Intentional Torts and Negligence
D
What differs in a defamation suit when the plaintiff is a public figure, as opposed to when the plaintiff is not a public figure? A) Punitive damages are available. B) The plaintiff need not prove actual injury to the reputation. C) The plaintiff can recover even when the statement is a mere opinion. D) The plaintiff must prove that the statement was made with malice. E) The plaintiff must prove that the statement was made in writing.
D
nonpublic figure in a defamation case must prove the following except that: A) there was an untrue statement B) the statement contained a factual assertion C) the statement was communicated by the defendant to at least one person other than the plaintiff D) the defendant knew the statement was false E) the statement caused an injury to the plaintiff's reputation
D
A driver stopped at a convenience store to run inside briefly. The driver left the engine running and forgot to set the parking brake. The car suddenly started rolling toward two small children, and Vicki, a bystander, pulled the two children out of the way of the rolling car. Vicki is injured in the process. Can Vicki recover from the driver of the car? A) yes, because of the Good Samaritan rule B) no, because of an intervening event C) no, because of assumption of the risk D) yes, because the driver set up the dangerous situation
D
A landowner owes a duty of ordinary care to: A) licensees only B) invitees only C) trespassers only D) licensees and invitees E) licensees, invitees, and trespassers
A
A medical doctor who amputates the wrong arm may be held liable for which of the following? A) medical malpractice B) an intentional tort C) strict liability D) wrongful amputation E) breach of contract
D
A medical doctor who commits medical malpractice has committed what tort? A) defamation of character B) intentional infliction of emotional distress C) trespass D) negligence
C
Cathy helps save Sean and Marcia from their burning apartment building, and in turn becomes injured herself. Which of the following are true? A) Cathy may sue Sean and Marcia for defamation. B) Cathy may not sue anyone as she gave help out of her own kindness and love of people. C) Under the "danger invites rescue doctrine," Cathy may sue the person(s) responsible for setting the fire. D) Both A and B. E) Neither A, B, nor C.
A
For which of the following torts are the general requirements for the plaintiff's case dependent on whether or not the plaintiff is a public figure? A) defamation B) invasion of the right to privacy C) intentional infliction of emotional distress D) both A and B E) A, B, and C
C
How does the tort of conversion of personal property differ from trespass to personal property? A) In conversion, the true owner is denied use and enjoyment of the property. B) In conversion, the true owner can recover damages for the denial of use of the property. C) In conversion, the tortfeasor treats the property as if it is his/her own. D) In conversion, the plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages. E) In conversion, the defendant must have published his/her use of the property to another.
B
How is false imprisonment defined? A) being held in jail when no formal charges have been filed B) the intentional confinement or restraint of another without authority of justification and without that person's consent C) the holding in prison of one who was convicted of a crime that the person did not commit D) a confinement caused when one accidentally causes another to be confined without that person's consent
D
Sam had just finished a great day of skiing as he walked toward the parking lot with his skis over his shoulders. While waiting to cross at a crosswalk, a car's horn honks down the street. He suddenly turns to see where the sound came from, and in doing so his skis swing around and hit Pam in the head, injuring her. Which of the following, if true, would give Sam the best chance of avoiding liability to Pam? A) Sam did not intend to harm anyone when he turned to see the source of the sound. B) The driver of the car violated an anti-noise ordinance in blowing the horn. C) Pam had planned to cross the crosswalk as soon as traffic allowed, rather than wait for the "walk" light to indicate that it was safe to do so. D) Pam had been walking behind Sam for several hundred yards and had observed that Sam, on several occasions, had nearly struck other persons as he carried his skis.
C
Sam, who weighs 250 pounds, calls his 110-pound girlfriend, Alice, one morning while she is at work. He says, "You are to stay in your office until midnight. If you come to my house before midnight, I will make you sorry that you did." Assuming that Alice usually leaves her office at 5 p.m. but stays until midnight that night because of the threat, if Alice files a false imprisonment case against Sam, a court most likely will find which of the following? A) There was false imprisonment because Sam's threat forced Alice to stay in the office. B) There was no false imprisonment because Sam and Alice previously knew one another. C) There was no false imprisonment because Alice could have left the office and stayed away from Sam's house, and because the threat related to future harm. D) There was no false imprisonment because Alice's office was not a prison, even though it might feel like one to Alice.
B
Sandy lives on the top floor of a 10-story building in a big city. There is a 30-story apartment building under construction next door to her building. One morning while eating her corn flakes, a brand new toilet comes crashing through the roof of Sandy's apartment and injures her. She would like to sue the construction firm, but has no way of finding out or proving what persons were involved or exactly what happened. The doctrine that would most help Sandy is: A) last clear chance B) res ipsa loquitur C) strict liability D) comparative negligence E) negligence per se
B
The doctrine that shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant is: A) negligence per se B) res ipsa loquitur C) apparent negligence D) Good Samaritan
D
) Persons who engage in abnormally dangerous activities such as crop dusting or blasting: A) are liable only if all the elements of negligence are proven against them B) are liable only if they intended to cause a particular injury C) are generally not liable for the injuries they cause because otherwise no one would undertake these activities D) are liable to persons they injure even if they are not at fault
C
) The proximate cause requirement for a negligence tort is most likely not met where: A) a customer becomes ill from food that is carelessly packed at a processing plant B) a patient becomes sick from a doctor carelessly prescribing the wrong medicine C) a customer in a building supply store carelessly drops a small can of paint that breaks open and is ignited from a spark caused when the metal can hits the concrete floor D) a driver injures a pedestrian when rounding a curve at twice the legal speed limit E) the victim of an accident was aware, prior to the actual accident, that the accident was likely to occur
D
A plaintiff wants to sue on a negligence tort, but knows that he was partly as fault. Which of the following is true? A) A state applying contributory negligence will allow the plaintiff to recover so long as his fault is minor. B) The plaintiff will have to elect whether to sue under comparative or contributory negligence. C) Because the plaintiff is partly at fault, he will not be able to recover under either comparative or contributory negligence. D) If the plaintiff's fault is only 5 percent, his recovery will be the same under either pure or partial comparative negligence. E) In all circumstances the plaintiff will recover more under pure comparative negligence than under partial comparative negligence.
D
Assuming that statutory requirements are met, what is protected under merchant protection statutes? A) Merchants are protected from the intentional torts of their customers. B) Merchants are protected from product disparagement claims of their competitors. C) Merchants are protected from product disparagement claims of their suppliers. D) Merchants are protected from false imprisonment claims of persons detained on suspicion of shoplifting. E) Customers are protected from the negligent conduct of merchants.
C
Bob's fraternity brother lent Bob his car for a weekend trip to Las Vegas. While there, he hit a couple of substantial payoffs in the casinos and decided that it was time for a new life. He decided to move to Venice Beach in California. He did not bother to tell anyone of this change in life plans, including his fraternity brother back in Utah who lent him the car. "After all," thought Bob, "if there's anything to this brotherhood thing, he shouldn't mind at all. And if he comes for it, I'll certainly let him have it back." Bob moved to Venice Beach. Is Bob liable for conversion of personal property? A) no, because the friend originally gave him the car with permission B) no, as long as he has not damaged the car C) yes, because he did not return the car when agreed D) no, because he was willing to return the car if asked to E) yes, because he took the car to a different state
D
Burger Prince is one of the largest hamburger chains in the nation, and fiercely competitive with the well-known chain of Captain Hook Seafood House restaurants. Captain Hook has recently introduced a new line of hamburgers in order to expand beyond seafood. Burger Prince received information that it believed was reliable indicating that the Captain Hook's burgers contained substantial amounts of filler. Burger Prince then ran advertisements saying that its pure beef burgers were better than the Captain Hook's burgers that used filler. Which of the following is true? A) Burger Prince is liable for product disparagement because the statement about the use of filler was false. B) Burger Prince would be liable for invasion of privacy if the formula for Captain Hook's burgers was not publicly available. C) This is a case of palming off. D) Captain Hook will not be able to win a product disparagement case here. E) This is an example of intentional interference with contractual relations.
B
Cindy was riding her bicycle on a paved bike path and had an accident with another cyclist. Cindy's $1,000 bicycle was destroyed in the accident. If the jury determined that Cindy was 60 percent at fault and the other cyclist 40 percent at fault, under which doctrines would Cindy be entitled to recover $400 from the other cyclist? A) contributory negligence only B) pure comparative negligence only C) partial comparative negligence only D) either form of comparative negligence, but not contributory negligence E) either form of comparative negligence as well as under contributory negligence
C
Damages intended to punish a defendant and deter the defendant from engaging in the same tortuous conduct in the future are called: A) penalty damages B) retribution damages C) punitive damages D) preventative damages E) nominal damages
E
If a plaintiff voluntarily enters into or participates in a risky activity that results in injury, what is the most likely defense that he or she may use in response to a defendant's claim that the plaintiff assumed the risk? A) contributory negligence B) comparative negligence C) plaintiff had no knowledge of the danger involved when he or she participated in the activity D) defendant was negligent per se E) defendant assumed the risk under the "danger invites rescue" doctrine
D
In the Palsgraf case, foreseeability was an issue. The question addressed by the court was: A) Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that the scales would fall? B) Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that someone in the train station would be carrying explosive fireworks? C) Was it foreseeable to the passenger carrying the fireworks that they might explode and injure someone? D) Was it foreseeable to the railroad employee helping the passenger onto the train that doing so might lead to injury to Ms. Palsgraf or another bystander? E) Was it foreseeable to Ms. Palsgraf that her injury would have been caused by an explosion?
C
Mary, a 68-year-old widow, hired an electrician to make some wiring repairs to her home. The electrician accidentally started a fire that destroyed her house. Mary was not injured, but watched her house burn along with all her possessions. It was emotionally devastating to watch as she lost a whole life's worth of memories. Can she recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress? A) yes, because the electrician was the cause of her emotional distress through his outrageous conduct of starting the fire B) yes, because her distress was genuine C) no, because her situation does not meet all the elements necessary to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress D) no, because she assumed the risk by having someone do electrical work in her home
E
Patti Passenger is riding with her friend, Danetta Driver, up to the mountains to ski for the day. Patti is happy that Danetta is giving her a ride, not even asking Patti to share the cost of gas. On the way home that evening, Danetta suddenly remembers that she is late to a meeting she had that night. Danetta immediately passes a car on a blind curve and gets into an accident. Which of the following is true in Patti's negligence suit against Danetta? A) Patti can recover from Danetta under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. B) Patti can recover because Danetta was negligent per se. C) Patti can recover because the injury was a foreseeable consequence of Danetta's actions. D) Patti cannot recover because Danetta was a Good Samaritan in taking Patti skiing without charging her for a portion of the gas cost. E) Patti cannot recover assuming that there is a guest statute in her state.
A
Product disparagement differs from defamation of a nonpublic figure in that: A) intent is required for the disparagement case, but not in the defamation case B) intent is required for the defamation case, but not in the disparagement case C) publication to a third party is required in the disparagement case, but not in the defamation case D) publication to a third party is required in the defamation case, but not in the disparagement case E) both A and D
C
The best statement of the test applied in determining if a defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries is: A) Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff that the defendant would engage in this conduct? B) Given this particular injury to the plaintiff, was it foreseeable that the defendant was the cause? C) Should it have been foreseeable to the defendant that the defendant's conduct could lead to this kind of injury? D) Was the injury foreseeable to the plaintiff prior to the injury's occurrence? E) Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff that this kind of injury could occur under the particular conditions that the injury did occur?
B
The customer of a store who is at the store for purposes of doing business would be classified as what type of visitor while on the store's premises? A) a licensee B) an invitee C) a trespasser D) a guest
A
The doctrine applied when someone intends to cause injury to a certain person, but instead actually causes that injury to a different person is: A) transferred intent B) innocent bystander C) multiple victim D) misplaced consequence E) res ipsa loquitur
A
The doctrine that is applied when a defendant violates an existing statute intended to prevent the injury in question to persons of a class that includes the plaintiff is: A) negligence per se B) res ipsa loquitur C) proximate cause statute D) concurrent statutory violation
A
The legal effect of the presence of a superseding event is that: A) the defendant is not liable even if the plaintiff has proved all the elements of negligence B) the plaintiff and defendant will share liability C) the burden of proof shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant D) intent must be proven in addition to the elements of negligence
C
The tort of assault differs from the tort of battery in which of the following ways? A) Assault is an intentional tort and battery relates to negligence. B) Assault is a strict liability tort. C) Assault requires the plaintiff to show that he or she was aware of the immediate danger. D) Assault requires proof of each of the separate elements of negligence. E) Assault claims may be brought on future threats, whereas battery claims may not.
D
The tort of intentional interference with contractual relations requires the following except: A) a valid, enforceable contract between the contracting parties B) third-party knowledge of this contract C) third-party inducement to breach the contract D) a new contract involving the third party who induced the breach
E
The tort of palming off involves: A) knowingly selling goods that are defective B) blaming another for one's own actions and communicating that blame to at least one other person C) failing to credit another for that other person's legal accomplishments D) making false statements about the goods of another E) representing one's own goods to be those of a competitor
A
What does a guest statute provide? A) that a driver who has voluntarily given a ride to a passenger without compensation is not liable to the passenger for ordinary negligence B) that someone serving alcohol to guests in the home is liable if the alcohol causes the guest to become intoxicated and injure another person while intoxicated C) that tavern owners are strictly liable for alcohol related injuries caused by tavern guests who were served alcohol at the tavern D) that homeowners cannot be sued by their social guests for injuries incurred while the guests were in the homeowner's home with permission
C
What is a dram shop? A) a house of ill repute B) a factory that illegally uses child labor C) a bar or tavern D) a pharmacy E) a seller of second hand goods
D
What is the definition of a tort? A) any violation of an ethical duty B) any crime or misdemeanor C) any action done in violation of a prior agreement that allows the victim to recover damages D) any civil wrong that allows the injured person to recover damages E) any conduct by one party that is objected to by another
A
Which best describes assumption of the risk in a negligence case? A) The plaintiff knowingly and willingly subjected herself to a risk, and by doing so, is not able to collect from a defendant even if all of the elements of negligence are present. B) The defendant gave advance warning to the plaintiff that an injury would occur. C) The plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant in causing the accident. D) The plaintiff was involved in an abnormally dangerous activity. E) The defendant knew that the conduct was risky, but nonetheless chose to engage in it.
A
Which is true regarding the tort of trespass to land? A) A person who enters another's land without permission is liable to the landowner even if the landowner was not using the land at the time and there was no damage to the land. B) A person cannot be liable for trespass to land if that person was not told, either directly by the owner or by means of a sign, to stay off the property. C) So long as a person stays away from the portions of land that the owner is currently using, there can be no trespass to land. D) So long as a person originally entered the land of another with the permission of the owner, there can be no trespass to land if the nonowner stays beyond the period of permission granted by the owner.
D
Which of the following best describes the effect of Good Samaritan laws? A) Medical professionals are obligated to stop and assist persons in need. B) Medical professionals have a lower duty of care to strangers than to their regular patients. C) Medical professionals cannot be held liable if they cause injury to someone they provide medical care to in an emergency. D) Someone injured by a medical professional who is providing emergency medical care at the scene of an accident cannot recover if the injury was due to ordinary negligence.
B
Which of the following is not one of the general categories of torts? A) strict liability B) rational C) negligence D) intentional
D
Which of the following is the best description of misappropriation of the right to publicity? A) claiming credit for the accomplishments of another B) publishing the creative work of another and claiming that it is yours C) publicly claiming to have accomplished something that you have not accomplished D) attempting to use another living person's name or identity for commercial purposes without that person's consent E) publicizing private information about someone without that person's consent
D
Which of the following is true about a malicious prosecution case? A) The claim must be against a government agency for wrongfully bringing a criminal action. B) Most victorious defendants are able to prove the elements of a malicious prosecution claim. C) The plaintiff must prove that there were false statements made by the other party at the original trial that injured the plaintiff's reputation. D) The plaintiff must prove that the original lawsuit was brought with malice. E) The plaintiff must prove that there were statements made by the other party at the original trial that invaded the plaintiff's privacy
D
Which of the following is true about comparative negligence and contributory negligence? A) Most states that once used comparative negligence now apply contributory negligence instead. B) They are two names for the same defense. C) In order to avoid liability for an unintentional tort, the defendant must prove the presence of both defenses. D) Comparative negligence is used with intentional torts and contributory negligence is used with unintentional torts. E) Comparative negligence allows the plaintiff to make a partial recovery whereas contributory negligence does not
C
Which of the following is true about intentional infliction of emotional distress? A) Recovery is allowed anytime there is a measurable amount of mental distress. B) There must be some physical contact with the plaintiff. C) The defendant's conduct must go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. D) The plaintiff must have witnessed severe physical injury to a relative or other significant person in the plaintiff's life.
C
Which of the following is true about the case against McDonald's for serving very hot coffee? A) The plaintiff was burned while driving her car. B) McDonald's coffee was found to be the same temperature as that served by its competitors. C) McDonald's had turned down a pretrial offer of settlement which was much lower than the amount awarded by the jury. D) McDonald's paid the amount to the plaintiff that the jury awarded.
B
Which of the following is true about the tort of invasion of the right to privacy? A) The tort is actionable only by public figures. B) True statements or facts that are disclosed can support a claim for the invasion of the right to privacy. C) Once a fact has become public, its disclosure cannot thereafter support a claim for the invasion of the right to privacy. D) The tort requires that the defendant entered the plaintiff's home or place of business to acquire the information that was disclosed.
A
Which of the following is true? A) Slander and libel are two kinds of defamation. B) Defamation and slander are two kinds of libel. C) Defamation and libel are two kinds of slander. D) Slander and libel are two terms for the same tort, and defamation is a different tort altogether. E) Slander, libel, and defamation are three terms with the same meaning.
B
While Jack is attending a baseball game cheering for the home team, a fan of the other team sneaks up behind him and hits Jack on the head with a hard piece of pizza crust, injuring Jack. Jack has no idea he is about to be hit and is severely embarrassed when his friends see that he was injured by a pizza crust. Which of the following torts has the fan committed? A) assault B) battery C) assault and battery D) battery and negligent infliction of emotional distress E) assault, battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress
