TORTS Multiple Choice

Danny was not a very patient person and he hated having to drive in the city. In particular, he hated having to yield to pedestrians, who never paid any attention to their own safety and constantly jaywalked. One afternoon, he had to drive into the city during rush hour for an appointment with his therapist. After having to stop several times for pedestrians crossing with having the "walk" signal, Danny decided that he would teach a lesson to the next jaywalking pedestrian. A half block away from him, Penn was crossing the street, oblivious to the "Don't Walk" signal and the traffic around him. Although there was room to pass behind Penn, Danny drove straight toward him, leaning on the horn and intending to make Penn jump. Penn, however, did not change his pace. He was listening through headphones to his favorite heavy metal tune on his portable CD player, which was turned up to full volume. Frank, who was standing on the corner, rushed out to pull Penn to safety. Danny steered around both of them safely, but Penn tripped when Frank pulled him to the curb and suffered a fractured kneecap. If Penn sues Danny for assault, the likely result will be: (A) Danny wins, because Penn did not know at the time that he was in danger from Danny. (B) Danny loses, because his conduct was a substantial factor in causing Penn's injury. (C) Penn wins, because Danny intended to create in Penn an apprehension of immediate harmful contact. (D) Penn losses, because Danny did not intend for Penn to be injured by Danny's conduct.

(A) Danny wins, because Penn did not know at the time that he was in danger from Danny.

Late one night, a thief named Rugrat broke a window to enter the home of Joplin, a bachelor who lived alone. Rugrat used a chisel to gain entry. Holding the chisel, Rugrat began roaming thru Joplin's dark house, hoping to find a wallet or purse. Joplin was awakened and retrieved the pistol he kept under his bed. Joplin saw Rugrat just as a beam of light from under the street illuminated the chisel. Joplin thought the chisel was a handgun pointed at him and Joplin promptly shot Rugrat in the chest, injuring Rugrat severely. Which of the following accurately characterizes Rugrat's possible battery claim against Joplin: A. Joplin will prevail because Rugrat was a criminal trespasser. B. Joplin will likely be able to avoid liability if he can prove that he reasonably believed the chisel was a handgun, which will likely depend on the lighting, the shape of the chisel, and the way Joplin was holding it. C. Joplin will be unable to establish that he acted in self-defense because his response was disproportionate to Rugrat's chisel. D. Rugrat will prevail in his battery claim only if he can disprove that Joplin acted in self-defense.

Self Defense Question Answer: B A. Even if there a trespasser, you cant just shoot them B. correct!! For self defense to be a viable defense, it must be proportional. A mistake is OKAY but it must be reasonable. C: proportionality gets more flexible depending on the circumstances and mistake is okay to use D: The burden of proof is on the D to prove self defense, not the P

Donald was eating his lunch at the law school. He looked in his bag and realized he didn't have his laptop. Thinking he had left it in his torts class, Donald went back to that classroom. He saw a mac laptop on one of the row of desks near his seat and grabbed it. Donald put the laptop in his backpack and didn't think about it again until he was about to leave school. He opened the laptop to make sure he had downloaded the supplemental readings he needed for property that day. As soon as he opened the laptop, Donald realized that the laptop wasn't his because of a Star Wars sticker under the keyboard. Donald immediately brought the laptop to the Dean's office. Another student, Pauline, had already visited the Dean's office to inquire about her missing laptop, and the Dean's office was able to return the laptop to Pauline before she left for the day. assume that the exterior of Pauline's laptop was scratched sometime in the four-ish hours it was in Donald's bag. Which of the following accurately explains how this additional fact alters Paul's tort law options against Donald: A. Pauline still lacks a trespass to chattel claim against Donald if Donald's mistaken belief that the laptop was his was reasonable. B. Pauline now has an actionable trespass to chattel claim because of her actual harm. C. Pauline only has an actionable trespass to chattel claim if the damage to the laptop is significant. D. Pauline still likely has a trespass to chattel claim against Donald, but her recovery of damages will likely include nominal damages and some amount of actual/compensatory damages for the scratch.

Trespass to Chattel claim (dispossession/ intermeddling) Answer: D A. mistaken belief does not matter for establishing dispossession! B. it isnt NOW actionable. You have an actionable dispossession claim WITHOUT actual harm bc for dispossession, injury is presumed. C. For dispossession, no harm at all is required for an actionable claim... and if this were intermeddling, there is no requirement for how bad the harm must be. Any harm will do to satisfy injury OR deprived of the property for a substantial amount of TIME. D: correct. Dispossession claim+ since there is actual harm, you will likely get more in damages.

Donald was eating his lunch at the law school. He looked in his bag and realized he didn't have his laptop. Thinking he had left it in his torts class, Donald went back to that classroom. He saw a mac laptop on one of the row of desks near his seat and grabbed it. Donald put the laptop in his backpack and didn't think about it again until he was about to leave school. He opened the laptop to make sure he had downloaded the supplemental readings he needed for property that day. As soon as he opened the laptop, Donald realized that the laptop wasn't his because of a Star Wars sticker under the keyboard. Donald immediately brought the laptop to the Dean's office. Another student, Pauline, had already visited the Dean's office to inquire about her missing laptop, and the Dean's office was able to return the laptop to Pauline before she left for the day. With her newfound legal knowledge, Pauline wants to explore her tort law options against Donald. Her options are as such: A. Pauline lacks a trespass to chattel claim against Donald if Donald's mistaken belief that the laptop was his was reasonable. B. Pauline lacks a trespass to chattel claim against Donald if her laptop was in no way damaged. C. Pauline would have a successful trespass to chattel claim against Donald only if her four-ish hour deprivation of her laptop was substantial. D. Pauline likely has a trespass to chattel claim against Donald, but her recovery of damages is likely limited to nominal damages.

Trespass to Chattell Q (Dispossession/ Intermeddling) Answer: D A. wrong because dispossession can occur EVEN if D was mistaken. B. For a dispossession, there doesnt need to be any actual harm C. Doesn't need to be deprived for a substantial amount of time for a dispossession claim-- injury presumed. Actual harm or deprived for a substantial amount of time is required to show injury for INTERMEDDLING. D. TRUE! Dispossession claim is there and injury is presumed but she didnt suffer any actual harm so damages will be nominal.

As soon as Wanda moved into her new house, she went to the local animal shelter and selected two dogs to keep her company. The dogs were housebroken but barked constantly at birds and squirrels in the yard. Their barking was particularly incessant during the day, while Wanda was at work. Mark, who lived next door and worked nights, was aggravated by the constant barking, which disturbed his sleep, and decided to let Wanda know how he felt. One evening, upon learning that Wanda was entertaining her boss and several clients, Mark came to her front door with a tape recorder and an electrically amplified bullhorn. He started playing a tape of dogs barking, putting it at full volume and amplifying to with the bullhorn. When Wanda opened the door, he began yelling at her through the bullhorn and berating her in front of her guests for having no consideration for neighbors. Wanda, very upset, slammed the door shut. The door struck the bullhorn and jammed it against Mark's face, knocking out two of his teeth. If Mark asserts a claim based on battery against Wanda, will Mark prevail? (A) Yes, unless Wanda did not foresee that the bullhorn would knock out Mark's teeth. (B) Yes, if Wanda knew that the door was substantially certain to strike the bullhorn. (C) No, because Wanda was entitled to use force to protect herself. (D) No, if Mark's conduct provoked Wanda's response.

(B) - Yes, if Wanda knew that the door was substantially certain to strike the bullhorn.

Timmy Turner decided that he wanted to build a treehouse to end all treehouses. Instead of simply wishing for the treehouse from his Fairly Odd Parents, he wanted to build it himself. Instead he asked for miscellaneous construction equipment. While operating the bulldozer, Timmy shifted the gears in reverse by accident and backed into the Dingleburg's house, creating a gaping hole in their living room. If the Dingleburg's decide to sue Timmy (by and through his parents) for negligence, what standard of care will Timmy receive? (A) The normal standard, adjusted for someone of Timmy's age (B) A heightened adult standard, if using the Bulldozer is an inherently dangerous activity. (C) A standard of a kid of the same experience operating a bulldozer. (D) A lower standard, if Timmy is delusional and hallucinated his Fairly odd Parents.

(B) - a heightened adult standard, if using the Bulldozer is an inherently dangerous activity

Matt Murdock, an individual suffering from blindness, was walking around Hell's Kitchen one day with a "seeing cane." As a vigilante superhero, he had adapted to use echolocation (using sound) to "see" essentially using the cane as a prop. Additionally, Mat was trained in numerous forms of martial arts. While turning the corner, he noticed a citizen being beat up in the ally. Matt ran up, disarmed and knocked the perpetrator unconscious. In the altercation, Matt negligently hit the citizen in the eye with his seeing cane. If the citizen sues for negligence, which is likely not the applied standard of care? (A) A heightened standard of care, if a court finds that Matt's echolocation and martial arts training is a superior skill (C) a heightened standard of care, if the court finds that the altercation was an emergency situation. (D) A heightened standard of care, if the court finds that, because he was never truly blind, the seeing cane was a weapon and a dangerous instrumentality.

(C) A heightened standard of care, if a court finds that the altercation was an emergency.

Assume that Kansas has maintained traditional common law tort defenses, Arkansas has adopted "partial" comparative fault negligence, and Indiana has adopted "pure" comparative fault negligence. Joint and several liability is retained in all three jurisdictions. Aiken failed to stop at a stop sign before he entered an intersection. Bacon, who had the right of way, saw Aiken but was unable to stop because he had neglected to get his brakes repaired even though he knew they were going bad. The two cars collided and then struck Cogg, who had ridden her motorcycle through the intersection from the other direction, also without stopping at a stop sign. Aiken sued Bacon and Cogg, each of whom counter sued Aiken and sued each other. At trial, it was determined by the trier of fact that Aiken suffered $10,000 in damages, Bacon suffered $1,000 in damages, and Cogg suffered $100,000 in damages. It was also determined that Aiken was 45% at fault, Bacon was 35% at fault, and Cogg was 20% at fault. How would damages be assessed in Kansas? A Aiken, Bacon, and Cogg are all awarded nothing. B Bacon is liable to Aiken fro $10,000, because Bacon had the last clear chance to avoid hitting him, and Bacon and Cogg are awarded nothing. C Cogg is awarded $100,000 and Aiken and Bacon are awarded nothing, but one of them will have a claim against the other fro contribution if he pays more than $50,000 of the award. D Cogg is awarded $100,000 and Aiken and Bacon are awarded nothing, but one of them will have a claim against the other for contribution if he pays more than his proportionate share of the award.

a. traditional; they all had some portion of fault so they cant recover ANY

One Saturday, Joseph, age 10, was walking past an office building being constructed when he saw several of his playmates from school climbing on the large concrete pipes used by the construction company to install the sewer system for the building. Joseph decided to join his friends, and was soon enjoying the game of "superheroes" they all were playing. During one particularly fierce confrontation between Tammy, also age 10, and Joseph, Tammy struck Jospeh in the face with her "sword" (a piece of sheet metal left as scrap by the builders) and seriously injured his eye. Joseph's parents being an action against Tammy and her parents for negligence and intentional tort. The insurance company representing Tammy's family raises the defense of contributory negligence as to the negligence cause of action, alleging that Jospeh was engaged in a mock battle with Tammy with his own pretend "sword," another piece of metal. When the court instructs the jury as to the standard to be applied to Joseph's conduct, it should state that: A Joseph's conduct is judged by what a person of ordinary prudence and caution would have done in the same circumstances. B Joseph's conduct is judged by what a child of similar age, experience and intelligence would have done in similar circumstances. C Joseph's conduct is immaterial, because Tammy committed an intentional tort when she purposely struck Joseph in the eye. D Joseph's conduct is immaterial, because it is presumed that a child under the age of 14 cannot be negligent.

b. Kid standard of care C is wrong bc call of question talks about NEGLIGENCE causing the action.

Paine and Duncan were playing tennis. Duncan became highly irritated because every time Duncan prepared to serve, Paine started talking loudly. Paine's loud talk distracted Duncan from his game, and Duncan usually faulted on his serves. Duncan told Paine to "cut it out," but Paine persisted in the behavior. Standing several feet away, Duncan swung his racket toward Paine's head. However, Duncan slipped as he swung the racket and it flew out of his hand as he lost his balance. The racket flew through the air and struck Paine in the head. Has Paine grounds for a battery claim against Duncan? A Yes, if Duncan intended to create a reasonable apprehension in Paine. B Yes, because the racket struck Paine. C No, because Duncan did not intend the racket to strike Paine. D No, but only if Duncan can prove that the owner of the tennis court had not maintained the court properly and this caused Duncan to slip.

A Transferred Intent Q Not enough that racket struck...

A doctor who was an aspiring race car driver was speeding down interstate 49. He bobbed in and out of the lanes, barely missing cars. Coming upon a sharp curve, he "flattened" out the turn, crossing into the inner lane. This technique was taught to him at the Jeff Gordon Driving Experience. Alas, the doctor was still going too fast for the curve and flipped his car, slamming into the unfortunate Griswold Family. This accident totaled their car and postponed their trip to Wally World. When the Griswold's sue the doctor, what will the standard of care be? (A) A reasonable person standard of care in similar circumstances (B) A lower standard of care because "flattening" the curve was in response to an emergency (C) The reasonable member of the doctor's profession, exercising that level of skill and knowledge common to the profession (D) The reasonable member of a race car driver's profession, exercising that level of skill and knowledge common to the profession.

A - A reasonable person standard of care in similar circumstances

Don was employed by the collection department of Cardshark, Inc., a wholesale distributor of greeting cards. He was assigned to collect money owed on a consignment account by Mary, the elderly sole proprietor of a card shop named "Sensitive Greeting Cards." Don strode into the shop while Mary was waiting on some customers and demanded to know why she had not paid her account. Mary, distressed by his intrusion, assumed him that her account was fully paid and asked him to wait until her customers had left to continue the discussion. Don, undeterred, continued in a loud voice, "We're not going to put up with freeloaders like you anymore. I'm going to come back with a truck and repossess your entire inventory if you don't pay up." Mary, in tears, begged Don to leave but he only became angrier. Pounding his fist on the counter, he shouted, "And then we're going to prosecute you for fraud and put you in jail!" Don then left, but by then Mary was severely distraught. If Mary sues Don for her emotional distress, who will prevail? (A) Mary, if Don's conduct was extreme and outrageous. (B) Mary, if she felt subjected to a threat of physical injury. (C) Don, if he did not intend for Mary to suffer severe distress. (D) Don, if Mary owed the money that Don demanded.

A - Mary, if Don's conduct was extreme and outrageous

As soon as Wanda moved into her new house, she went to the local animal shelter and selected two dogs to keep her company. The dogs were housebroken but barked constantly at birds and squirrels in the yard. Their barking was particularly incessant during the day, while Wanda was at work. Mark, who lived next door and worked nights, was aggravated by the constant barking, which disturbed his sleep, and decided to let Wanda know how he felt. One evening, upon learning that Wanda was entertaining her boss and several clients, Mark came to her front door with a tape recorder and an electrically amplified bullhorn. He started playing a tape of dogs barking, putting it at full volume and amplifying to with the bullhorn. When Wanda opened the door, he began yelling at her through the bullhorn and berating her in front of her guests for having no consideration for neighbors. Wanda, very upset, slammed the door shut. The door struck the bullhorn and jammed it against Mark's face, knocking out two of his teeth. If Wanda asserts a claim based on IIED against Mark, what will be the probable result? (A) Wanda will prevail, because Mark's conduct was extreme and outrageous. (B) Wanda will prevail if she suffered pecuniary harm from Mark's conduct. (C) Mark will prevail, because Wanda suffered no physical harm. (D) Mark will prevail if the barking from Wanda's dogs constituted a nuisance.

A - Wanda will prevail, because Mark's conduct was extreme and outrageous

A hiker crossed paths with an acquaintance while hiking in the woods. The hiker strongly believed in telekinesis, the ability to move objects with the power of the mind. The acquaintance knew about the hiker's belief, and wishing to scare him, she told him that she could perform telekinesis and was going to make a large tree branch fall on his head. The hiker became very apprehensive that he would be hit. Though the hiker was not hit by a tree branch, he suffered emotional distress. If the hiker sues the acquaintance for assault, is he likely to prevail? A No, because a reasonable person would not have been apprehensive that the acquaintance could make a tree branch fall with the power of her mind. B No, because the acquaintance's mere words are not enough to create a reasonable apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. C Yes, because the acquaintance intended to and did create in the hiker an apprehension of a battery. D Yes, because the acquaintance knew of the hiker's unusual sensitivity and took advantage of it.

A and B are both correct. Lens says A because an objective reasonable person would not have apprehended a tree to hit them-- wouldn't have believed in telekenesis. B is quimbee answer bc mere words are not enough for emotional distress. If actor knows of particular vulnerability of Plaintiff, that negates the objective test on IIED, NOT on assault.

In an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress brought by a plaintiff who is an immediate family member of the person subjected to the defendant's outrageous conduct, which of the following is NOT likely to be a consideration in determining whether the plaintiff has a viable claim? A Whether the plaintiff suffered bodily harm resulting from distress caused by the defendant's conduct. B Whether the defendant knew about the plaintiff's relationship to the person subjected to the defendant's outrageous conduct. C Whether the plaintiff was present at the time the outrageous conduct occurred. D Whether the defendant was aware that the plaintiff was present at the time of the outrageous conduct.

A is correct because as a family member for indirect IIED claim, you only have to be present. You dont need to have actual harm to have a viable claim.

A driver traveling cross-country to visit family grew tired late at night. Fearful of falling asleep at the wheel, the driver pulled off the road onto a strip of land that he believed to be owned by the state. The driver intended to sleep for a few hours, thinking that it was lawful to occupy state land for a short period of time. In fact, the land was privately owned. The landowner saw the driver's car and recorded the license plate number, but was afraid to confront the driver about the intrusion. The driver slept in the car for a few hours and then drove away, leaving no damage to the property. If the landowner subsequently sues the driver for trespass, is the driver likely to be found liable? A Yes, because the driver intended to drive onto the land and did so without privilege or consent. B No, because the landowner did not object to the driver's intrusion onto the land. C No, because the defendant mistakenly believed that the land was publicly owned. D No, because the defendant's intrusion onto the land did no damage to the land.

A is correct-- if they knew they were entering the land, thats all you need.

An employer mocked an employee for wearing a toupee at a sales meeting in front of 100 other employees. The employee was humiliated and became depressed, for which condition he eventually took medication. In an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress brought by the employee against the employer, which of the following arguments is likely to be most effective for the employer's defense? A The employer's remark would not have caused a reasonable person to suffer severe emotional distress, and therefore the employer did not engage in extreme and outrageous conduct. B The employer's conduct, at most, involved a single act of public humiliation, which cannot constitute extreme and outrageous conduct. C The employer's conduct occurred in the workplace, and courts almost always dismiss claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress arising in the workplace. D The employer admittedly insulted the employee, but an insult not involving race or ethnicity cannot constitute extreme and outrageous conduct.

A is correct. Objective AND subjective test for IIED. An average community member would not stand up and proclaim OUTRAGEOUS.

What must a defendant have intended in order to be liable for an intentional tort? A The specific act that she committed. B The specific act, the specific injury, and the specific victim. C The specific act, or the specific injury, or the specific victim. D The specific injury that the plaintiff suffered. E The specific victim that was injured.

A is correct. Only need to intend the act specified by the crime.

Greg was a seven-year-old boy who often came onto Mr. Smith's property to play with Mr. Smith's dog. Mr. Smith was aware that this occurred. When Mr. Smith decided to put in a swimming pool, a couple of large pieces of equipment were left in his backyard overnight by Jones Corp., the construction company. The equipment was not owned by Jones Corp. but was leased from Brown Co., which was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the equipment. After the workers had left, Greg came onto the Smith property to play. Eventually, he climbed up on one of the pieces of equipment, which had no safety locking device on the ignition, and began pushing buttons and moving levers. The engine started and the equipment began to move. Greg became frightened and jumped off, falling into the hole that had been dug that day, and was injured. Greg's parents brought suit against Mr. Smith and Jones Corp. in a jurisdiction that retains joint and several liability. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Greg's parents filed suit against both Jones Corp. and Brown Co. but not against Mr. Smith, and that the jury found the defendants jointly and severally liable for Greg's injuries in the amount of $6,000. Which of the following is a correct statement of the defendants' liability? A Both defendants would be liable for the full amount. B The defendants would be liable for damages based upon their relative fault. C Each defendant would be liable for $3,000. D Greg could recover $6,000 from each defendant.

A- both defendants COULD be liable for the entire amount and then seek contribution. They ARE both liable for the full amount although the P cannot COLLECT more than her judgment B... the defendant are only guilty for their portion of the fault assigned by the jury. That could also include Mr. Smith, although he was a nonparty. BUT this is joint and several...

One Saturday, Joseph, age 10, was walking past an office building being constructed when he saw several of his playmates from school climbing on the large concrete pipes used by the construction company to install the sewer system for the building. Joseph decided to join his friends, and was soon enjoying the game of "superheroes" they all were playing. During one particularly fierce confrontation between Tammy, also age 10, and Joseph, Tammy struck Jospeh in the face with her "sword" (a piece of sheet metal left as scrap by the builders) and seriously injured his eye. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Joseph was negligent in engaging in combat with Tammy. The action against Tammy's family is brought by Joseph's mother on his behalf as his guardian ad litem. Joesph's father also brings an action against Tammy's family for the cost of the medical treatment he paid for his son. If the jurisdiction follows traditional rules of contributory negligence, Joseph's father will: A Not recover, because Joseph was contributorily negligent. B Not recover, because Joseph suffered the injuries, not his father. C Recover, because his action is independent of Joseph's, not derivative of it. D Recover, because contributory negligence does no apply to a child under the age of 14.

A- call of the question says he was negligent in playing the game with Tammy and thus, he cannot recover damages for any injuries because in a traditional comparative fault jurisdiction, even if only 1% negligent, the P gets nothing.

The state of Georgia adopted a comparative fault statute but still uses joint and several liability. Subsequent to passage of the law, Pam was injured in an automobile accident with Dave and Bob and suffered $100,000 worth of injuries. Pam quickly incurred hospital and medical expenses. Later, Pam filed suit against Dave and Bob. When the case came to trial, the jury agreed with Pam's contention that her injuries were worth $100,000. The jury also determined that Pam was 10% negligent, that Dave was 20% negligent, and that Bob was 70% negligent. How much can Pam recover from Dave? A 90% B 20% C 70% D 10%

A. 90% Comparative Fault and its Joint and Several Liability. Joint and several liability, you can recover ALL of judgement from one defendant.

Ichabod was a cautious individual who did not like surprises. A week before Halloween, his girlfriend Katrina persuaded him to go with her to the Sleepy Hallow Haunted House, which was put on each year by a local theater group and was widely recognized as the most terrifying haunted house production in the state. Ichabod was not aware of its reputation but he noted with alarm the signs in front of the haunted house warning that this attraction has live "monsters" who will be trying to scare people and is not for the faint of heart. His alarm increased when he went up to the ticket booth and noticed the same warning printed on the tickets. Katrina, however, assured him that the haunted house was safe and that the warnings were just added "to keep the lawyers happy." Ichabod paid for his ticket and reluctantly went into the darkened house with Katrina. In the first room they were to enter, a headless Frankenstein monster was being played by Braum, a burly member of the theater group. He had overheard Ichabod expressing his apprehension to Katrina outside the door and decided to make an extra effort to play his part to the hilt. Waiting until they had passed, he came at the out of the shadows with a shriek and held the head of the monster in his hand as if to throw it at them. Although Braum stopped short of throwing the head, Ichabod had already turned and with an enormous leap dove out of the house through one of the plate glass windows, severely lacerating his arms and face in the process. Ichabod brings an action against Braum for his injuries. The jurisdiction in which they are located has adopted a "pure" comparative fault statute. Will Ichabod recover damages from Braum? A No, Ichabod impliedly assumed the risk of injury. B No, unless Braum acted negligently in trying to scare Ichabod. C Yes, because Braum intended to cause apprehension on the part of Ichabod. D Yes, but Ichabod's recovery will be reduced by a certain percentage if the trier of fact determines that he was also at fault.

A. He assumed the risk by purchasing a ticket and seeing all the warnings.... And nothing that happened in the house was outside the assumption.

Rancher owned a large parcel of vacant land just outside City which motorcyclists frequently used for impromptu motocross competitions. Rancher knew about this use of the land and while he was not particularly happy about it, he had no immediate plans for the parcel and took no action. The motorcyclists had been riding there every weekend for about two years. One weekend, Rancher drove out to the parcel to so some target shooting with a new .22 caliber rifle he had just bought. He set up some beer cans left by the motorcyclists and was plinking away when Rider arrived at the area with his dirt bike. Rider had been drinking and continued to drink beer as he drove his bike around Rancher's parcel. Just as Rider was trying a particularly dangerous stunt on his dirt bike, one of Rancher's shots struck a rock and ricocheted, passing through Rider's upper arm. Rider was able to ride his bike one-handed to nearby Hospital, where he was treated for a gunshot wound. The jurisdiction has adopted a "pure" comparative negligence statute and retained joint and serval liability. Rider brings an action for negligence against Rancher. Rider will probably: A Recover all of his damages. B Recover a portion of his damages, because he was negligent in driving his motorcycle while drunk and attempting the dangerous stunt. C Not recover, because driving while drunk is gross negligence or worse. D Not recover, because he was a trespasser on Rancher's land.

A. He is not comparatively at fault so he gets all of his damages. In order to raise comparative fault, must prove Rider: breached (driving drunk, negligence per se), C/F (drunk driving had nothing to do with why he got shot. If he had been sober, he still would've been hit) and Prox Cause. No C/F.

The manager of a nuclear power plant investigated a new technology developed in a foreign country. The technology would reduce the chance of a nuclear meltdown in a plant like hers by 95%. The manager's research revealed that installing the technology would cost the equivalent of five years of the plant's revenue, and she decided it was not commercially viable to install the technology. A few years later, there was a meltdown at the plant and an employee was injured. The technology would almost certainly have prevented this exact type of accident. The employee sued the plant and the manager for negligence. Which of the following states the defendants' best argument on the issue of breach? A The cost of installing the technology was prohibitive. B Work in a nuclear plant is inherently dangerous, and the employee assumed the risk. C Even with the technology, there was still a chance for an accident. D The potential harm from a nuclear meltdown is large.

A. cost was too high B<PxL=no breach (learned hand)

Siobhan, hating Puckaluck and wishing to injure him, had no reason to have confidence in her bomb-building skills. She had flunked high school chemistry. Nevertheless, she found on the Internet a set of directions for making a crude explosive device, and followed them as best as she could to create a letter bomb. She mailed Puckaluck this letter bomb, laughing at herself for attempting such a futile experiment. Against all odds, the letter bomb exploded in Puckaluck's hands, killing him. Assume Puckaluck can establish the act, contact, causation, and injury elements of battery. Can Siobhan be liable to Puckaluck's estate for battery? A) Yes, because Siobhan's purpose is sufficient to establish intent. B) No, because Siobhan only wanted to injure, not kill Puckaluck. C) No, because Siobhan lacked substantial certainty that harmful contact would result. D) Yes, because even though Siobhan doubted that the letter bomb would work, she still acted with knowledge to substantial certainty.

Answer: A Battery INTENT question. She DID have purpose intent even if knowledge intent was lacking. Remember that purpose and knowledge to substantial certainty intent are distinct. She may not have known that she would make contact with Puckaluck, but she wanted to make contact (meaning purpose was there)

District Attorney Doyle was sick and tired of divorced persons who failed to make court-ordered child support payments. To crack down on these "deadbeat parents," Doyle constructed a large billboard in a prominent location. Each month, the billboard featured a photo of the "Deadbeat Parent of the Month," and a statement of how much the person owed for child support. For April, and as an April Fool's joke on her old friend Giles Crane, Doyle posted Crane's photo and a statement that Crane owed more than $20,000 in child support. When Crane learned of the poster, he suffered serious emotional distress, eventually leading to the breakup of his marriage. He became a shut-in, refusing to leave his luxury condo. He brings an action against Doyle for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Assume Doyle is not immune from suit. Which of the following statements best predicts the outcome of Crane's action and the primary reason for that outcome? A) Crane will not prevail because Doyle did not want to cause Crane serious emotional distress. B) Crane will not prevail because Doyle did not act maliciously. C) Crane will not prevail because he did not suffer bodily harm. D) Crane will likely prevail because he can satisfy all elements of the prima facie case and Doyle does not appear to have a valid defense.

Answer: D- claim will prevail. IIED Question A) could still have knowledge or reckless intent, even if they didnt WANT to cause ED. B) Maliciousness does not matter C) suffering bodily harm isnt required-- its only required P suffers severe emotional distress, which could be entirely mental/emotional

On board the commercial airline flight, things were going fine until the captain accidentally played for the passengers a pre-recorded announcement stating that the plane was about to crash into the sea. There was no actual emergency, and after a short time, the captain realized the error and announced that all was well and that the first announcement had been a mistake. Daphne, an elderly passenger, suffered a serious anxiety attack as a result of the erroneous announcement. Daphne brings an action against the airline for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Of the following, which constitutes the airline's strongest argument against liability? A) Daphne was extra sensitive. B) There was no intent. C) The conduct was not extreme and outrageous. D) Daphne did not suffer physical injury.

Answer=B IIED question A) Daphne being extra sensitive doesn't change that a reasonable person would have likely been distressed by this too! Suffering emotional distress has objective AND subjective component. B) If Captain had no purpose of causing ED, did NOT know to a substantial certainty AND did not even disregard a substantial risk of causing ED (recklessness), then they cant be charged with IIED!! Best argument here because it was an accident C) bad argument... it really was outrageous D) No physical injury required for IIED- must suffer severe emotional distress but that can be emotional/mental

Greg was a seven-year-old boy who often came onto Mr. Smith's property to play with Mr. Smith's dog. Mr. Smith was aware that this occurred. When Mr. Smith decided to put in a swimming pool, a couple of large pieces of equipment were left in his backyard overnight by Jones Corp., the construction company. The equipment was not owned by Jones Corp. but was leased from Brown Co., which was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the equipment. After the workers had left, Greg came onto the Smith property to play. Eventually, he climbed up on one of the pieces of equipment, which had no safety locking device on the ignition, and began pushing buttons and moving levers. The engine started and the equipment began to move. Greg became frightened and jumped off, falling into the hole that had been dug that day, and was injured. Greg's parents brought suit against Mr. SMith and Jones Corp. in a jurisdiction that retains joint and several liability. In Greg's suit against Mr. Smith, who will prevail? A Greg, because Mr. Smith is strictly liable for ultra-hazardous activity on his property. B Greg, because his presence on Mr. Smith's property was reasonably foreseeable. C Mr. Smith, because Greg was a trespasser. D Mr. Smith, because he had no duty to inspect the safety features of the equipment.

Attractive Nusiance Q B- you do have a duty to inspect and make sure it isnt dangerous. (look at attractive nuisance factors) Lens specifically didnt talk about strict liability

When Nancy was jogging along a road by the beach, she came to a bike path that passed under a pier. A city code provided that only bicycles were to be used on this path and that pedestrians were prohibited. However, if Nancy were to continue her run along the road, she would have to detour around the pier; so her usual procedure when she jogged in the morning was to cut under the pier on the bike path and get back on the road on the other side. After she reached the road on the other side, she had gone about 15 feet when Al pulled out of the alley and hit her with his car, injuring her. There was a stop sign at the end of the alley, but Al had failed to see it and stop. Had Nancy not disobeyed the statute by using the bicycle path, she would not have been near the alley when Al drove out; thus, her violation of this ordinance can be said to be: A The actual cause of her injury. B A concurring actual cause of her injury. C An intervening cause of her injury. D An existing condition having no factual relationship to her injury.

B

Assume that Kansas has maintained traditional common law tort defenses, Arkansas has adopted "partial" comparative fault negligence, and Indiana has adopted "pure" comparative fault negligence. Joint and several liability is retained in all three jurisdictions. Aiken failed to stop at a stop sign before he entered an intersection. Bacon, who had the right of way, saw Aiken but was unable to stop because he had neglected to get his brakes repaired even though he knew they were going bad. The two cars collided and then struck Cogg, who had ridden her motorcycle through the intersection from the other direction, also without stopping at a stop sign. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Bacon suffered no damages, while Aiken suffered $10,000 in damages and Cogg suffered $100,000. Assume also that it was determined that Aiken was 55% at fault, Bacon was 45% at fault, and Cogg was not at fault. After damages are assessed and judgment entered in Indiana, Aiken paid Cogg a total of $100,000, while Bacon has paid nothing. How much, if any, can Aiken recover from Bacon if Indiana has adopted contribution? A $45,000, because Bacon was 45% at fault. B $49,500, because Bacon was 45% at fault and Aiken suffered damages. C $50,000, because Aiken and Bacon are jointly liable. D Nothing, because Aiken was more at fault than Bacon.

B A can get a contribution claim from B 55,000 for the 100,000 settlement and $4500 for his own damages from being 55% of 10,000.

While practicing their target shooting at the firing range, Aaron and Dale fot into an argument that almost erupted into physical combat, except that they were restrained and separated by bystanders. Later, in the parking lot of the range, Aaron shot Dale in the shoulder. At trial of Dale's civil action for battery against Aaron, the latter testified that Dale approached him, said, "We'll settle this once and for all, right now," and raised an object toward Aaron. Fearing that Dale was about to shoot him with a pistol, Aaron fired in self-defense. Bystanders who rushed to the scene immediately after hearing Aaron's shot found Dale on the pavement with a black metal flashlight in his hand. Dale's pistol was in his locker at the firing range. If Aaron's testimony is believed by the tried of fact, judgment on Dale's claim for damages should be: A For Aaron, if he honestly believed that Dale was about to shoot. B For Aaron, if a reasonable person if the same circumstances would have believed Dale was about to shoot. C For Dale, because he was not armed. D For Dale, because he was not the aggressor.

B subjective AND objective standard. A is true but you also need a reasonable person to believe and the question kind of implies the subjective part.

Gail, a precocious student at North Central High School, was an "A" student in her chemistry class and was interested in developing a Science Fair project in the area of chemistry. She was inspired by an experiment conducted in class in which the teacher had the students mix three chemicals together to create a gas that caused the faces of the students to become grossly distorted. Gail obtained an ample supply of the three chemicals and went to an abandoned building located on a street that had heavy pedestrian traffic. She mixed together the chemicals, and the fumes passed across the sidewalk, causing the pedestrians' faces to become grossly distorted, as if they suffered from physical defects. The effect of the gas was temporary and none of the pedestrians suffered any permanent damage. One of the pedestrians exposed to the gas was Parker. If Parker wants to sue Gail, which of the following best describes the tort she has committed against him? (A) Assault (B) Battery (C) IIED (D) Trespass to Land (E) Indirect IIED

B - Battery

Amy and Bailey were high school classmates. After school, they went together to "Le Soda Shoppe," a short-order restaurant popular with students. Amy and bailey were seated in a booth near the front of the restaurant and were heavily engaged in conversation when Dough, another classmate, sat down at the booth immediately adjacent to theirs. Doug had a "crush" on Bailey and wanted to scare her slightly to draw attention to himself. Therefore, he shot a spitball from his straw toward Bailey, who was seated with her back toward him. Doug's shot went astray and struck Amy in the eye, causing her to suffer corneal damage. If Amy sues Dough, she can recover for: (A) Assault (B) Battery (C) IIED (D) Nothing, because Dough did not intend to harm her

B - battery

Laureen agreed to undergo surgery performed by Dan. Dan was HIV-positive, but did not inform Laureen of this fact because he genuinely believed it to be a private matter that posed no risk to her. Dan carefully avoided cutting himself during surgery, and the surgery was successful. Six months after the surgery, however, Laureen learned of Dan's HIV status. She became extremely apprehensive, and took an HIV test which, fortunately, proved to be negative. Nevertheless, the anxiety she suffered was extremely severe, and led to significant weight loss and other physical illness. Laureen has consulted an attorney, who is considering filing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on Lauren's behalf against Dan. Of the following arguments, which gives Dan the greatest chance of avoiding liability? A) Because Dan did not act maliciously, he did not satisfy the intent requirement, and Laureen cannot recover. B) Because Dan's conduct was not "extreme and outrageous," Laureen cannot recover. C) Because there was no contact between Dan's blood and Laureen's body, Laureen cannot recover. D) Because claims of severe emotional distress can be faked easily, Laureen cannot recover.

B is answer. IIED question A) maliciousness does not matter- bad argument B) Best argument-- acting not to freak her out her and no risk C) No contact required for IIED- Bad argument D) courts are wary of this but its a bad argument...

In the context of intentional torts, to which of the following situations does the doctrine of transferred intent NOT apply? A Where the defendant intended a victim who was different from the actual victim. B Where the defendant intended a circumstance that was different from the circumstances required to establish liability. C Where the defendant intended an injury that was different from the actual injury that the victim sustained. D Where the defendant intended to commit a tort that was different from the tort that he actually did commit.

B is correct because circumstances do not matter. A is person to person C and D are tort to tort Transferred intent is when intent transfer from person to person or tort to tort. (Meant battery but committed assault or meant for one person but it was two another)

As a part of a fraternity prank, a fraternity member grabbed a fraternity pledge, forced him into a closet, and locked the closet door. The fraternity member only intended to hold the pledge against his will for about an hour. He did not intend for the pledge to sustain any injuries, although he recognized that the pledge might sustain a few bruises if he tried to force the door open by banging on it or throwing his weight against it. The pledge did briefly bang on the door and try to force the door open, and he pleaded to be released. Unbeknownst to the fraternity member, the pledge suffered from claustrophobia. While in the closet, he had a panic attack, passed out, and hit his head, sustaining a severe concussion. He also experienced post-traumatic stress following the incident. The pledge filed a lawsuit against the fraternity member based on the intentional tort of false imprisonment. Assuming the fraternity pledge can prevail on the merits of his case against the fraternity member, for which injuries, if any, is the fraternity pledge likely to recover damages? A Only for the bruises and the concussion. B For the bruises, the concussion, and the post-traumatic stress. C Only for the bruises. D For no injuries.

B is correct: all the injuries Knew he was imprisoned= all you have to have is presumed injury to recover but he can recover for actual harm as well.

In a negligence action, which of the following best summarizes the analysis of burden, probability, and loss factors in determining whether a plaintiff's suggested alternative course of conduct is reasonable? A Where BOTH the risk of harm to the plaintiff is great AND the likely magnitude of harm to the plaintiff is great, we expect the utmost time, trouble, and expense from a reasonable person in the defendant's position in order to avoid the harm. B The greater the risk of harm to the plaintiff is, and the greater the likely magnitude of harm is, the more time, trouble, and expense we expect a reasonable person in the defendant's position to incur in order to avoid the harm. C The greater the risk of harm to the plaintiff is, and the greater the actual harm the plaintiff suffered is, the more time, trouble, and expense we expect a reasonable person in the defendant's position to incur in order to avoid the harm. D Where EITHER the risk of harm to the plaintiff is great OR the likely magnitude of harm to the plaintiff is great, we expect the utmost time, trouble, and expense from a reasonable person in the defendant's position in order to avoid the harm.

B- that is literally the learned hand test. D is wrong because "upmost time" is wrong. We dont expect a person to give the upmost effort, just enough that the burden is less than the probability and magnitude of harm. We care about the bare minimum to prevent it. Burden has to be HIGH is both the probability of loss and magnitude of loss is great because to NOT breach: B>PxL

After a late night on Dickson, John was walking home under the glow of the neon signs. As he walked under the "New Bar" sign, the neon and metal sign fell from the building striking John's head and knocked him unconscious. Each bar on Dickson is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of their facilities. If John decides to sue "New Bar" for negligence, what would the STRONGEST argument for John in establishing a breach? A New Bar had a standard of care of a objective, reasonable bar in similar circumstances. B The sign would not have fallen absent some unreasonable conduct. C Absent negligent (or unreasonable) conduct, the injury would not have occurred. D "New Bar" was in exclusive possession of the sign and the fall is therefore strong evidence of breach.

B- this is res ipsa. The OCCURANCE would not have occured without negligence. C is wrong bc its OCCURANCE, not injury. D its an inference of breach-- nothing to do with whether that is "evidence" of breach

Greg was a seven-year-old boy who often came onto Mr. Smith's property to play with Mr. Smith's dog. Mr. Smith was aware that this occurred. When Mr. Smith decided to put in a swimming pool, a couple of large pieces of equipment were left in his backyard overnight by Jones Corp., the construction company. The equipment was not owned by Jones Corp. but was leased from Brown Co., which was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the equipment. After the workers had left, Greg came onto the Smith property to play. Eventually, he climbed up on one of the pieces of equipment, which had no safety locking device on the ignition, and began pushing buttons and moving levers. The engine started and the equipment began to move. Greg became frightened and jumped off, falling into the hole that had been dug that day, and was injured. Greg's parents brought suit against Mr. SMith and Jones Corp. in a jurisdiction that retains joint and several liability. If Jones Corp. is held liable for Greg's injuries, Jones Corp. could: A Obtain indemnity from Brown Co. if the equipment was negligently maintained in an unsafe condition. B Obtain contribution from Brown Co. if the equipment was negligently maintained in an unsafe condition. C Obtain indemnity from both Brown Co. and Mr. Smith. D Not recover any damages it paid from any other party.

B. haven't talked about indemnity. The defendant CAN seek contribution from another D (assuming they brought this D in)

Scott is at the club and sees Bob, who owes Scott money. Scott demands payment, but Bob doesn't have all the money he owes Scott. Scott takes his gun out of his pocket. While holding the gun in his hand, Scott hits Bob on the side of the head. Scott pulls his hand back to again hit Bob, but the gun goes off, shooting Bob in the stomach and injuring him. Which of the following statements concerning Bob's battery claim against Scott is accurate: A) If the jurisdiction follows dual intent, Bob would be unable to establish intent because Scott did not intend to shoot Bob. B) It would likely be easier for Bob to establish intent if the jurisdiction follows dual intent (the minority rule) than if it follows the single intent rule (the majority rule). C) If Scott did not actually want to hit (or shoot) Bob the second time, Bob will likely be unable to establish intent regardless of the rule the jurisdiction follows. D) Bob will likely be able to establish intent regardless of whether the jurisdiction follows single intent (the majority rule) or dual intent (the minority rule).

Battery Question. A is wrong because intent to harm is not required under either dual or single intent. Dual intent requires the D appreciate the harmfulness or offensiveness of their conduct... which here, Scott would because he still intended to hit Bob. B is wrong because single intent is ALWAYS easier to establish-- it has one less prong. C is wrong because that fact would negate PURPOSE intent, but knowledge to a substantial certainty may still be present if swinging his fish was in a close vicinity to bob, ESPECIALLY after JUST successfully making contact. D is correct- Scott likely had the purpose of making contact (no shooting but CONTACT) with and knew to a substantial certainty that he would make contact (JUST hit him + close in proximity)

When Nancy was jogging along a road by the beach, she came to a bike path that passed under a pier. A city code provided that only bicycles were to be used on this path and that pedestrians were prohibited. However, if Nancy were to continue her run along the road, she would have to detour around the pier; so her usual procedure when she jogged in the morning was to cut under the pier on the bike path and get back on the road on the other side. After she reached the road on the other side, she had gone about 15 feet when Al pulled out of the alley and hit her with his car, injuring her. There was a stop sign at the end of the alley, but Al had failed to see it and stop. Nancy sued Al. On the basis of which standard of care will Al be judged? A Strict liability, because an automobile is an inherently dangerous instrument. B That of a reasonable and prudent person under the facts of this situation. Reasonable Person SOC. C The standard set by the traffic ordinance, unless Al is excused from following its requirements. Negligence Per se. D The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, because it can be presumed that nobody would fail to stop at a stop sign in the absence of negligence.

C Negligence per se. Any ordinance should be a red flag.

Late at night, a drunk driver pulled off a highway onto the shoulder of the road, parked his truck, and fell asleep. Thereafter, a motorcycle driver rear-ended the truck and sustained a physical injury. The state in which the accident occurred has a misdemeanor statute that states: "A person commits the offense of impaired driving if he drives any vehicle upon any highway, any street, or any public vehicular area within this state while under the influence of an impairing substance." If the motorcycle driver proves that the truck driver was "under the influence of an impairing substance" while he was driving his vehicle, will this fact establish that the truck driver was per se negligent? A Yes, because the statute prohibits the truck driver's conduct. B Yes, because the motorcycle driver was within the class of persons that the statute was designed to protect. C No, because the truck driver was not driving his truck at the time of the accident. D No, because the particular injury that the motorcyclist suffered was not the specific harm the statute was enacted to avert.

C Negligence Per Se-- The statute was meant to prevent harm from drunk DRIVING accidents. This is not the type of harm that drunk driving statute is trying to alleviate.

Matt looked out his front window one day and saw Rex standing on a narrow ledge on the second story of the house across the street. He also saw a ladder lying on the ground beneath where Rex was stranded. Matt turned away and pulled the drapes, muttering to himself, "Well, I'm not going to watch him fall off there." Later, Howard was walking down the street and saw Rex's situation and determined to help. Howard picked up the ladder and placed it against the side of the house. However, he set it atop a patch of ice. As Rex started down the ladder, a rotten rung broke and Rex fell to the ground and was injured. If Rex sues Matt for damages for his injuries, will he recover? A Yes, because Matt had a duty to aid Rex when he saw that Rex was in peril. B Yes, because a reasonably prudent person would have aided Rex under the circumstances. C No, because Matt took no action to aid Rex. D No, because Rex put himself in a position of peril.

C Rescuers. No duty unless special relationship or assumes the risk to help (and then.. good Samaritan) D: Matts under no duty to assist Rex regardless of who put him in danger unless Matt himself put him in the danger.

Assume that Kansas has maintained traditional common law tort defenses, Arkansas has adopted "partial" comparative fault negligence, and Indiana has adopted "pure" comparative fault negligence. Joint and several liability is retained in all three jurisdictions. Aiken failed to stop at a stop sign before he entered an intersection. Bacon, who had the right of way, saw Aiken but was unable to stop because he had neglected to get his brakes repaired even though he knew they were going bad. The two cars collided and then struck Cogg, who had ridden her motorcycle through the intersection from the other direction, also without stopping at a stop sign. Aiken sued Bacon and Cogg, each of whom counter sued Aiken and sued each other. At trial, it was determined by the trier of fact that Aiken suffered $10,000 in damages, Bacon suffered $1,000 in damages, and Cogg suffered $100,000 in damages. It was also determined that Aiken was 45% at fault, Bacon was 35% at fault, and Cogg was 20% at fault. How would damages be assessed in ARKANSAS? A Cog ghas a claim for $80,000, and A and B have no claims B C has a claim for 80K, which she can collect from either A or B, B has a claim for $650 which she can collect only from A, and A has no claim C Aiken has a claim for $5500, B has claim for $650, C has claim for $80K D A has claim for 10K, B has claim for 1K, C has claim for 100K

C partial comparative means its either 49MCF or 50MCF but it doesnt really matter bc all below 49% in fault. A=10,000-45%=5500 B= C-

Glenn, a Cloud 9 Store Manager, purchased a playground to go in the super market. He thought it would create a better shopping experience for the parents while they could leave their kids to play. On the first day, three kids slipped off the monkey bars and busted their chins on the tile floor. The families brought negligence suits against Glenn. Which is a likely outcome of the litigation? (A) Breach, if placing a staff member at the playground is more burdensome than preventing the injury of a child. (B) Negligence per se, if there is a law requiring parents to be with their kids at all times. (C) Breach, if the cost of placing crash pads under the monkey bars was minimal. (D) The court will find that Glenn's standard of care is that of a reasonable Cloud 9 Store Manager, exercising the level of skill and knowledge common to the profession.

C - Breach, if the cost of placing crash pads under the monkey bars was minimal.

A patient was recovering from surgery in a hospital. His doctor recommended that he stay another day, but the patient was anxious to leave and demanded that the hospital release him. While the staff was preparing for his release, they discovered a mix-up among some of the patient lockers, and they could not find this patient's personal belongings, which included his wallet, car and house keys, and clothing. For the next 24 hours, the staff searched for the patient's belongings. During this time, the hospital kept the patient on an intravenous drip (IV) of antibiotics and hydration, which the doctor felt was still beneficial. The IV prevented the patient from moving about freely, but he did not insist that the nurse remove it from his arm. Finally, the staff located the patient's belongings, the nurse removed the IV, and the patient was released from the hospital. In a subsequent action by the patient claiming false imprisonment during the last 24 hours of his hospital stay, is the hospital likely to be found liable? A No, because the patient could have left the hospital at any time without his belongings. B Yes, because the patient was tethered to an IV, which prevented him from moving freely. C No, because the hospital's delay in returning the patient's belongings to him was not intentional. D Yes, because the hospital had possession of items without which the patient could not reasonably leave.

C because the hospital did not have the purpose of confining the patient and or knowledge to a substantial certainty intent. B was Taylor's answer because an IV confines a person-- bounds don't need to be 4 walls.

A municipal ordinance required that all commercial building owners keep their properties' adjacent sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots free from snow and ice. A motorist's car skidded on a hardware store's icy driveway and collided with a retaining wall, causing damage to the car. The motorist brought a negligence action against the hardware store. Which of the following arguments, assuming it is properly supported, would be the hardware store's strongest argument AGAINST the court finding that the municipal ordinance establishes the hardware store's breach of their standard of care? A Compliance with the statute was beyond the hardware store's control. B The hardware store's staff did not know the driveway was icy. C The motorist was not within the particular class of persons that the statute was designed to protect. D Compliance with the statute would have caused more danger than noncompliance. E Compliance with the statute would have caused an undue financial burden upon the hardware store.

C- for negligence per se, the statute has to be trying to prevent the harm that occurred AND the plaintiff has to be in the class that it was trying to protect. So saying the P was not in the class is the best argument

Doctor was performing surgery on Patient, specifically in his abdomen. After a few hours, Doctor finally finished the procedure as exhaustion began to sit in. He began to remove the various instruments and sewed Patient back up. After a few days in the Hospital, Patient felt better and was healthy enough for home rest. After a few days had past, Patient began to feel ill again, especially in her abdomen region. Upon the pain escalating, Patient visited her family doctor (not the surgeon who had performed the surgery). This doctor performed an X-Ray and noted that Doctor had left a bundle of gauze in Patient, and it had caused significant irritation in the area. This irritation had promulgated an infection which caused the escalated pain. If Patient wishes to bring a negligence action against Doctor, what will be her best argument for breach? A Doctor was able to show that Doctor had exclusive control of the gauze during the procedure and the occurrence would not normally happen absent unreasonable conduct. B The burden of ensuring the gauze was removed is far outweighed by the probability of injury resulting from the negligence and the significant harm that Patient could face. C A reasonable person of the profession, exercising that level of skill and knowledge common to the profession, would not have left gauze in Patient. D The Doctor took the hippocratic oath which stated that he would do know harm.

C- Under professional SOC, this dude did NOT exercise level of skill and knowledge common to the profession. C is "best answer." With professional standard of care, start with accepted practice, then negligence per se, then res ipsa, then learned hand (negligence per se is super close because evidentiary effect of it is higher (in some jdx) than accepted practice... so those are both kind of right) D- hypocratic oath doesnt matter-- its like the walmart regulation. Its not law.

Dylan owned a large tract of land on which was located a small lake. The lake had a sand beach and a boat launching area that Dylan opened to the public for a fee. He also rented canoes for use on the lake. Dylan was very, safety-conscious, especially in his canoe rentals, requiring all canoe users to wear life vests and requiring anyone under the age of 16 to be accompanied by an adult. He also inspected the canoes regularly. When the summer season had come to an end, Dylan removed the canoes from the water and put the up on racks attached to a trailer. He arranged for them to be towed the next day to a storage shed for the winter. That evening, Curtis and Freddy, both age nine, came onto Dylan's property even though they knew that the lake was closed to the public for the season. Both of them had used the canoes (with an adult) several times during the past summer. They unhooked one of the canoes from the rack, lifted it down, and pushed it into the water. Although the life vests were sitting in an open bin nearby, neither boy put one on. When they were out in the middle of the lake with the canoe, they tried to switch seats and caused the canoe to capsize. They both tried to swim to the shore. Freddy was able to make it, but unfortunately Curtis did not and drowned. Had he been wearing a life vest, he would have survived. Curtis's parents bring a wrongful death action against Dylan. Who will likely prevail? A Curtis's parents, if children of Curtis's age, intelligence, and education would be likely to take the canoe out without a life vest. B Dylan, because he took reasonable pre-cautions to make the canoes inaccessible. C Dylan, if he can show that Curtis appreciated the risk of taking the canoe out onto the lake without a life vest. D Curtis's parent, if they can show that Curtis was lured onto Dylan's property by the canoes.

C- goes to kids appreciation of harmfulness of condition attractive nuisance.

In response to a number of accidents involving pedestrians in the local business district, City enacted a statute making it illegal for a pedestrian to walk through City's central business district anywhere other that on the sidewalk. City also enacted a statute making it illegal for any business to obstruct the sidewalk in front of its establishment. As Turner was walking along the sidewalk in the central business district on his way to lunch, he discovered that Loader had stacked a pile of boxes in front of his establishment in such a way that it totally obstructed the sidewalk. Turner stepped into the street to walk around the obstruction of boxes. While in the street, Turner was struck by a taxicab, negligently driven by Cabbie. The jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. If Turner asserts a claim against Cabbie, Turner's act of leaving the sidewalk and walking into the street will have which of the following effects? A It will bar Turner's recovery as a matter of law. B It will bar Turner's recovery unless Cabbie saw Turner in time to avoid the impact. C It may be considered by the trier of fact on the issue of Cabbie's liability. D It is not relevant in determining the rights of Turner.

C. We don't even know that the taxi driver breached because we dont know if he saw him. In a contributory negligence Q, make sure the D is negligent! Taylor says that C refers to step 3: youre asking the assigning fault Q (flaw of the Q is that its traditional jdx so any step bars.) BASICALLY just remember that do all 4 steps: D negligent, P negligent, how much, assign fault . IF CABBIE IS NEGLIGENT, a would be correct bc: If its traditional contributory negligence, he is BARRED if P is negligent, even 1%. He breached here because negligence per se. He was a c/f of his injury AND the proximate cause.

A man who depended on a wheelchair for mobility was scheduled to travel by airplane. The man's girlfriend had a dream that his flight would crash, and she urged him not to take the flight, but the man dismissed the girlfriend's fears. On the night before the flight, after the man fell asleep, the girlfriend removed the wheelchair from the man's bedroom, but did not lock the door. The man awoke seven hours later and insisted that the girlfriend return his wheelchair. The girlfriend gave in and returned the chair to the man after 30 minutes, but she pleaded and cried for the man not to leave. The man felt bad for the girlfriend, so he stayed with her in the bedroom for another 15 minutes before getting ready to go to the airport. For what amount of time, if any, was the man falsely imprisoned? A Seven hours and 45 minutes. B 15 minutes. C 30 minutes. D Seven hours and 30 minutes. E 45 minutes. F Seven hours and 15 minutes. G Seven hours. H No amount of time.

C= 30 minutes For false imprisonment, if you are unconscious, you need to show ACTUAL harm to have a viable claim. = 7 hour period is not false imprisonment If you are conscious, injury is presumed so 30 minutes is. Last 15 minutes, he could've left so no false imprisonment.

Question: Little Rock had an undesirable occurrence of people driving by sub-shops late at night and annoying people who honked loudly. The annoyance grew to such an extent that Little Rock passed the Section 18-54 Ordinance, which states: "No person shall sound the horn on any vehicle at any place where cold drinks or sandwiches are served after 9 p.m." One fateful day, Johnny Rae was eating at Lenny's Sub-Shop on the outskirts of Little Rock just after 9 p.m. Clark, a high-schooler, drove up in a "jacked-up" F-150. Clark had swapped his normal horn out for a train horn, which is noticeably louder. Upon pulling up to the sub-shop, Clark laid on his horn, sounding as if a train was literally next door. The patrons of the restaurant all jumped in fear. Johnny Rae, though, had very sensitive ears. He had a rare condition that made his ears particularly susceptible to loud noises. One of Johnny Rae's eardrums burst. It was months before Johnny Rae could hear out of that ear again. Johnny Rae sues Clark. Who wins on the determination on breach? A) Johnny wins because Clark must take the plaintiff as he is according to the eggshell plaintiff rule. B) Clark wins because the harm that occurred is not harm that the statute was intended to protect. C) Clark wins because Johnny was not in the class of plaintiffs that the statute was trying to protect.

Correct Answer: Clark wins because Johnny Rae's harm was not one that the ordinance was designed to protect.) INCORRECT: While the statement of law here is correct, the eggshell plaintiff rule is an analysis under proximate cause. Unless the defendant knows of the persons condition, it will not normally be a factor in breach. B) CORRECT: For an ordinance to be used as negligence per se (1) the ordinance must be specific; (2) the plaintiff must be within the protected class; and (3) the harm occurred must be the type of harm the ordinance was designed to protect. While one might conjure some correlation to ear injury and the statute, the first sentence explains that the purpose of the ordinance was to curb annoyances, not prevent injuries that were occurring because of this practice. C) INCORRECT: While the "harm" element is not met, the particular "protected class" element is. The ordinance was passed to protect patrons of Sub-shops (and cold drink places) after 9 p.m. As a sub-shop patron in Little Rock, Johnny Rae fell within the protected class. D) INCORRECT: If there is one thing I hope you get from these questions, it is that "But For" is a cause-in-fact test, not a breach or proximate cause test!

Mildred Minor was a three-year-old child attending nursery school. Tom Tease, who attended the same nursery school, teased Mildred every day because she wore glasses. One day, Tom's teasing was particularly vicious, Mildred slugged Tom in the face, knocking out his newly acquired front teeth. Note: There is no state statute which makes parents vicariously liable for the actions of their children. If Tom's parents sue Mildred's parents for damage to Tom's teeth, the best defense would be: A Tom was the initial aggressor. B Mildred is too young to be responsible for her actions. C A parent cannot be liable for damages due to the child's conduct. D They were unaware of any potentially violent behavior by Mildred.

D Special Relationship-- duty to control no duty on behalf of parents bc didn't know she was violent. Probably wont be tested on this... under typical tort theory parent-child relationship DOES create liability (c) like under common law.

Amy and Bailey were high school classmates. After school, they went together to "Le Soda Shoppe," a short-order restaurant popular with students. Amy and bailey were seated in a booth near the front of the restaurant and were heavily engaged in conversation when Dough, another classmate, sat down at the booth immediately adjacent to theirs. Doug had a "crush" on Bailey and wanted to scare her slightly to draw attention to himself. Therefore, he shot a spitball from his straw toward Bailey, who was seated with her back toward him. Doug's shot went astray and struck Amy in the eye, causing her to suffer corneal damage. If Bailey sues Doug, she can recover for: (A) Assault (B) Battery (C) IIED (D) Nothing

D - Nothing

A woman suffered from delusions which rendered her insane. Despite suffering from a mental illness, she was able to engage in some daily activities and enjoyed riding a bicycle around the neighborhood. During one such ride, she experienced a delusion that distracted her and caused her to slam into a pedestrian. The pedestrian suffered a broken arm, which also affected his livelihood, and he sued the woman for the intentional tort of battery, defined as an intentional, nonconsensual contact with the plaintiff or his effects, which contact caused harm to the plaintiff. On the issue of the requisite state of mind to establish battery, which party will prevail? A The woman, because she is insane. B The pedestrian, because the woman intended to ride her bicycle. C The pedestrian, because insanity is not a defense to an intentional tort. D The woman, because she did not intend to hit the pedestrian.

D is correct. Even though was having this dilussion, she did not mean to hit this person/ did not intend to make contact Insanity doesn't negate intent but you do have to intend to make contact. Lens would accept C as well ^

A builder was building a house in a state that had not had a tornado in 100 years. Due to that fact, the builder decided not to use special roofing nails that were rated to withstand the most severe tornado winds. The special nails would have added $100 to the total cost of the project. The homeowner moved into the house after it was built. A few weeks later, a tornado struck, the nails failed, and the roof was destroyed. The homeowner sued the builder for negligent construction of the roof. On the issue of breach, the builder is only likely to prevail if the jury weighs which of the following factors most heavily? A The severity of the actual harm suffered by the homeowner. B The severity of the potential harm from the builder's conduct. C The burden on the builder of following a course of conduct that would have prevented the harm. D The probability of harm from the builder's conduct

D probability is most important Breach/ Learned-Hand Test!! If the probability is LOW, then maybe the burden is MORE than probabilityxmagnitude, making it so that the builder did NOT breached. B<PxL A- dont care about actual harm B- severity is high and already occured C-we want burden to be high and they told us it was pretty low

A refrigerator repair technician inspected a homeowner's refrigerator, which had stopped cooling. The technician disassembled the refrigerator and found a failing part, which she replaced, instructing the homeowner to allow the refrigerator to cool overnight. The technician then gave the homeowner an invoice for her work and left. The next morning, having left the refrigerator to cool as instructed, the homeowner discovered coolant leaking from underneath the refrigerator, staining his hardwood floors. In a negligence action against the technician, which of the following facts, if true, would be most helpful to the homeowner? A The refrigerator technician was not licensed, in violation of a state statute requiring licensing of all home appliance technicians. B The refrigerator technician's invoice did not itemize parts and labor costs, in violation of a state regulation requiring such itemization. C The refrigerator was still under warranty by the technician's company, which originally sold the refrigerator to the homeowner. D Refrigerator coolant leaks tend only to occur when an internal line has been damaged.

D- Res Ipsa! THis tells us that the technition was likely the sole person (exclusive control) responsible and the occurance wouldnt have occured without negligence. A- doesnt work because licensing statutes dont work for negligence per se. Also hes a technition

In the context of determining whether a negligence defendant breached the standard of care, which of the following is NOT a factor in Judge Learned Hand's classic balancing test for deciding whether the plaintiff's suggested alternative course of conduct is reasonable? A The burden or cost that the defendant (and society at large) would have incurred had the defendant taken the alternative course of conduct. B The severity of potential harm from the defendant's conduct. C The probability that harm would result from the defendant's conduct. D The extent to which the plaintiff's injury is attributable to the defendant's conduct.

D- extent of P's injury NOT a part of the equation