Torts Quizzes

One night, officers Smith and Jones were summoned to a bar to help control an altercation between rival motorcycle gangs. Two gang members were placed under arrest, and the rest of the gang members dispersed as things began to calm down. Smith drove the arrestees away, but Jones decided to grab a basket of French fries, as he had not had time to eat that evening. Suddenly, an argument surrounding a football game (not involving any of the biker gang members, who had left the bar) broke out at the bar. As Jones walked over to try to quell the new disturbance, he tripped on a floorboard that had negligently been allowed to protrude above the otherwise level floor. Jones fell, suffering injuries. If Jones sued the bar owner in negligence for his injuries, 1. The bar owner could not be liable because Jones was its licensee 2. The bar owner is liable because Smith was its invitee 3. The bar owner is not liable because Smith was outside the scope of his employment 4. The bar owner is liable if the injuries were caused proximately, and in fact by the protruding floor board 5. None of the above

. The bar owner is liable if the injuries were caused proximately, and in fact by the protruding floor board

Charlie flew his new drone over Big Box Store's property line and onto Big Box's parking lot where it struck Ben, causing injuries. If Ben sued Big Box for the injury 1. Big Box will prevail if it had no reason to anticipate the drone 2. Big Box will prevail because Ben is its licensee 3. Big Box will not Prevail because Ben is its invitee 4. Big Box will prevail as a matter of law because the drone was a superseding cause 5. None of the above.

1. Big Box will prevail if it had no reason to anticipate the drone

A chair landed on Pete Pedestrian (causing injuries) as he was walking on the sidewalk abutting the north side of hotel, where restaurants, bars, and lounges occupied all four floors of hotel (all guest rooms were located on the south side of the hotel). No other building occupied the block on which Pete was walking. Indeed, there were no other buildings within two blocks of where Pete had been walking. Assume that defendant on these facts moves for nonsuit on the pleadings because breach cannot be established, the Motion will probably be 1. Denied, unless falling chairs is an event that sometimes happens in the absence of negligence. 2. Granted, because no reasonable jury could find breach on these facts. 3. Granted, because there is insufficient evidence that the chair could have caused harm 4. Denied, because the hotel has a general duty of care for all pedestrians traversing its sidewalks 5. None of the above

1. Denied, unless falling chairs is an event that sometimes happens in the absence of negligence.

Veronica dashed out of her house because she was late for a big Halloween party. She got into her car and began to back up. Just then, volunteer firefighter Jane tapped the back of Veronica's car and told her not to move because an ambulance crew was moving a heart attack victim on to the road right next to Veronica's apartment complex parking space. Jane thereafter stood directly behind Veronica's car. If Veronica sued Jane for false imprisonment, Veronica would probably: 1. Have a cause of action subject to a defense of privilege 2. Not have a cause of action because public safety officers are absolutely immune from intentional tort claims arising from their official duties 3. Not have a cause of action because Jane obviously had no hostile intent 4. Not have a cause of action because Jane simply wanted to create a safe passing lane for the ambulance crew 5. None of the above.

1. Have a cause of action subject to a defense of privilege

Jocko was skateboarding in a public park. As a prank, Harpo placed a large rock on the path where Jocko was skateboarding. When Jocko saw the rock, he immediately veered off the path and entered the yard of Jimbo where he (Jocko) fell into some soft grass without injuring himself or damaging any property. If Jimbo sued Jocko for trespass, Jimbo would likely: 1. Not prevail 2. Prevail because for purposes of maintaining an action it is immaterial that no damage caused to his property. 3. Prevail because Jocko is more like a cannonball than a ray of light 4. Prevail because Jocko and Harpo were jointly and severally liable for the mishap 5. None of the above

1. Not prevail

Eighty-year-old Sven backed his car into a residential gas line triggering an explosion that destroyed Tony's house. Tony sued Sven for negligence. If Sven, in response to the suit, files a motion to dismiss the complaint, all of the following could be grounds for a court granting the motion except: 1. Sven's advanced age absolves him of responsibility. 2. Sven did not breach a duty of care. 3. Tony's house was already destroyed. 4. The gas line was defective before Sven hit it. 5. None of the above.

1. Sven's advanced age absolves him of responsibility.

Vin was a roofer, and after a long hot day nailing shingles on to landowner's large roof, he climbed down a ladder off the roof. While leaving landowner's property, Vin tripped over a tricycle left carelessly in landowner's back yard, thereby suffering serious injuries. Vin will probably have a strong prima facie premises liability suit against landowner unless 1. The ladder and the gate exiting the property were located in the front of the property 2. Vin and landowner have a contractual relationship 3. Vin could not have seen the tricycle 4. Vin had not been warned about the tricycle 5. None of the above

1. The ladder and the gate exiting the property were located in the front of the property

Seven- year- old Tabitha gained access to her grandmother's car and started the engine by using an electronic, remote-access key. Her grandmother had also left the car in gear. Tabitha pointed the car onto the road (like she had seen on the television) and went cruising down the street in front of her house. If Tabitha collides with Jake's car, which is traveling in the opposite direction, Tabitha will not be liable: 1. Unless her conduct failed to conform to at least the RPP standard of care 2. Because her grandmother is in reality the cause of the accident 3. Unless her conduct failed to conform to at least the standard of care for a reasonable seven-year-old 4. Unless a jury concludes she has the mental capacity of a seven-year-old 5. None of the above

1. Unless her conduct failed to conform to at least the RPP standard of care

Joe threw a rock at Jim, intending to hit Jim. Jake pushed Larry in front of Jim, and the rock struck Larry, cutting Larry in the arm. If Larry had his back turned to Joe when Joe threw the rock, and if Larry never saw the rock before it struck him, which of the following intentional torts would NOT be available as a cause of action if Larry sued Joe? 1. Neither assault nor battery would be available as a cause of action 2. Battery would not be available as a cause of action 3. Both assault and battery would be available as a cause of action 4. Assault would not be available as a cause of action 5. None of the above

4. Assault would not be available as a cause of action

Because seven-year-old Tabitha's grandmother was a car enthusiast, Tabitha had an unusual attraction to classic sports cars (unusual, that is, for a seven-year-old). One day, Tabitha was walking by April's house and saw a 1952 Studebaker coupe (a classic sports car) in April's driveway. Tabitha was attracted by the car and entered April's driveway to try to gain access to the front seat of the car. Unfortunately, Tabitha, before reaching the car, was seriously injured by a piece of jagged, rusty metal lying in the driveway, a piece of metal of which April was fully aware, and had meant to remove earlier in the day (she hadn't yet gotten to that chore). In Tabitha's ensuing lawsuit against April, 1. April will probably be liable because she knew of the defective condition of her driveway 2. April will probably prevail because Tabitha was a trespasser 3. April will probably prevail because children injured on another's property have no recovery unless they are injured by what attracted them onto the land 4. April will not be liable because the car was not a natural condition of the land 5. None of the above

2. April will probably prevail because Tabitha was a trespasser

A skydiver jumped out of a plane with (unbeknownst to her) a negligently manufactured and defective parachute. The skydiver plummeted to her death and subsequent forensic investigation revealed that she had lost consciousness almost immediately upon stepping out of the plane. In a negligence "survival action" by plaintiff (on behalf of decedent) against the parachute manufacturer 1. Plaintiff will prevail because defendant was negligent. 2. Defendant will prevail if the parachute would have opened and worked properly despite the defect. 3. Defendant will prevail because its negligence was not the cause in fact of the death. 4. Plaintiff will prevail under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 5. None of the above.

2. Defendant will prevail if the parachute would have opened and worked properly despite the defect

One day, Tim stole Sally's watch. One week later, Ralph, Sally's brother, saw Tim at Walmart wearing the watch. Ralph told Tim, "Don't move. I'm going to get the cops. If you move, I'll tell your mom you stole Sally's watch." Assuming these facts, if Tim sues Ralph for false imprisonment, has a prima facie case been established? 1. No, because of the shopkeeper's privilege 2. No, because Ralph did not have the intent to confine, he had the intent to call the police. 3. No, because the cooling off period had expired. 4. No, if Sally had not told Ralph about the watch 5. None of the above

2. No, because Ralph did not have the intent to confine, he had the intent to call the police

Sue rented Jack's house to hold a private 16th birthday party for her son Jim. While grabbing a snack in the kitchen during the party, Sue was injured when the kitchen floor collapsed without warning. The collapse was caused by a rotten floor joist that had been on the verge of collapse since well before Sue and Jack entered into their rental agreement. If Sue sued Jack for her injury, 1. Sue could not prevail because caveat lessee. 2. Sue could prevail because the rotten joist existed when the rental agreement was created 3. Sue could prevail if Jack knew about the rotten joist when the rental agreement was created 4. Jack will prevail because the event was not foreseeable 5. None of the above

2. Sue could prevail because the rotten joist existed when the rental agreement was created

Tara negligently allowed deep water to accumulate in her back yard. One day, it rained heavily, and local roads began to flood. Tara's yard also began to accumulate even more water. Eventually, water from the road, and from Tara's back yard, combined indivisibly to flood Tara's neighbor Ted's basement, causing significant property damage. If Ted sues Tara for the damage, 1. Tara could not be liable because rain is an act of God. 2. Tara could be liable depending on the involved state's causation law 3. Tara could not be liable because water from her yard was not the but for cause of the damage 4. Tara could not be liable because Ted must have known about the water in Tara's yard 5. None of the above.

3. Allow the case to proceed without further analysis unless the state exclusively recognizes "but for" causation as cause-in-fact.

Beta, a car-rental agency, rented a car to Mary. Beta inspected the car in accord with normal industry standards to make sure it was in sound operating condition. The car turned out to have had a bomb in it at the time of the rental (presumably criminally planted); and an hour later, the bomb exploded, injuring Mary. There were no similar incidents in which rental cars had been criminally tampered with in this way. If a judge dismissed Mary's case against Beta on a Motion to Dismiss, it would probably be because, 1. The bomb was an intervening cause of Mary's harm 2. The bomb was a superseding cause of Mary's harm 3. Beta was not negligent 4. Beta had no duty to Mary 5. None of the above

3. Beta was not negligent

Sue rented Jack's large house to hold a big 16th birthday party bash, open to many members of the public (as Jack knew), for her son Jim. Jim's friend Jocko attended the party. While grabbing a snack in the kitchen during the party, Jocko was injured when the kitchen floor collapsed without warning. The collapse was caused by a rotten floor joist that had been on the verge of collapse since well before Sue and Jack entered into their rental agreement. If Jocko sued Jack for the injury, 1. Jocko could not prevail because he was not in privity with Jack, Sue was. 2. Jack would prevail because Jack had no duty to Jocko if he did not know about the rotten joist. 3. Jocko could prevail because Jack had a duty to Jocko to inspect the premises to assure its safety. 4. Jocko will prevail because res ipsa loquitur. 5. None of the above.

3. Jocko could prevail because Jack had a duty to Jocko to inspect the premises to assure its safety.

Joe threw a rock at Jim, intending to hit Jim. Jake pushed Larry in front of Jim, and the rock struck Larry, cutting Larry in the arm. Larry had his back turned to Joe when Joe threw the rock, and Larry never saw the rock before it struck him. If Larry sued Joe only for assault, what motion would you most expect Joe's lawyer to file? 1. Motion for summary judgment 2. There is not enough information to answer the question 3. Motion to dismiss 4. Motion for a directed verdict 5. None of the above

3. Motion to dismiss

One day, Tim stole Sally's watch. Ten minutes later, Ralph, Sally's brother, saw Tim at Walmart wearing the watch. Ralph told Tim, "Don't move. I'm going to get the cops. If you move, I'll hit you with this baseball bat." (Ralph then lifted the bat threateningly). If Tim, in reaction, waves a knife at and stabs Ralph, will Ralph prevail in an assault and battery action against Tim? 1. Yes, unless Tim was not confined. 2. Yes, because Ralph had an unqualified privilege to defend Sally's property. 3. No, unless Tim knew Ralph's bat was plastic. 4. Yes, because although ten minutes had gone by a mistake of fact might have occurred. 5. None of the above.

3. No, unless Tim knew Ralph's bat was plastic.

Jake, the child of former employee of Electric Company, filed a negligence law suit to recover damages for injuries sustained due to exposure to lead and other hazardous substances, in utero and in the first seven months of his life. Jake alleged that Electric Company failed to provide his father with proper protection at his worksite so as to prevent him from leaving work each day in clothes saturated with hazardous materials, which caused his injuries. Assuming that Electric Company's actions violated an occupational safety law, on this set of facts negligence per se 1. Could not be established because the law allegedly violated is the wrong kind of law 2. Could not be established because Plaintiff proved no custom mandating the protection of employees' children 3. Could not be established because Electric Company acted reasonably under the circumstances 4. Could not be established unless the purpose of the law is to protect all persons injured as a result of the exposures of the employees to lead and other hazardous substances 5. None of the above

4. Could not be established unless the purpose of the law is to protect all persons injured as a result of the exposures of employees to lead and other hazardous substances.

A court decides on summary judgment a case involving an on-the-taxiway collision between a jet airplane and a truck carrying jet fuel by concluding that all fuel trucks are required to stop for 10 seconds at all airport runway and taxiway intersections. The truck driver in the case before the court had not stopped for 10 seconds and the court accordingly concluded that the truck driver was negligent as a matter of law. The court's approach to the case is probably 1. Common because judges are as well-positioned as anyone else to determine negligence when they see it. 2. Uncommon because courts are apt to utilize nonsuits in these situations. 3. Uncommon because a large airline is obviously the cheapest cost avoider of such a situation. 4. Uncommon because breach is typically difficult to determine as a matter of law. 5. None of the above.

4. Uncommon because breach is typically difficult to determine as a matter of law.

Joe threw a rock at Jim, intending to hit Jim. Jake pushed Larry in front of Jim, and the rock struck Larry, cutting Larry in the arm. If Larry sued Jake on an intentional tort theory, would Larry prevail? 1. Yes, because Jake's actions were unreasonable under the circumstances. 2. No, because Joe threw the rock, not Jake 3. No, because Joe intended to hit Jim, not Larry 4. Yes, if Jake knew to a substantial certainty that Larry would suffer a harmful contact 5. There is not enough information to answer the question

4. Yes, if Jake knew to a substantial certainty that Larry would suffer a harmful contact

Employee Harry was accused of stealing money from his employer's cash register located in a store. His employer summoned security guards, who drew their weapons and escorted Harry to a small room in the back of the store. They placed Harry in the room and told him to stay there. After an hour, no one had come to question Harry in the room, so he left, ambling without further restraint right out the front door. If Harry sued his employer for false imprisonment, Harry would probably: 1. Not prevail if the security guards were not the employees of his employer 2. Not prevail because there was never any actual confinement 3. Prevail because there was an initial confinement 4. Not prevail because Harry was never placed in imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact 5. None of the above

5. None of the above

Jocko was skateboarding in a public park. As a prank, Harpo placed a large rock on the path where Jocko was skateboarding. When Jocko saw the rock, he immediately veered off the path and entered the yard of Jimbo where he (Jocko) fell into some soft grass without injuring himself or damaging any property. If Jimbo sued Harpo for trespass, Jimbo would likely: 1. Prevail unless Harpo could not reasonably have foreseen that his prank would cause Jocko to enter Jimbo's yard 2. Prevail unless Jimbo did not formally own the land where Jocko landed 3. Not prevail because the invasion was de minimis 4. Not prevail if Jocko immediately jumped back over onto the public path after landing in Jimbo's yard 5. None of the above

5. None of the above

Assume it would cost talcum powder manufacturer ABC Company 10 million dollars to warn consumers of the presence of asbestos (a known cause of ovarian cancer) in its retail baby powder. If Helen develops ovarian cancer from the use of the baby powder, ABC Company 1. Could not have breached a duty to Helen because it had no duty to her 2. Could not have breached its duty to Helen unless it was the custom in the talcum industry to warn consumers of such dangers 3. Definitely breached its duty to Helen if the cost of warning consumers was less than probably of contracting ovarian cancer times the magnitude of losses in connection with the cancer 4. Could only be found to have breached its duty to Helen by a jury of Helen's peers 5. None of the above

5. None of the above.

In a directed verdict 1. The jury is directed as to what facts it must find. 2. The jury is provided with legal standards it may apply to a decision. 3. The case never makes it to the jury and is decided on preliminary motions. 4. The case is decided on a Motion in Limine (at the "threshold" of the trial) . 5. None of the above.

5. None of the above.

Joe threw a rock at Jim, intending to hit Jim. Jake pushed Larry in front of Jim, and the rock struck Larry, cutting Larry in the arm. If Larry sued Joe on an intentional tort theory, would Larry prevail? 1. No, because Joe intended to hit Jim, not Larry 2. Yes, because Joe was engaging in reckless endangerment 3. There is not enough evidence to answer the question 4. Yes, because Joe had the purpose of desire to hit Larry 5. Yes, because Joe intended to hit Jim.

5. Yes, because Joe intended to hit Jim.

Employee Harry was accused of stealing money from his employer's cash register located in a store. His employer summoned security guards, who drew their weapons and escorted Harry to a small room in the back of the store, poking him in the back occasionally with their guns as they proceeded. The guards placed Harry in the room and told him to stay there. They also said if he left the room, they had legal authority to shoot him. After an hour, no one had come to question Harry in the room, so he left, ambling without further restraint right out the front door. If Harry sued his employer for battery, Harry would probably: 1. Not prevail if the security guards were not employees of his employer 2. Not prevail because Harry was able to "amble" out of the store unharmed 3. Not prevail unless the guards walked Harry by a large number of customers 4. Prevail because the guards knew to a substantial certainty that a harmful contact had occurred 5. None of the above

Not prevail because Harry was able to "amble" out of the store unharmed

A terrorist wounded several people at a music concert by shooting into a crowd of the concert- goers. Mark was in the crowd and was wounded. If Mark sued the terrorist on an intentional tort theory, would Mark Prevail? 1. No, because this is strictly a matter of federal criminal law. 2. Yes, if the terrorist knew to a substantial certainty that a particular individual in the crowd would be struck 3. Yes, unless the terrorist was under the influence of drugs, in which case the conduct may be negligent, but cannot be intentional. 4. There is enough information to answer the question 5. No, because the concert promoters must answer for the harm under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Yes, if the terrorist knew to a substantial certainty that a particular individual in the crowd would be struck