They may not have OWNED it but did they live there, rent there, or have some interest in the property? In the US ANYBODY can sue ANYONE for ANYTHING, however, I think your chances of winning such a suit are astronomical.
negligence intentional infliction of emotional distress defamation
4 years
Main intentional torts against people include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and trespass to land or chattels. Against property, the main intentional torts are trespass to land and chattels, conversion, and nuisance.
Intentional Torts- assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress Unintentional Torts-Negligence, malpractice, recklessness State of Mind is controlling...for more information contact us at http://www.eglaw.com
You may be referring to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Trespass to Chattels.
It's a little more than 6 but this is what my book has: Battery False Imprisonment Misappropriation of the Right to Publicity Invasion of the Right to Privacy Defamation of Character Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Malicious Prosecution
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
intentional infliction of emotional distress
Malicious intent refers to a mental state required to commit a crime, which is a matter of criminal law. The situation you are describing could maybe be considered the tortuous act intentional inflictions of emotional distress. Tortuous acts are civil law, so you couldn't have someone arrested for intentional infliction of emotional stress only try to sue them.
Most likely intentional infliction of emotional distress. And depending on what was said to the victim and heard by the public, possibly defamation.
My answer would be if the party is very clear to you that you're actions are indeed causing emotional damage and you do not stop. Then it is clear and intentional. It is one thing to say you want to end a relationship, it is another to demoralize, degrade and commit psychological murder, which I define as lying and denying what one is doing which is contrary to reality. It is called driving someone crazy. And pretty soon you don't know what is real and what isn't. Eventually, it will break one's mind down. Perhaps that is psychopathic. Have to research that.
Maybe. Obviously, this is a very complex question, because on the one hand you have a right to privacy, but on the other HIV is considered a matter of public health concern. If what they disclosed was true, then it isn't libel or slander. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might be intentional infliction of emotional distress. Not every jurisdiction recognizes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress though, and the requirement of mens rea, usually "malice aforethought," is quite high. It is also possible that there was a right to privacy violation, but because HIV could be considered a matter of public concern, it isn't clear that you would win a privacy violation case. For these reasons, it is impossible to give a definitive answer to your question. You ought to consider consulting a lawyer in your area who can give you better answers about how your state treats privacy violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress.