
- Distinguish between various defenses available in tort law such as self-defense, privilege, and consent.
Verified Answer
KP
Keith PerkinsJun 10, 2024
Final Answer :
C
Explanation :
Rashid's testimony in court is protected by absolute privilege, meaning he cannot be sued for slander based on statements made during a judicial proceeding, even if they are false. However, lying under oath constitutes perjury, a criminal offense for which Rashid could be charged.
Learning Objectives
- Identify and outline various purposeful torts and their subsequent outcomes.
- Distinguish between various defenses available in tort law such as self-defense, privilege, and consent.