Torts Final Quiz Questions

A non-invasive cardiologist told a patient with heart blockage that he would need a diagnostic coronary angiogram (insertion of a contrast dye and a special x-ray), but she did not fully explain the risks of the procedure or alternatives to it. The patient signed a consent form to allow the angiogram. The angiogram was performed appropriately, with no adverse consequences, but showed such serious blockage that the non-invasive cardiologist determined that an angioplasty (a balloon procedure to open blocked arteries) would need to be performed. Without telling the patient of the need for angioplasty, the non-invasive cardiologist referred the patient to an invasive cardiologist who, also without telling the patient of the need for angioplasty, performed the angioplasty procedure the next day. The invasive cardiologist also did not get a consent form signed because he assumed that the non-invasive cardiologist had done so. During the angioplasty, the invasive cardiologist inadvertently dissected the patient's left main artery causing decreased cardiac output and the need for open heart surgery to repair the damage. The patient suffered permanent brain damage as a result of the artery dissection. In the lawsuit by the patient against both doctors, which of the following claims would a judge most likely submit to a jury? A. A lack of informed consent medical malpractice claim, possibly a medical malpractice claim, and a battery claim against the invasive cardiologist. B. A lack of informed consent medical malpractice claim against the non-invasive cardiologist and a battery claim against the invasive cardiologist. C. A lack of informed consent medical malpractice claim against both doctors. D. A lack of informed consent medical malpractice claim against both doctors and a battery claim against the invasive cardiologist.

A. A lack of informed consent medical malpractice claim, possibly a medical malpractice claim, and a battery claim against the invasive cardiologist.

Manufacturer makes the popular Orange Fizz soda. It manufactures the soda in a state-of-the-art facility. Even using the best available technology, one out of every one million cans of Orange Fizz will not seal as Manufacturer intends. These cans may explode, causing potential injury to the consumer of the soda. Consumer was unlucky enough to buy one of the poorly sealed cans of Orange Fizz. It explodes, cutting her hand and causing a serious tendon injury. Consumer sues Manufacturer in tort for product liability. What is Manufacturer's strongest argument for defeating the claim? A. Consumer has drunk Orange Fizz many times, always hoping she'll get an exploding can. B. The can exploding is a manufacturing defect, not a design defect. C. Manufacturer's facility is state-of-the-art. D. Cans produced by other manufacturers explode at a rate of 3 per every million, rather than 1 per every million.

A. Consumer has drunk Orange Fizz many times, always hoping she'll get an exploding can.

Manufacturer has manufactured an automobile with brakes that are prone to failing every third time a driver presses down on the pedal. Customer buys a car from a Manufacturer's dealer and drives it off the lot. The first time she uses her brakes, she stops at a red light. She stops completely and normally. Driver, driving a sports car, rams into Customer's car, destroying the car and inflicting serious personal injuries to Customer. If Customer sues Manufacturer under a strict tort liability theory, what result? A. Customer's case fails because the defect in the car was not an actual cause of her injuries. B. Customer's case succeeds because the car has a manufacturing defect. C. Customer's case succeeds because the car was defective. D. Customer's case fails because the car was destroyed. For strict tort liability, damage to the product itself cannot be the harm.

A. Customer's case fails because the defect in the car was not an actual cause of her injuries.

Passenger is on a flight in a small commuter jet with one pilot. During the flight, Pilot falls asleep in the cockpit, and the plane takes a nosedive. Passenger is very frightened. Fortunately, Pilot wakes up just before the plane crashes into the ground, and he is able to bring the plane to a safe landing. Passenger, however, still has nightmares about those few harrowing moments and anxiety attacks every time he has to take a flight. Passenger sues Pilot for negligence, and Pilot argues that he cannot be liable because Passenger suffered no physical injuries. How should the court rule? A. If the jurisdiction follows the zone of danger test, Pilot is liable. B. If the jurisdiction follows the zone of danger test, Pilot is not liable because Passenger was never actually in danger since Pilot brought the plane to a safe landing. C. If the jurisdiction follows the Dillon factors, Pilot is liable. D. If the jurisdiction follows the impact rule, Pilot is liable because Passenger was emotionally impacted by the experience.

A. If the jurisdiction follows the zone of danger test, Pilot is liable.

A construction company was building a country club for a group of wealthy investors. The project had been underway for eight months and involved considerable use of heavy equipment. For the past two months, during the long summer evenings, children from a nearby residential development had been slipping through a huge rip in the chain link fence surrounding the construction site to play on the heavy equipment. The oldest child, a 13-year old boy whose father owned a heavy equipment dealership, was able to start one of the bulldozers and drove it around the site on more than one occasion. The heavy equipment operators reported to management that the bulldozer was being operated by unauthorized people. The lone security guard had chased the children from the site on several evenings and had also reported their presence to his superiors. The company took no action. One evening, the boy started the bulldozer and was driving it around the construction site when he neared the pit dug in preparation for installation of the country club swimming pool. The boy saw that he was headed for the excavation and attempted to turn away, but the steering mechanism of the bulldozer failed, and the boy was unable to prevent it from toppling into the pit. The boy leaped clear and was uninjured, but his six-year old friend, who had been playing in the swimming pool excavation, was seriously injured when the bulldozer fell on him. If the friend's parents bring an action against the company to recover for his injuries, what result is likely? A. Judgment for the friend, if the company could have readily prevented use of the heavy equipment by unauthorized persons such as the boy. B. Judgment for the friend, since the company is strictly liable for any injuries caused by a dangerous artificial condition on its property. C. Judgment for the company, because the friend was a trespasser. D. Judgment for the company, because the boy's actions were an intervening, superseding force.

A. Judgment for the friend, if the company could have readily prevented use of the heavy equipment by unauthorized persons such as the boy.

Driver is driving on a mountain road late one winter night. The road is very icy, and through no fault of her own, Driver's car stalls at the bottom of a steep hill. Driver knows that any car coming down the hill will be unable to stop because of the icy conditions. She thinks about going to the top of the hill to warn other drivers of the danger, but does not. Motorcyclist, who is driving on the road, comes down the icy hill. Although he is driving carefully, he cannot avoid hitting Driver's car. Motorcyclist suffers personal injuries and sues Driver for negligence. Driver argues she cannot be liable for negligence because she does not owe a duty to Motorcyclist. Should the court accept Driver's argument? A. No, because Driver was engaged in risk creation. B. No, because Driver was negligent in failing to warn approaching drivers of the risk. C. Yes, because Motorcyclist was not a foreseeable plaintiff. C. Yes, because Driver's car stalled through no fault of her own.

A. No, because Driver was engaged in risk creation.

A man bought a barbecue grill from a local store. The store only sold barbecue grills and did not manufacture them. One week later, the man noticed that the hose that ran from the propane tank had worn thin and the grill did not heat up as quickly as it should. The man was annoyed at this development, but he had a backyard full of hungry guests and continued to cook. One hour after he first noticed the worn hose, the man began to smell propane. He continued to cook, because he had only one hamburger left on the grill. Just as the man was finishing, the hose burst, and propane began rushing out of the tank. The propane ignited, seriously burning him. Will the man prevail in a strict liability action against the store? A. No, because the man knew that the hose was worn. B. Yes, because the store employees may have improperly assembled the grill. C. No, because the man was contributorily negligent. D. Yes, if the defect in the hose could have been discovered by a reasonable inspection by the store.

A. No, because the man knew that the hose was worn.

A father took his teenage son to a department store to buy school clothing and a laptop computer for the new school year. The son had a psychiatric disorder which included paranoid delusions. While they were looking at a laptop computer, the son began to cry uncontrollably and scream that his father was trying to kill him. A store employee, a security guard, approached the father and told him to leave the son alone. The father explained to the employee he was the son's parent and his son had a medical condition. When the father attempted to prevent the son from leaving, the security guard grabbed the father's arm and knocked him to the ground. The father suffered bruises on his face and a broken wrist. The father filed a suit for battery naming both the employee and the store as defendants. The store has moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it cannot be held liable for its employee's conduct. Will the court grant the store's motion to dismiss? A. No, because the store could be liable if the employee was acting to further a purpose of the store. B. Yes, because the store cannot be held liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. C. No, because the store is liable for the negligence and intentional torts of any employee acting within the scope of his duties. D. Yes, because the store cannot be held liable for the intentional torts of its employee.

A. No, because the store could be liable if the employee was acting to further a purpose of the store.

Carl was driving along a state maintained highway when he had an accident. His car left the road and hit a tree. An expert has told Carl that the recent road work done by the state was negligently done. The work caused Carl to lose control of his car even though Carl was driving within the posted speed limit. If Carl sues the state, what is the likely result? A. The action may go forward. Although states enjoy a sovereign immunity, most have waived that immunity for negligent acts by the state. B. The action will be barred. Although most states have waived sovereign immunity, it remains for discretionary functions. Road work is a discretionary function. C. The action may go forward. Although states once enjoyed sovereign immunity, such immunity is currently viewed as unconstitiutional. D. The action will be barred since states enjoy sovereign immunity.

A. The action may go forward. Although states enjoy a sovereign immunity, most have waived that immunity for negligent acts by the state.

After numerous traffic accidents at a certain intersection, a city decided to install a traffic signal there. The number of traffic accidents decreased dramatically. Six months later a concerned citizen, who lived near the intersection, noticed that the traffic light had stopped working. He immediately reported the outage to the city. Three days later, a driver came to a stop and then carefully proceeded through the intersection. However, he was hit by another car driven by a grandfather, who had failed to notice the signal was not working. The driver sued the city. Which of the following is the driver's strongest argument? A. The city failed to exercise due care by letting at least three days pass without repairing the signal. B. A municipality is strictly liable for any injuries arising from its failure to properly control traffic flow. C. The driver was behaving reasonably when he entered the intersection since he stopped and then carefully proceeded. D. The combination of the city's failure to repair the signal and the grandfather's failure to notice the signal was out was the cause of the collision.

A. The city failed to exercise due care by letting at least three days pass without repairing the signal.

A police officer who was the first on the scene in responding to a fire call from the property owner was seriously burned as she tried to rescue the family's dog. A later inspection revealed that the fire was started by faulty electrical wiring. To avoid the building permit process and suspicion about his unlawful activities, the owner himself had installed a ventilation fan and growth lights that operated about 18 hours a day in a room that grew marijuana for illegal bulk sales. In a suit by the police officer against the owner for her burns in a jurisdiction recognizing the firefighter's rule, which of the following is the most accurate about the application of that rule? A. The firefighter's rule does not apply because the injury was caused by the willful or wanton activity of the property owner, so the police officer can sue the owner. B. Since the police officer was rescuing the dog, the rescue doctrine permits her to sue the owner despite the firefighter's rule. C. The firefighter's rule applies and prohibits the police officer from suing the property owner for her injuries because she was responding in her official capacity. D. The firefighter's rule does not apply because the plaintiff is a police officer and not a firefighter.

A. The firefighter's rule does not apply because the injury was caused by the willful or wanton activity of the property owner, so the police officer can sue the owner.

At a recent city council committee meeting, a city councilman stated on the record that, while he was on vacation in Hawali, he happened to see his old high school friend cheating on his wife with a younger woman. Actually, the councilman had not seen his friend while on vacation in Hawaii. The friend sues the councilman for defamation. Which of the following is most accurate? A. The friend is not likely to prevail, because the councilman's statement was privileged. B. The friend is not likely to prevail, because the only person who actually heard the statement was the councilman's ex-wife. C. The friend is likely to prevail, because the councilman's statement was false. D> The friend is likely to prevail, because the councilman's statement had nothing to do with the councilman's duties, nor any city matters.

A. The friend is not likely to prevail, because the councilman's statement was privileged.

A man was sitting in a plane of a commercial airline. A fellow passenger who was sitting next to him had asked for and been served nine alcoholic drinks by the flight attendant within the first two hours of their cross-country flight. As the fellow passenger became progressively more intoxicated, he became more forceful in his attempts to engage the man in conversation about the fellow passenger's problems with his ex-wife. The man could have moved to another seat as the plane was not full, but this would have necessitated packing up his books, so the man merely attempted to ignore the fellow passenger's remarks and focus on his own efforts to prepare for the business meeting awaiting him at the end of the flight. Finally, the fellow passenger became angry at this overly polite effort to ignore him and bashed the man with his briefcase. If the man sues the airline, what will be the most likely result? A. The man will prevail if the flight attendant should have noted that the fellow passenger was becoming intoxicated. B. The man will prevail if the fellow passenger intended to strike him. C.The man will not prevail because the fellow passenger was not an agent of the airline. D. The man will not prevail because he assumed the risk.

A. The man will prevail if the flight attendant should have noted that the fellow passenger was becoming intoxicated.

A woman went shopping for a birthday present for her husband at the local mall. The mall has a lighted parking area, but there is no security staff that patrols the parking lot. The mall is located in an area with a high crime rate. As the woman was getting into her car, a criminal grabbed her purse and placed a gun to her head. The criminal threatened to shoot her if she did not give him her shopping bags. She resisted, and he hit her with the gun and fled with her purse and the presents she bought for her husband. In a negligence suit for damages agains the mall, will the woman likely prevail? A. Yes, because it was foreseeable that in a high crime area criminals could pose a danger to customers going to their vehicles in the parking lot. B. No, because the store satisfied its duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of invitees by having a lighted parking lot. C. No, because the negligence of the store was not the proximate cause of the woman's injuries. D. Yes, because the mall would be strictly liable because of its knowledge of crime in the area.

A. Yes, because it was foreseeable that in a high crime area criminals could pose a danger to customers going to their vehicles in the parking lot.

A nurse employed at a nursing home developed a practice of rifling through the belongings of new nursing home residents, stealing anything of value. Her employer, the nursing home owner, was aware of this, but did not fire her because she was an otherwise excellent nurse. One evening, the nurse was caught in the act by one of her victims, an elderly woman. In order to escape with the items she had taken from the woman's room, the nurse pushed her out of her way, causing her to fall and break her hip. The woman sued the nursing home owner for damages. Is the owner liable for the woman's damages? A. Yes, because the owner was aware that the nurse had stolen items on prior occasions. B. Yes, because, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the owner is responsible for all actions of her employee C. No, because the nurse was not acting within the scope of her employment. D. No, because an employer is not liable for intentional torts committed by an employee.

A. Yes, because the owner was aware that the nurse had stolen items on prior occasions.

A truck driver worked a 40-hour week driving a semi-truck that transported crushed automobiles. During the month of November, he noticed a flyer advertising moonlighting positions available in the area on the bulletin board in the break room at work. The truck driver's employer allowed such flyers to be posted as a courtesy to those employees who might need to earn extra money for the holidays. The driver called the number on the flyer and was hired by a farmer as an independent contractor. The truck driver was to collect Christmas trees from the farm and deliver them to several outlets that sold cut trees. After a few weeks of moonlighting, the truck driver was exhausted from driving 14 to 18 hours every day. While delivering trees, he missed a turn and slammed on his brakes. The sudden stop caused some of the trees to fall from the truck, and one of the trees knocked a pedestrian down and hit her in the head, severely injuring her. If the pedestrian sues the truck driver's employer and the farmer, the pedestrian is entitled to recover from A. neither the truck driver's employer nor the farmer. B. the farmer only. C. the truck driver's employer only. D. both the truck driver's employer and the farmer.

A. neither the truck driver's employer nor the farmer.

Law school buddies Adam and Eve scaled a construction fence intending to play a prank by spray-painting one of the construction vehicles. While on the construction site, Adam fell and hit the ground hard, knocking himself out. Seeing this, Eve ran away because she didn't want to be caught. She did not report the accident, and Adam was not discovered until the next morning, when a construction worker found him on the ground. By that time, Adam had suffered additional injury from exposure. Adam has sued Eve for negligence, claiming that she should have assisted him. Which of the following constitutes Adam's strongest argument for liability? A. Since Eve did not undertake to help Adam once he fell, she has no duty to assist him. B. Eve is in a special relationship with Adam as a result of their joint venture, which imposes on her an obligation to act reasonably to assist him. C. Eve's going to the scene with Adam was an act of misfeasance for which she should be held liable. D. Because the harm to Adam was the proximate result of Eve's failure to assist him, she is liable to him.

B. Eve is in a special relationship with Adam as a result of their joint venture, which imposes on her an obligation to act reasonably to assist him.

Homeowner's neighbor, Neighbor, agrees to make daily visits to Homeowner's house to care for Homeowner's cat and dog while he is out of town for the month. Neighbor forgets to do so. Not being properly cared for, the dog and cat destroy parts of Homeowner's home; they soon die of starvation and thirst. Upon his return, Homeowner is horrified and sues Neighbor for negligently failing to visit Homeowner's home. May Neighbor be held liable in negligence? A. Neighbor cannot be held liable in negligence because he did not create a risk of physical or emotional harm to Homeowner. B. Neighbor may be held liable for his negligent failure to visit Homeowner's home and attend to his pets because Homeowner reasonably relied on Neighbor to exercise reasonable care to take care of his pets and that reliance was foreseeable to Neighbor. C. Neighbor cannot be held liable in negligence for his failure to act absent a special relationship between Homeowner and Neighbor. D. Neighbor may not be held liable in negligence for his failure to visit Homeowner's home and attend to his pets because Neighbor cannot be held liable in negligence for his failure to act under these circumstances.

B. Neighbor may be held liable for his negligent failure to visit Homeowner's home and attend to his pets because Homeowner reasonably relied on Neighbor to exercise reasonable care to take care of his pets and that reliance was foreseeable to Neighbor.

A homeowner was very proud of his yard and worked hard to keep it in top condition. When he heard that his neighbor was offering to sell a "barely used" riding lawn mower at about half the original retail price, the homeowner bought the mower from his neighbor. Although the mower was in good condition, it had a design defect that would cause it to topple over if the steering wheel was turned too sharply while the machine was in motion. There was no reason the neighbor who sold the mower to the homeowner would have or should have known about this defect. One day, as the homeowner was using the riding mower to cut the grass in front of his house, a group of high school students came skateboarding down the sidewalk bordering the homeowner's front lawn. One of the students had been drinking beer and was very intoxicated. Just as the group passed near where the homeowner was mowing, the intoxicated student lost his balance and tumbled onto the homeowner's lawn directly in the path of the mower. The homeowner swerved the mower to the left to avoid hitting the fallen student, but that caused the mower to tip over, dumping the homeowner off the mower and giving him a serious neck injury. Will the homeowner be able to recover for his neck injury in a lawsuit against the neighbor from whom he purchased the mower? A. Yes, because the neighbor sold the homeowner a defective product. B. No, because the neighbor did not know or have reason to know about the defect. C. No, because the student's drunken behavior caused the accident and the homeowner's injury. D. Yes, because the neighbor failed to warn the homeowner about the defect.

B. No, because the neighbor did not know or have reason to know about the defect.

A property owner owns a vacant warehouse on the edge of downtown that is being renovated. The building had construction equipment, damaged floors with large holes, exposed beams, exposed wiring, and construction debris littered throughout the structure. For over a month, a group of homeless men would routinely enter the building late at night to sleep and eat. The owner periodically checked on his property, and noted the accumulation of trash and food scraps. Recently, one of the homeless men fell through a hole in the top floor and severely injured himself. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the property owner, ruling that he did not owe any duty to the homeless man. The homeless man has filed an appeal. Should the appellate court affirm the trial court's ruling? A. Yes, because the homeless man was a licensee. B. No, because the property owner owed a duty of care to protect the homeless man. C. Yes, because the homeless man was a trespasser. D. No, because the homeless man acted out of necessity.

B. No, because the property owner owed a duty of care to protect the homeless man.

Driver was driving his car near Owner's house when Owner's child darted into the street in front of Driver's car. As Driver swerved and braked his car to avoid hitting the child, the car skidded up into Owner's driveway and stopped just short of Owner, who was standing in the driveway and had witnessed the entire incident. Owner suffered serious emotional distress from witnessing the danger to his child and to himself. Neither Owner nor his property was physically harmed. If Owner asserts a claim for damages against Driver, will Owner prevail? A. No, unless Driver's child was exercising reasonable care. B. No, unless Driver was negligent. C. Yes, because Owner suffered serious emotional distress by witnessing the danger to his child and to himself. D. Yes, because Driver's entry onto Owner's land was unauthorized.

B. No, unless Driver was negligent.

Peter, his wife Pauline, and their son Padua drove together to the Sparkle Car, a car wash. Sparkle Car was a drive-through car wash, and customers were permitted to remain in the car while it rolled through the washing and drying areas. Peter and Padua remained in the car, while Pauline got out, intending to watch the car through thick windows along the way. When the car was part way through, one of Sparkle Car's employees negligently handled a piece of equipment, causing it to crash through the passenger-side window and impale Padua. Peter was looking the other way when this happened, but Pauline saw the whole thing and immediately fainted from emotional distress. Peter also became extremely upset when he noticed what had happened a few moments later. Assume that when the piece of equipment broke the car window, flying glass also injured Peter, who was sitting in the driver's seat. If Peter wishes to sue Sparkle Car, and seeks to recover for his emotional distress at his son's horrible injury, which of the following statements is correct? A. Peter will recover for his bodily injury, but will not recover for emotional distress if that kind of harm was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of improperly handling the equipment. B. Peter will recover both for his bodily injury and for the emotional distress he suffered on observing his son's injuries. C. Peter will not recover any damages because he did not witness the injury occurring to Padua. D. Peter will recover for his bodily injury, but whether he will recover his emotional distress damages depends on the test used in that jurisdiction for the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

B. Peter will recover both for his bodily injury and for the emotional distress he suffered on observing his son's injuries.

Alex states that Roger was involved in a real estate scam that swindled hundreds of investors out of millions of dollars. Roger sues Alex for defamation. Which of the following, if true, would strengthen Roger's defamation action against Alex? A. Alex holds the public office to which Roger is seeking to be elected the following term. B. Roger is a retired bus driver who has never been involved in any real estate transactions. C. Prior to Alex's statement, Roger had publicly announced in a television interview that he was not involved in the real estate scam. D. Roger is running for public office, and such a statement has a real possibility of injuring Roger.

B. Roger is a retired bus driver who has never been involved in any real estate transactions. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. If Roger has never been involved in any real estate transactions, then Alex's statement could not be true. A showing that Alex's statement is not true is essential to the success of Roger's action.

In which of the scenarios below can Father most likely recover for his emotional distress? A. Son, a 4-year old child, is hit by a car. Father is the emergency room doctor who is on call at the hospital when Son is brought to the ER. When Father sees Son injured and bloodied on the stretcher, he goes into severe shock. B. Son, a 4-year old child, is hit by a car. At the time of the accident, Father and Son are walking across the street together. Only Son is hit by the car, but Father goes into severe shock upon witnessing the accident. C. Son, a 4-year old child, is hit by a car. At the time of the accident, Father is in a drugstore buying a newspaper. He did not see the accident, but goes into severe shock upon learning of the accident. D. Son, a 4-year old child, is hit by a car. At the time of the accident, Father is in a drugstore buying a newspaper. While in the drugstore, he looks up in time to see the accident happen out the window. Although he doesn't realize it's his son who was hit, he goes into severe shock upon later learning it was his son.

B. Son, a 4-year old child, is hit by a car. At the time of the accident, Father and Son are walking across the street together. Only Son is hit by the car, but Father goes into severe shock upon witnessing the accident.

Fred and Anna were married. They had been married for three years. For their anniversary, they went out to dinner. Fred had too much to drink, but drove them home anyway. Fred ran off the road, wrecked the care and injured Anna who was riding in the passenger seat. Anna sued Fred for her injuries. The insurance company that covered Fred, Anna and the care claimed spousal immunity. What is the likely outcome of that defense? A. The action will be barred since there is spousal immunity that prohibits actions among members of the family. B. The action will probably be allowed to go forward. Although there was once a family immunity that prohibited actions among any family member, those immunities are generally abolished. C. The action will probably be allowed to go forward since driving while intoxicated is a special exception to spousal immunity. D. The action will be barred due to fear that the law has that there will be fraud and collusion claims.

B. The action will probably be allowed to go forward. Although there was once a family immunity that prohibited actions among any family member, those immunities are generally abolished.

A man drives 200 miles to New City for a business trip. Rather than drive straight to his meeting, the man drives five miles out of his way to get a slice of his favorite cheesecake to go from the New City Diner. He walks into the diner and puts down his suitcase. Unfortunately, the suitcase falls over and breaks another customer's toes. The customer sues the man for negligence and the man's employer for vicarious liability. The man's employer concedes that the man was negligent, but argues it is not vicariously liable because the man was not acting in the scope of his employment at the time. How should the court rule on the employer's argument? A. The court should accept this argument because the man engaged in an intentional tort, which is never deemed to be committed in the scope of one's employment. B. The court should reject the argument because this was a minor deviation from the man's travel in service to his employer. C. The court should accept the argument because the man was going to work. D. The court should reject the argument because the man is clearly important, and thus likely a salaried employee.

B. The court should reject the argument because this was a minor deviation from the man's travel in service to his employer.

A homeowner had a swimming pool installed in his back yard. He often invited neighbors to use the pool on particularly hot days. On one such day one of his neighbors swam to the side of the pool. He placed his hand on the pool light and received a severe shock, causing him to suffer paralysis in his arm which lasted several weeks. The homeowner had recently installed the pool light into the pool when the original pool light had ceased to work. The homeowner had gone to a pool supply store looking for a replacement light and had bought the wrong model. The model pool light the homeowner purchased was manufactured by a light company and was not designed for use in a pool of the size of the one owned by the homeowner. The homeowner had negligently failed to notice that fact in the literature that came with the pool light. The shock to the neighbor was caused by a defect in the wires in the pool light. The light company had bought the wires from a wire company. If the neighbor brings an action for negligence against the light company, which of the following is the light company's strongest defense? A. The neighbor assumed the risk of the shock by swimming in the pool. B. The defective wires were incorporated into the pool light despite the exercise of reasonable care by the light company. C. The homeowner's negligence was the proximate cause of the neighbor's injuries. D. The wire company's negligence was an independent, intervening force which supersedes the light company's liability.

B. The defective wires were incorporated into the pool light despite the exercise of reasonable care by the light company.

A trial court heard the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of a duty, in each of four separate negligence cases. In the first case, a police officer failed to show up to monitor a crosswalk at an elementary school after having monitored the crosswalk for two weeks, resulting in a child being struck by a car while crossing the street to the school. In the second case, a football-player defendant failed to shout a warning to a referee whom the player disliked, about a grounds truck backing toward the referee. In the third case, a high school failed to prevent one student from bullying another student in between classes. In the fourth case, a nightclub owner escorting a drunken patron allowed her to stagger and fall over a balcony. In which one of these cases would the court be most likely to grant the motion because no duty of care exists? A. The nightclub case. B. The football-player case. C. The high school case. D. The police officer case.

B. The football-player case.

The owner of a car purchased four new tires for the car from a local tire shop. It is widely known that drivers sometimes exceed posted speed limits, and therefore tires are designed to perform at speeds higher than the maximum speed allowable in most states. The owner of the car was a safe and careful driver who never exceeded the speed limit. A week after the new tires were installed on the car, the owner of the car let a friend borrow the car for a trip. During the trip, the friend often drove the car as much as 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. At one point near the end of his trip, the friend was driving 73 miles per hour on smooth highway pavement. The speed limit at that location was 65 miles per hour. Suddenly the left front tire blew out for no apparent reason. The car went out of control, ran off the road, and the friend was severely injured. If the friend brings a strict tort liability claim against the tire manufacturer, what is the most likely result? A. The friend will recover, because the tire blew out for no apparent reason. B. The friend will recover, if the tire was defective when it left the manufacturer's factory C. The manufacturer will not be liable, if the friend acted negligently by exceeding the speed limit. D. The manufacturer will not be liable, because the friend did not purchase the car or the tires on it.

B. The friend will recover, if the tire was defective when it left the manufacturer's factory

A man took his 15-year old daughter and her two friends to a rock concert. The man allowed the three girls to sit alone in their seats, while he stood in the back near the exit. While the girls were enjoying the concert, three older boys sitting nearby asked if the girls wanted some beer. The girls said yes, so the boys bought each of the girls roughly 5 16-ounce beers throughout the remainder of the concert. When the man met up with the girls after the concert, he could tell they had been drinking, but they were all still able to walk and talk. However, in the car on the way home from the concert, one of the friends started vomiting and choking on her vomit. The man was terrified the girl might die "on his watch" so he pulled the car over, called 911, then called the friend's parents to tell them what was happening. The ambulance took the friend to the hospital and pumped her stomach. She was ultimately fine, but felt awful for the next week. The man had followed the ambulance to the hospital, and for the entire drive to the hospital, as well as during the time he and his daughter and the other friend waited for the friend to be treated, the man was distraught; he was terrified something might happen to the friend and that he would be blamed. After the incident, the man had nightmares and suffered weight loss due to his anxiety. If the man bring a claim against the older boys for his emotional distress, what result? A. The man will be able to recover. B. The man will not be able to recover. C. The man will not be able to recover because he was negligent in allowing the girls to sit by themselves. D. The man will be able to recover because he was impacted by what happened to his daughter's friend.

B. The man will not be able to recover.

A bicycle manufacturer has been making the best bicycles around for three generations. The grandson of the founder takes great pride in the quality of the company's bicycles and personally supervises the assembly line eight hours a day to ensure quality and maintain his reputation in the industry. Despite careful inspections, the grandson is unaware that the bicycle seats he uses from a components company have been problematic. The seats fall off the bike when anyone over 150 pounds sits on them. The manufacturer sells its bicycles through a retailer. A man, who weighs 175 pounds, buys a bike assembled by the manufacturer from his local bike store. The man takes the bike out for a spin, and as he makes his first turn onto a busy street, the seat falls off. The man falls in front of oncoming traffic and is severely injured. The man sues the store and the manufacturer. Which of the following is the most likely outcome of the suit? A. The man will not prevail against the store, but he should prevail against the manufacturer, because they manufactured the bicycle. B. The man will prevail against both the store and the manufacturer, regardless of whether the manufacturer broke the seat or the seat came that way from the components company. C. The man will not prevail against the manufacturer, because the manufacturer exercised due care and the faulty bike seat was the fault of the components company. D. The man cannot recover against the store, because the store only sold the bicycle.

B. The man will prevail against both the store and the manufacturer, regardless of whether the manufacturer broke the seat or the seat came that way from the components company.

A potter and his best friend, a journalist, are attending a birthday party for a fisherman. Toward the end of the evening, after everyone has had a number of drinks, the fisherman concludes his birthday speech by announcing that the journalist is infected with HIV. The potter sues the fisherman for defamation. Which of the following statements is most accurate? A. The potter is likely to prevail if the fisherman added that the potter and the journalist bowl together every Tuesday. B. The potter is more likely to prevail if the fisherman added that the journalist and the potter have had sexual relations. C. The potter is likely to prevail, because he was embarrassed by the statement about the journalist.

B. The potter is more likely to prevail if the fisherman added that the journalist and the potter have had sexual relations.

At a conference concerning the criminal justice system in a populous state, a prominent criminal defense lawyer who has practiced in most of the district courts of the state, made a statement that the district judges of the state can all be bribed and that money can buy a defendant an acquittal. A district court judge who has never presided over a matter in which the lawyer participated, has sued the lawyer for slander. Which of the following would be the lawyer's best defense? A. The lawyer could not have been referring to the judge when he made the statement, because the lawyer had never practiced before the judge. B. There are 250 district court judges sitting in the courts of the state. C. The only persons at the conference were sitting district court judges of the state. D. The judge could not prove any special damages.

B. There are 250 district court judges sitting in the courts of the state.

A person purchased a new bicycle at a local bike shop. The bicycle was manufactured by one of the nation's leading bike manufacturers. Soon after, the person was riding the bicycle on a path. The bicycle's brakes failed and the bicycle crashed into a pedestrian. The brakes failed because one of the parts in the braking mechanism was manufactured improperly and therefore did not function as it was intended. If the pedestrian sues the bike shop, will the pedestrian prevail? A. Yes, if the defect would have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable care by the bike shop. B. Yes, because the bike shop sold a dangerously defective product. C. No, because the bike manufacturer would be responsible for the manufacturing defect. D. No, because the pedestrian was not the purchaser or user of the bicycle.

B. Yes, because the bike shop sold a dangerously defective product.

A homeowner was very upset to learn that the old empty schoolhouse across the street was going to be renovated int a care house for unwed teenage mothers. The homeowner, a strict believer in abstinence until marriage, was repulsed by the thought of living across the street from unwed mothers, and went around the neighborhood with a petition to halt the renovations. To his dismay, not only were most of his neighbors not bothered by the prospect of the care house, but many of them thought it was a good idea. Nonetheless, the homeowner protested to the city council, arguing that the building should be once again used as a school. Despite his protests, the city council allowed the care house to proceed with renovations as planned. One warm afternoon, as the homeowner was sitting on his porch reading the newspaper, he noticed three young and noticeably pregnant women moving into the building. They were all 6-8 months pregnant and had come to the care house to have their babies in a supportive environment. The homeowner, outraged by his new neighbors, started standing on the sidewalk outside their house with a camera, daring the young women to show themselves in public and trying to photograph them. The young women sued the homeowner for invasion of privacy. Will the young women prevail in their action? A. No, because the homeowner's actions did not place them in a false light. B. Yes, because the homeowner intruded on the young women's seclusion.

B. Yes, because the homeowner intruded on the young women's seclusion.

A patient had surgery to repair an injured tendon in her shoulder. Three doctors were involved in performing the surgery. The patient was anesthetized and unconscious throughout the surgery. In the recovery room after the surgery, the patient discovered that she had a burn on one of her legs. The burn was not there prior to the surgery. The patient brought a medical malpractice action against each of the three doctors involved in the surgery. The patient argues that res ipsa loquitur should apply, and the doctors dispute this. Can res ipsa loquitur apply to the patient's claims against the doctors? A. Yes, because it is likely that each of the three doctors failed to exercise reasonable care in some respect. B. Yes, because the operating room and all the instrumentalities in it that could have caused the injury were under the joint control of the three doctors. C. No, because res ipsa loquitur cannot be used in medical malpractice cases. D. No, because even if one of the doctors must have done something negligent, the patient cannot prove which doctor was the negligent one.

B. Yes, because the operating room and all the instrumentalities in it that could have caused the injury were under the joint control of the three doctors.

An unknown person knocks down a few hundred jars of baby food in the FineFoods supermarket. Many of the jars shatter, making a big, slippery mess on the floor. The supermarket manager orders all available stock personnel to clean the mess, but does not set up orange cones to alert customers of the mess. A customer, who is not paying attention while shopping in the supermarket, slips in the mess and breaks his arm. He sues the supermarket manager for negligence and sues FineFoods as well, claiming FineFoods is vicariously liable based upon the manager's negligence Is FineFoods vicariously liable for the customer's damages? A. No, if the facts indicated that FineFoods would be directly liable for negligently hiring the supermarket manager. B. Yes, because the supermarket manager's negligence was committed in the scope of her employment. C. No, because the customer was also at fault. D. Yes, because FineFoods's stock personnel did not clean up the mess before the customer slipped in it.

B. Yes, because the supermarket manager's negligence was committed in the scope of her employment.

One afternoon a homeowner was walking in his backyard when he noticed a branch from a tree growing on his property was hanging over his back fence and over the sidewalk that ran along the street. The homeowner thought the branch looked weak and about to break. He contacted a tree maintenance service to have them remove the branch. The maintenance company employee assigned to the job climbed into the tree and started to remove the branch. The employee negligently failed to properly remove the branch and it fell onto the sidewalk, injuring a woman who was walking by at the time. In the woman's suit against the homeowner, the theory on which she is most likely to prevail is that the homeowner is A. liable on the basis of respondeat superior. B. liable for the maintenance company's negligence. C. strictly liable, because the tree was on his property. D. liable, because he assumed responsibility when he hired the maintenance to remove the branch.

B. liable for the maintenance company's negligence.

Peter, his wife Pauline, and their son Padua drove together to the Sparkle Car, a car wash. Sparkle Car was a drive-through car wash, and customers were permitted to remain in the car while it rolled through the washing and drying areas. Peter and Padua remained in the car, while Pauline got out, intending to watch the car through thick windows along the way. When the car was part way through, one of Sparkle Car's employees negligently handled a piece of equipment, causing it to crash through the passenger-side window and impale Padua. Peter was looking the other way when this happened, but Pauline saw the whole thing and immediately fainted from emotional distress. Peter also became extremely upset when he noticed what had happened a few moments later. If Pauline brings an action against Sparkle Car for negligent infliction of emotional distress, which of the following statements is correct? A. Regardless of the test used, Pauline will prevail. B. Regardless of the test used, Pauline's case will fail because Pauline was not in the zone of danger caused by the employee's negligence. C. If the court applies the "zone of danger" test, Pauline's case will fail. D. If the court applies the "impact" rule, Pauline will prevail

C. If the court applies the "zone of danger" test, Pauline's case will fail.

An oil company owned a crude oil storage facility consisting of several 10,000-gallon tanks surrounded by a chain-link fence, separating it from the rapidly expanding residential neighborhood around the facility. Six weeks ago the facility closed, and since then the chain-link fence has been cut open every weekend. After each incident the district manager inspected the damage and arranged to have it repaired within a few days. After the fourth incident of vandalism, the district manager found a child's jacket and lunchbox on the spiral staircase, which provided access to the lip of one of the storage tanks. Last Saturday, the manager received a report that the fence had been cut again; on Wednesday morning an eight-year-old child was found unconscious in the bottom of one of the empty tanks. The child's parents had reported her missing Tuesday afternoon when she failed to return home after school. The child suffered permanent brain damage as a result of the fall. If the child's parents sue the oil company for negligence, what will be the likely result of the litigation? A. Judgment for the plaintiff, because the child was an unknown trespasser. B. Judgment for the defendant, because the injury would not have occurred but for the plaintiff's intentionally tortious act of vandalism. C. Judgment for the plaintiff, because the child did not appreciate the dangers of climbing on the storage tank. D. Judgment for the defendant, because the plaintiff was a known trespasser.

C. Judgment for the plaintiff, because the child did not appreciate the dangers of climbing on the storage tank.

A patient went to a doctor because the patient often felt sick after eating. The doctor diagnosed the patient as suffering from inflammation in parts of the patient's digestive system. The doctor prescribed a brand-name prescription drug to treat the inflammation. The patient took the drug as prescribed. The drug helped to reduce the patient's problems with digestion, but the drug had adverse side effects including impairment of the patient's vision and hearing. The patient sued the manufacturer of the drug, claiming that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn the patient about the risk of the adverse side effects. The evidence at trial established that the manufacturer provided clear and complete warnings to the patient's doctor about the risks of the adverse side effects, but the manufacturer did not make any attempt to directly warn any patients about the risk of the adverse side effects. Will the patient be able to prevail in his lawsuit against the drug manufacturer? A. Yes, because a manufacturer will be held strictly liable for failing to provide adequate warnings about a potentially hazardous product. B. Yes, because a reasonable manufacturer would provide warnings directly to patients rather than merely providing warnings to doctors. C. No, because the manufacturer provided adequate warnings to the doctor and it was then the doctor's responsibility to warn the patient. D. No, because prescription drugs are regulated by the federal government and so manufacturers have no obligation to give warnings beyond those mandated by federal law.

C. No, because the manufacturer provided adequate warnings to the doctor and it was then the doctor's responsibility to warn the patient.

he plaintiff was drinking at a bar with his friend. The friend saw another patron with whom he had a longstanding rivalry. Several weeks previously, the tavern owner had told the bartender to keep an eye on the other patron, who had been yelling at another person. The bartender had ejected this patron several weeks ago. The patron had been at the tavern a couple of times since then without incident. On the night in question, the patron started making snide comments to the plaintiff's friend. The bartender was at the other end of the bar when the verbal exchange occurred. The friend and the patron took their heated discussion outside to the front yard of the bar and began to fight. The plaintiff was injured when he interceded on behalf of his friend. The plaintiff sued the tavern owner and the bartender, saying that they had failed to provide a reasonably safe place to drink. In the previous year, there had been five police reports concerning the tavern, and two of them had involved violence (although none had involved the patron, the plaintiff, or his friend). Should the court submit the plaintiff's negligence claim to a jury? A. Yes. When people who are drinking in a tavern are injured in bar fights with a known dangerous person, it should be a question of fact for the jury to consider whether the tavern should have done more to protect them. B. Yes. The tavern owner and bartender knew about the patron's violent nature and had previously monitored his behavior, so they had assumed a duty to control a dangerous person and the plaintiff was in a class of reasonably identifiable victims. C. No. Since the tavern had only experienced two incidents of actual violence, and neither involved the patron, and the bartender had no knowledge of the heated discussion, the bartender did not have or breach any duty to the plaintiff. D. No. When the plaintiff went outside the bar and entered into the fight, he became a licensee rather than an invitee, and the tavern owner and bartender only owed him the duty to not willfully or wantonly injure him.

C. No. Since the tavern had only experienced two incidents of actual violence, and neither involved the patron, and the bartender had no knowledge of the heated discussion, the bartender did not have or breach any duty to the plaintiff.

A middle-aged neighbor asked a landowner if she could come over to his back yard to view his banana trees. He told her that she could, but said to look at the trees from in front of a row of buckets that he used to pen in his geese and the trees. A sign was stapled to the bucket, "Beware - Attack Geese." The neighbor saw the geese huddled in the far corner of the enclosure and decided to step over a bucket briefly to get a closer look at the trees. A goose suddenly flew at her, squawking, and as she clambered back over the buckets, she fell and broke her arm. In a suit by the neighbor against the landowner, in a jurisdiction that retains the traditional landowner liability categories, which of the following landowner rules most likely would be used to decide the case? A. Since the neighbor was a social guest, she would be considered a licensee, and the owner owes her an obligation to warn if he knows of a dangerous condition that the licensee might encounter. B. Since the neighbor had an invitation to go on the landowner's property, the landowner owed her a duty to warn her of any known dangers and to make the premises safe for her visit. C. Since the neighbor stepped over the buckets, the landowner owed her only the duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. D. Since the neighbor was attracted to the banana trees, they constitute an attractive nuisance, compelling the owner to exercise reasonable care to protect the neighbor from an unreasonable risk of harm from the geese.

C. Since the neighbor stepped over the buckets, the landowner owed her only the duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.

A twelve year-old took a walk to a nearby neighborhood and was drawn to a waterfall located in the back expanse of woods on a neighbor's property. The neighbor had cut some trees to create a trail up to the waterfall for his family. The child decided instead to climb up on the rocks at the sides of the waterfall. The rocks were slippery from the waterfall spray and the child thought that climbing slippery rocks would be more challenging and more fun. She slipped and fell, suffering serious injuries. In a suit by the child against the neighbor, which of the following is most accurate as to the application of the attractive-nuisance doctrine recognized in the jurisdiction? A. The attractive nuisance doctrine creates a duty on the part of the neighbor to take some action, such as posting warnings or erecting safety barriers, to protect trespassing children. B. The attractive nuisance doctrine creates a duty on the part of the neighbor to assume responsibility about warning for hidden dangers, such as slippery rocks. C. The attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply because the neighbor did not maintain a dangerous artificial condition that injured the child. D. The attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply because the waterfall can be considered a common hazard.

C. The attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply because the neighbor did not maintain a dangerous artificial condition that injured the child.

A pregnant woman was involved in a minor fall at a movie theater. She went to the hospital emergency room for an examination to make sure there was no problem with her fetus. She was taken into a room to be examined by an ultrasound technician employed by the hospital. The technician appropriately took ultrasound pictures by placing gel and a probe on the woman's abdomen. After the technician determined that there was no damage to the fetus, he asked the woman if she would like to know the gender of her fetus. When she said yes, the technician purported to examine her, but instead sexually molested her. The woman later realized she had been sexually molested, and the technician was prosecuted for criminal assault and sexual battery. The woman sued the technician and the hospital, arguing that the hospital is vicariously liable for the technician's torts. The hospital did not dispute that the technician committed the torts, but argued that it should not be vicariously liable for those torts. How should the court rule on this argument? A. The court should reject the argument because the woman was injured at the hospital. B. The court should accept the argument because the man was criminally prosecuted for his conduct. C. The court should accept the argument since the man's torts were not motivated by his employment. D. The court should reject the argument because the technician's job allowed him access to sexually molest the woman.

C. The court should accept the argument since the man's torts were not motivated by his employment.

A seventy-eight year-old father and his forty year-old son were emotionally close and lived together and shared a motorcycle. The son helped take care of his father. The son was riding the motorcycle when a driver negligently turned in front of him, causing the son to hit the car and suffer fatal injuries. Thirty minutes later, the father was watching television and the news reported a fatal accident at a nearby intersection. Although the news program showed no pictures, the father had a bad feeling and went to the intersection. When he arrived, from a distance of about thirty feet, he saw his son's motorcycle next to a sheet-covered body on a stretcher. A police officer led him to a nearby restaurant to talk, and the officer confirmed the body was his son's. When the father left the restaurant to go home, the scene had been cleared. Since the accident the father has suffered severe depression, for which he has seen a psychiatrist who has prescribed anti-depressants. In a suit by the father against the car driver, which of the following is the most likely outcome for the father's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim? A. The father cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress because his distress does not result from a physical injury caused by an impact on him from the car. B. The father can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress because he was within the zone of emotional danger since he lived with his son, his son was a caretaker, and they shared the motorcycle, so it could have been the father riding instead of the son. C. The father cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress because he was not within the zone of danger of the accident and did not have contemporaneous awareness of it or involvement on the scene. D. The father can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress because he is directly emotionally impacted by the loss of his son.

C. The father cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress because he was not within the zone of danger of the accident and did not have contemporaneous awareness of it or involvement on the scene.

A group of young men were playing basketball on a public court that backed up to a homeowner's house. One of the young men thought his keys might have come out of his pocket and fallen on the homeowner's property. He obtained the homeowner's permission to look in her back yard for his keys. While he was looking for the keys in some bushes, he stepped on a jagged piece of glass hidden in the bushes, probably from a bottle someone on the court had thrown into the bushes. Under the traditional rules governing liability of landowners, if the young man sues the homeowner for these injuries, is the homeowner liable? A. The homeowner is liable because she invited the young man to enter her land. B. The homeowner is liable if she failed to reasonably inspect the property and as a result was unaware of the jagged glass. C. The homeowner is not liable unless she knew of the jagged glass and failed to warn the young man about the danger. D. The homeowner is not liable because the keys were not a defect or dangerous condition on her property.

C. The homeowner is not liable unless she knew of the jagged glass and failed to warn the young man about the danger.

A police officer arrests a suspect for shoplifting. The suspect testifies during the trial, which is being attended by several members of the public. On the witness stand, he blurts out that the officer likes to walk around the shopping malls on weekends dressed up in women's clothing. The officer sues the man suspect for defamation Which of the following is the most accurate? A. The officer should prevail even if the statement is true. B. The officer should prevail even if he was disguised as a woman when he arrested the suspect. C. The officer should prevail unless he was disguised as a woman when he arrested the suspect, or the suspect's statement is true.

C. The officer should prevail unless he was disguised as a woman when he arrested the suspect, or the suspect's statement is true.

A parolee who had served seven years for committing a convenience store robbery was released early. His parole officer incorrectly calculated his risk assessment by failing to include two juvenile burglary convictions in the calculation of his risk score. This assessment meant that she miscalculated his need for supervision, and he had not been seen by his parole officer for ten months when he murdered his domestic partner. In a lawsuit by the estate of the domestic partner against the parole officer, ignoring issues of state immunity, which of the following is most accurate about the parole officer's duty? A. The parole officer did not owe a duty of care to the parolee's domestic partner because the parolee was the one who committed the murder. B. The parole officer would not owe a duty of care to any released parolee's victims, including the victim domestic partner of this parolee. C. The parole officer owed a duty of care only where she knew, or should have known, that the parolee posed a foreseeable risk to a particular individual or identifiable group. D. The parole officer owed a duty of care to domestic partners of parolees who had committed any crimes of violence, because they are the most likely group of people to be subjected to violence by a parolee who re-offends.

C. The parole officer owed a duty of care only where she knew, or should have known, that the parolee posed a foreseeable risk to a particular individual or identifiable group.

A local sportswriter wrote in the Sunday paper that the players on the Midtown High School football team were all taking steroids to enhance their athletic performance. The owner of the Midtown newsstand sold the papers to the community. When the newsstand owner read the story, he didn't believe it, because he knew the quarterback and knew that he was not taking steroids. Nevertheless, the newsstand owner sold copies of the papers throughout the day. The Midtown High School quarterback sued the sportswriter and the newsstand owner for defamation. Which of the following is the most accurate? A. The quarterback is likely to prevail against the newsstand owner even if the newsstand owner had not read the story and would not have known whether such a story was false. B. The quarterback is not likely to prevail against the newsstand owner, because the newsstand owner did not write the story, but was merely selling papers as part of his regular business. C. The quarterback is likely to prevail against the sportswriter even though the story makes no mention of the quarterback in particular. D. The quarterback is not likely to prevail against the sportswriter, because he was not named in the article.

C. The quarterback is likely to prevail against the sportswriter even though the story makes no mention of the quarterback in particular.

A villager walked through his village one winter night. The temperature was well below freezing. As he was walking, he saw a man in nice clothes lying in an alley, which was unheard of in his upscale village. Because it was so out of the ordinary, he went over to the man to investigate. When the villager tapped the man, he saw that the man was wearing an expensive suit and was clearly intoxicated. Disgusted, he left the man lying in the alley. About an hour later, a teenager led the police on a chase on his dirt-bike. He led the police down the alleyway. The teen was able to avoid the man still lying in the alley, but the police hit him. When they checked the man, he was dead. When the villager heard of this he told the police his story so the officers involved wouldn't feel guilty. Two days later, the autopsy revealed that the man was dead from cold exposure prior to the police hitting him. Under which of the following situations, if true, is the villager most likely to be found liable to the man's estate? A. The man was the villager's gym teacher in high school. B. The man was his father-in-law. C. The villager was running late for a meeting and had pushed the man down on his way through the alley. D. The villager told the man, who was a stranger, he'd try to get help but couldn't guarantee it.

C. The villager was running late for a meeting and had pushed the man down on his way through the alley.

Driver is driving on a mountain road late one winter night. The road is very icy, and through no fault of her own, Driver's car stalls at the bottom of a steep hill. Truck Driver drives past Driver's car going up the hill. Truck Driver knows that any car coming down the hill will be unable to stop because of the icy conditions. Truck Driver considers stopping at the top of the hill to warn other drivers of the danger, but does not. Truck Driver passes Motorcyclist, who is driving in the opposite direction of Truck Driver, heading down the hill toward Driver's stalled car. Although Motorcyclist is driving carefully, he cannot avoid hitting Driver's car. Motorcyclist suffers personal injuries and sues Truck Driver for negligence. Truck Driver argues he cannot be liable for negligence because he does not owe a duty to Motorcyclist. Should the court accept Truck Driver's argument? A. Yes, because Motorcyclist was not a foreseeable plaintiff. B. No, because Truck Driver was engaged in risk creation. C. Yes, because Truck Driver engaged in nonfeasance. D. No, because Truck Driver was negligent in failing to warn approaching motorists of the risk of hitting Driver's stalled car.

C. Yes, because Truck Driver engaged in nonfeasance.

A technical support employee of a computer company spent his morning traveling the city providing in-home tech support to multiple customers. The last scheduled home repair visit took much longer than normal, and the employee telephoned the office to ask his boss whether he would mind if the employee went home for lunch rather than return to the office before making his final series of tech support calls in the late afternoon. The employee's boss agreed, and the employee drove home to eat lunch. While at home, the employee drank several beers with his meal. Realizing he was too intoxicated to drive, the employee had his precocious 10-year-old daughter drive him to his next tech support call. The daughter drove him safely across town but, upon entering the client's driveway, she crashed into the client's car. Will the computer company be liable for the accident? A. No, because the daughter was not an employee. B. No, because the scope of the employee's employment was tech support, not driving an automobile. C. Yes, because the employee's negligence will be imputed to his employer. D. Yes, because the scope of the employee's employment includes in-home tech support.

C. Yes, because the employee's negligence will be imputed to his employer.

Driver negligently runs a red light and hits Bob's daughter who suffers serious injury. Bob sees the accident from the sidewalk and suffers serious emotional harm. Bob sues Driver in negligence for his emotional injuries. Can Bob recover from Driver? A. Bob cannot recover from Driver because recovery for negligence that causes pure emotional injury is not permitted. B. Bob cannot recover from Driver because Bob was not physically impacted by the accident. C. Bob can recover from Driver because his close family member was injured. D. Bob can recover from Driver because Driver negligently caused a sudden serious bodily injury to Bob's daughter and Bob perceived the event contemporaneously.

D. Bob can recover from Driver because Driver negligently caused a sudden serious bodily injury to Bob's daughter and Bob perceived the event contemporaneously.

Doctor, a clinical psychologist, becomes aware during the course of counseling, that his Patient is sexually abusing Patient's eight-year-old stepdaughter. Doctor does not communicate this information to the stepdaughter's mother or appropriate officials. He also does not take any other steps to prevent Patient from continuing his sexual assaults of his stepdaughter. When the stepdaughter's mother discovers the abuse, she sues Doctor on her daughter's behalf for his negligence in not telling her or others. Which of the following statements regarding Doctor's liability in negligence for failure to warn is correct? A. Doctor may not be held liable for the intentional, intervening, criminal acts of another. B. Doctor had no affirmative duty in negligence to tell anyone about Patient or to prevent Patient from harming his stepdaughter. C. Patient is the sole proximate cause of the injuries to the stepdaughter, not Doctor. D. Doctor owes a duty of reasonable care to the stepdaughter and may be subject to liability for the harm due to Patient's continuing abuse of her.

D. Doctor owes a duty of reasonable care to the stepdaughter and may be subject to liability for the harm due to Patient's continuing abuse of her.

Dr. Watson was a general surgeon. He was doing a gall bladder surgery on Mr. Smith. After the surgery was over, Mr. Smith had a couple of problems. The first problem was that there seemed to be some internal bleeding after the surgery. Dr. Watson had to take Mr. Smith back to the operating room, reopen the surgery, and repair the bleeding. Dr. Watson will claim that internal bleeding is a common side effect from surgery. Although it happens, it is not the sign of something going wrong with the surgery. Dr. Watson will bring other doctors who will testify to the same facts. What impact will this evidence have on the case? A. Dr. Watson is still liable since the surgery was not completed without a problem. B. Dr. Watson is still liable since doctors guarantee that such routine surgery will go well. C. Dr. Watson will not be liable since surgery is an ultrahazardous activity, one which cannot be made any safer with the exercise of due care. D. Dr. Watson will probably not be liable since even using the care and skill of other doctors, this type of circumstance may arise.

D. Dr. Watson will probably not be liable since even using the care and skill of other doctors, this type of circumstance may arise.

Hospital negligently misidentifies a corpse, causing it to be cremated rather than sent to a funeral home for burial as directed by the family. As a result of Hospital's negligence, members of the family suffer serious emotional harm upon learning of the Hospital's mistake. In a lawsuit brought by the family against Hospital for its negligence in misidentifying their family member, may Hospital be subject to liability in negligence? A. Hospital may not subject to liability in negligence because the family's injuries are purely emotional. B. Hospital may not be subject to liability in negligence because pure emotional distress is only compensable for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. C. Hospital may not be subject to liability because its negligence resulted in injury to a corpse, which is not compensable in tort law. D. Hospital may be subject to liability in negligence because the family suffered severe emotional injury due to negligent mishandling of a corpse.

D. Hospital may be subject to liability in negligence because the family suffered severe emotional injury due to negligent mishandling of a corpse.

Some kids went to a park one Saturday night to drink alcohol. They were all under 21. They gathered in the park's parking lot, played music and generally had a party. A neighbor, Franklin, who lived close to the park called his friend, James-- who was a police officer in the area -- to complain about the noise coming from the park, particularly as it was after midnight. He also told James that he believed there were underage minors drinking alcohol at the park. James thanked Franklin for the tip, and told him that "he would see what he could do." James never made it to the park. On his way there, he stopped in at a local doughnut shop to get a coffee, and stayed there talking to the manager on duty for a while. By the time he left the doughnut shop, his shift was over and he went home. One of the teenagers at the park, Marcy, got in her car to drive home. She had been drinking at the park and was too drunk to drive. She fell asleep at the wheel of her car and drove her car into Franklin's living room window causing extensive damage. In Franklin's suit against the local police department for whom James worked, what is the most likely result? A. In the absence of immunity, there may be liability because James and Franklin have a special relationship. B. In the absence of immunity, there would still be no liability because police have no duty to act for the aid or protection of the citizenry. C. In the absence of immunity, there may be liability because James undertook to protect Franklin. D. In the absence of immunity, there may be liability because James did not refuse to act and yet his failure to act was not because of a policy decision about public resources.

D. In the absence of immunity, there may be liability because James did not refuse to act and yet his failure to act was not because of a policy decision about public resources.

At a girl's request, her mother sent her to a theater arts camp for the summer. At the camp, the girl and the other campers studied voice, dance and drama, and enjoyed the great outdoors. Another camp for budding photographers was only half a mile down the lakeshore from the art camp, and within a week the girl had become close friends with a camper there. One night the camper sneaked into the girl's cabin to visit. She climbed into the bunk above the girl. They giggled for a while, but quickly fell asleep. The bunks were hung from the wall by a chain at each end in two tiers around the walls of the cabin. The counselor noticed that an extra bunk was filled that night, but never gave it another thought. At about 3 am, without warning, the upper bunk the camper was in collapsed on the girl, breaking the girl's arm. The corner of the bunk hit a nearby table, knocking over a large candle lantern which had been left burning as a night-light. The camper's pajamas burst into flames. The counselor dragged the girl and the camper from their bunks, but not before the camper suffered moderate burns. The cabin burned to the ground. The fire inspectors were never able to determine precisely why the bunk bed collapsed. If the girl sues the art camp, what will be the most likely result? A. Judgment for the camp, because it need only warn the girl of known dangerous conditions. B. Judgment for camp, because the camper is a trespasser. C. Judgment for the girl, because she was injured by an artificial condition on the camp premises. D. Judgment for the girl, because her parents paid for her to attend the camp.

D. Judgment for the girl, because her parents paid for her to attend the camp. This question turns on the standard of care the camp owed to the girl. As a paying customer of the camp, the girl is an invitee who is owed a duty of reasonable care, including the duty to inspect the premises for potential dangers to invitees. Therefore, because her parents paid for her to be there, she is an invitee and should prevail in her suit.

Question 1010 / 10 pts Ladder Co. manufactures kitchen stepladders for residential use. Dad used a Ladder Co. ladder to post a sign above the door of his home office, unaware that his five-year-old son was playing in the office. While Dad was standing on the ladder, his son suddenly opened the door, striking the ladder. Dad fell off the ladder, fracturing his hip. The ladder came with no warnings about not using it in front of an unlocked door. In a lawsuit brought by Dad against Ladder Co. for products liability, is Ladder Co. likely to be found liable? A. Ladder Co. is only liable to Dad if a reasonable person would have stood on the ladder as he did. B. Ladder Co. is likely to be found liable because it failed to warn of the risk that resulted in the injury of Dad. C. Ladder Co. is likely to be found liable because the ladder it manufactured was a factual cause of Dad's injury. D. Ladder Co. is likely to be found not liable as a matter of law because a product seller is not subject to liability for failing to warn or instruct regarding risk that should be obvious to or generally known by foreseeable product users.

D. Ladder Co. is likely to be found not liable as a matter of law because a product seller is not subject to liability for failing to warn or instruct regarding risk that should be obvious to or generally known by foreseeable product users.

Patient goes to see surgeon about a nasty bunion she has on the big toe of her right foot. Surgeon recommends surgery, to which patient consents, and patient shows up for surgery at the hospital. While surgeon has privileges to use the hospital for surgeries, he is not employed by the hospital. Surgeon performs the surgery, assisted by a hospital nurse, and unfortunately botches the surgery, requiring patient to have her toe amputated. Patient sues both surgeon for his negligence and hospital on grounds that it is vicariously liable for surgeon's tort. Should the hospital be liable? A. Yes, because a hospital-employed nurse assisted with the surgery. B. No, because employers are never liable for torts committed by independent contractors. C. Yes, because the surgeon is incompetent. D. No.

D. No.

About two years ago, Client was a patient of Ophthalmologist. Client alleges that during the time that he was Ophthalmologist's patient, Ophthalmologist improperly performed LASIK surgery on Client's eyes. The LASIK surgery was supposed to correct Client's poor vision. Instead, the surgery was performed skillfully, but resulted in blindness in both eyes, a risk about which Client was never informed and a reasonable person would not have known. If Client had known of the risk of blindness, he would not have opted for the surgery. Client hires Attorney Matthew to sue Ophthalmologist for medical malpractice. Regarding the underlying medical malpractice action, which of the following statements concerning the Ophthalmologist's liability is correct? A. Ophthalmologist's failure to inform Client of the material risks and available alternatives to LASIK treatment does not constitute a breach of the standard of care in negligence because the reasonable patient should know that any eye surgery could result in blindness. B. Ophthalmologist cannot be subject to liability in negligence because he performed the surgery skillfully. C. Ophthalmologist's failure to inform Client of the material risks and available alternatives to LASIK treatment does not constitute a breach of the standard of care in negligence because every patient should know that any eye surgery could lead to blindness. D. Ophthalmologist's failure to inform Client of the material risks and available alternatives to LASIK treatment is a breach of the standard of care in negligence.

D. Ophthalmologist's failure to inform Client of the material risks and available alternatives to LASIK treatment is a breach of the standard of care in negligence.

Dr. Watson was a general surgeon. He was doing a gall bladder surgery on Mr. Smith. After the surgery was over, Mr. Smith had a couple of problems. The first problem was that there seemed to be some internal bleeding after the surgery. Dr. Watson had to take Mr. Smith back to the operating room, reopen the surgery, and repair the bleeding. Dr. Watson will claim that internal bleeding is a common side effect from surgery. Although it happens, it is not the sign of something going wrong with the surgery. Dr. Watson will bring other doctors who will testify to the same facts. After doing the second surgery to stop the internal bleeding, the surgery site would not heal. After several weeks, Dr. Watson had to reopen the site again. This time it was discovered that Dr. Watson had left a small sponge in the surgery site when he went in to stop the internal bleeding. If Mr. Smith wants to sue Dr. Watson for leaving the sponge in the surgery site, he must A. Offer evidence by other surgeons that they would not leave sponges in the patient. B. Offer expert testimony to prove that the care and skill of surgeons requires that sponges be removed from the patient. C. Prove that sponges should never be used in surgery. D. Prove the fact that the sponge was left in the site. That fact should make negligence so obvious that no other proof would be necessary.

D. Prove the fact that the sponge was left in the site. That fact should make negligence so obvious that no other proof would be necessary.

Two men were in the checkout line ot a convenience store when one of them suddenly collapsed. The cashier ran to his side and helped the man get to his feet. When she was sure that the man was not hurt, she turned back to her cash register and noticed the other man standing suspiciously close to the cash drawer. She instructed the man to move away from the cash drawer, which he did. The men paid for their items and left. At closing that day, the cashier's cash drawer was $100 short. She suspected that the customer who had been standing near the register had stolen the money while she was helping the man who collapsed. The cashier called over her boss and told him that the customer had stolen $100 from her cash drawer, even though she knew that another customer was standing nearby and could hear her statement. Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that another employee of the store had stolen the money while the cashier was on her break. If the customer sues the store for defamation, what will be the probable outcome? A. The store will win because the cashier was privileged to make the statement to her boss B. The customer will win because there was a publication. C. The store will win because thefts are a matter of public concern. D. The customer will win because the cashier knew that the other customer could hear her statement to her boss.

D. The customer will win because the cashier knew that the other customer could hear her statement to her boss.

Bouncer erroneously thinks that Patron is stealing money from a casino. Bouncer accosts Patron and escorts patron out the back door of the Casino. As bouncer opens the door to let Patron out of the building and into the alley he shouts, "Next time don't steal money you thief. A couple people in the alley overhear what Bouncer said. Assume damages are not an issue and Patron sues Bouncer for defamation. Will Patron prevail? ents A. No, unless Bouncer knew his statement would be overheard B. Yes, regardless of the foreseeability of Bouncer's statement being heard C. No, if Bouncer did not think someone would overhear his statement D. Yes, if it was reasonably foreseeable that Bouncer's statement would be overheard

D. Yes, if it was reasonably foreseeable that Bouncer's statement would be overheard

A businessman is the owner of a small winery. For several years he has been dumping grape sludge, the waste product of the fermenting process, in a pit about 100 yards from the neighbor's property. The sludge continues to ferment, giving off a pungent and offensive odor. The neighbor finds it impossible to enjoy any activities in her yard because of the odor. If the neighbor's four-year old daughter ran onto the businessman's land while chasing a butterfly, fell into the sludge pit and was injured, would she recover? A. Yes, but only if the businessman knew of her presence. B. No, because the sludge pit is not a nuisance per se. C. No, because she came on the land to look at the butterfly, not the sludge pit. D. Yes, if the businessman knew young children had entered his land before and were likely to be injured.

D. Yes, if the businessman knew young children had entered his land before and were likely to be injured.

The International Ice Dance Company consists of six couples - one couple each from France, Russia, England, Spain, Iran and China - who perform a show featuring ice skating routines based on folk dances from around the world. Just before a performance in New York one evening, the British dance team had a backstage argument in front of the entire Company in which the female skater said to the male skater, "You are sick. You have syphilis." The male skater in fact did not have syphilis. He sued his dance parter. In that suit, the male skater will A. prevail, because the female skater's comment constituted slander per se (see notes in Casebook for assistance). B. not prevail, unless the female skater made the statement knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard as to the truth. C. not prevail, because the defamatory statement did not cause damages. D. prevail, if one or more of the other Dance Company members understood English.

D. prevail, if one or more of the other Dance Company members understood English.

A cleaning company sold a water softener that caused a rusty discoloration of the water in a homeowner's home. The homeowner noticed the discoloration after she climbed into a full bathtub, and she suffered a heart attack that she claimed was a result of the shock. In an action by the homeowner against the company for stand-alone negligent infliction of emotional distress, A. the homeowner may recover even if her reaction was unusual, because the company is required to take the plaintiff as it finds her. B. the homeowner may not recover, because a heart attack is not a natural result of mental distress caused by bathing in rusty water. C. the homeowner may recover if the jury finds that the heart attack was in fact caused by the homeowner's mental distress in discovering the rusty water. D. the homeowner may not recover, because a normal person would not suffer severe mental distress as the result of bathing in rusty water.

D. the homeowner may not recover, because a normal person would not suffer severe mental distress as the result of bathing in rusty water.

Jim and Joan are the loving parents of two children. The children, Jack and Jill, were delightful children until they became teenagers and became difficult. Jim and Joan are hard working parents, but they are not wealthy. Jack and Jill, however, demand that they be provided with a large allowance so they can buy music online, eat at restaurants, have the latest electronic gadgets, and buy expensive, name-brand clothes. When Jim and Joan are financially unable and realistically unwilling to meet those demands, Jack and Jill want to sue Jim and Joan. When the teenagers go to an attorney and ask if they can sue their parents, what legally appropriate answer should that attorney give? A. Although spousal immunity has been abolished so that spouses can sue each other, family immunity still remains and children cannot sue parents. B. Although family immunities have been generally abolished, there still remains immunity for parents exercising parental discretion in discipline, providing care, and general household control. C. Family immunities still remain in full force, and family members can never sue each other. D. Family immunities have been abolished and the children can sue their parents for the claims they seek.

Family immunities still remain in full force, and family members can never sue each other. Family immunities have been abolished and the children can sue their parents for the claims they seek.