Torts Weekly Quizzes from Canvas

A car driven by Dan entered land owned by and in the possession of Peter, without Peter's permission. Which, if any, of the following allegations, without additional facts, would provide a sufficient basis for a claim by Peter against Dan? I. Dan intentionally drove his car onto Peter's land. II. Dan negligently drove his car onto Peter's land. III. Dan's car damaged Peter's land. A. I only. B. III only. C. I, II, or III. D. Neither I, II, nor III.

A

A daycare worker left her purse with her wallet, cell phone, photographs, and other valuables inside a storage unit while she worked. A custodian from another company using the same storage unit left the storage unit's door wide open. In a rush to get other things done, the daycare worker did not notice the children go inside the storage unit. The children got water and paint all over the daycare worker's purse, destroying its contents. The daycare worker consulted a lawyer regarding possible claims to recover the value of the purse and its contents. In a comparative-negligence jurisdiction, which of the following best evaluates the daycare worker's negligence claim against the custodian? A. The worker has a claim against the custodian, the value of which will be reduced by the percentage of the worker's own negligence. B. The worker has a claim against the custodian, the value of which will be reduced by the percentage of the custodian's negligence. C. The worker has no claim against the custodian because the worker's comparative negligence will bar her claim. D. The worker has no claim against the custodian because the custodian's negligence depended on the worker's negligence.

A

A manufacturer negligently discharged toxic waste into a holding pond. The pond occasionally seeped into the groundwater during heavy rains. During the next heavy rain, some of the toxic waste contaminated the groundwater and ultimately the drinking water of a nearby town. The town sued the manufacturer for negligence. What is the town's best argument for actual causation? A. But for the manufacturer's negligent discharge of toxic waste, the town's drinking water would not have been contaminated. B. But for the manufacturer's failure to foresee the heavy rainfall, the town's drinking water would not have been contaminated. C. Res Ipsa Loquitur applies and thus actual causation will automatically be satisfied. D. There is little to no chance of being able to prove actual causation.

A

A rent-to-own store had DVD players available for rent as a popular item. A youth entered the store. The rental manager observed the youth looking at and handling a DVD player. The youth left the store with the DVD player without having rented or paid for it, and without other authorization. What additional facts would most help the rental manager avoid liability for non-serious injury of the youth when stopping the youth from stealing the DVD player? A. The rental manager first made a demand to the youth to stop which the youth ignored. B. The rental manager first waited one hour to see if the youth would return. C. The rental manager first followed the youth home to see if the youth changed his mind. D. The rental manager first fired shots over the youth's head before shooting at the feet.

A

A resort maintained an outside bar adjacent to its pool. When the bar was closed, it was secured by a metal gate that reached up towards the roof of the bar, but which left about a three-foot gap between the top of the gate and the roof. The resort had installed motion detectors inside the bar linked to an alarm system because of several previous thefts of liquor by persons climbing over the gate. Late one night, an intoxicated guest of the resort who wanted to keep partying after hours began to climb over the gate to get into the bar through the gap at the top, intending to take some bottles of wine. The brackets attaching the gate to the walls, which had been gradually deteriorating and pulling away from the walls for some time, suddenly gave way as he reached the top. The gate collapsed, causing him to fall back onto the concrete patio. He sustained a severe concussion and other serious injuries. The resort is located in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional liability rules for landowners and possessors of land. If the guest sues the resort for his injuries, is he likely to prevail? A. No, because the guest did not have invitee status when he was climbing over the gate. B. No, because the guest intended to steal alcohol belonging to the resort. C. Yes, because the resort operators were aware that persons had climbed over the gate in the past. D. Yes, because the brackets attaching the gate to the walls were in the weakened condition that could have been detected by a routine inspection.

A

A restaurant's kitchen manager left rat poison in a plastic container similar to a container that waiters used for sugar. Two waiters each negligently mixed a spoonful of the rat poison into glasses of iced tea one of which was then served to a patron who was poisoned. Both waiters had mistaken the poison for sugar, but the patron was unable to show which of them had made the glass from which the patron had been poisoned. Which of the following best describes the waiters' potential liability to the patron? A. Each is potentially liable, shifting the burden of proof to them to disprove liability. B. Neither is potentially liable because the burden of proof remains on the patron. C. Only one is potentially liable, depending on whether the patron can prove which one. D. Each is potentially one-half liable, provided that the patron rules out other causes.

A

A shopper was inspecting the baking goods on the shelves of a grocery store. The shopper did not notice that cooking oil had leaked from one of the goods onto the aisle floor. The shopper slipped and fell in the oil, injuring herself. The shopper retained a lawyer who filed a negligence action against the grocery store. The grocery store's counsel moved to dismiss the action for no evidence of breach of duty. Which of the following facts should the shopper's lawyer offer as evidence of breach? A. The oil on the floor appeared from its stickiness to have evaporated in part. B. The shopper had never slipped and fallen before in any other store. C. The grocery store had several clerks on duty at the time the shopper fell. D. The grocery store had wet-floor signs posted near the entrance to the store.

A

A speaker took the podium to address a crowd in a small auditorium. The speaker addressed a controversial subject that had raised protests when advertised. A custodian watched the speech from the wings of the stage on which the podium was located. Suddenly, the speaker heard shouts of alarm and saw the crowd disperse for the exits. The speaker was perplexed, wondering what the speaker had said or what had happened to cause the crowd's alarm and the crowd to suddenly disperse. The speaker later learned that the custodian had pointed a gun at the back of the speaker's head as everyone scattered. What analytic problem does the speaker face in obtaining tort relief for the custodian's actions? A. The speaker cannot satisfy the apprehension element of an assault claim. B. The speaker cannot satisfy the imminence element of an assault claim. C. The speaker cannot satisfy the apparent present ability element of an assault claim. D. The speaker cannot show the reasonableness of the anticipation of harm.

A

A young woman loved visiting her neighbor while her neighbor worked in her garden. On one of those occasions, the young woman broke her ankle when a loose walkway plank in her neighbor's garden suddenly twisted. The neighbor knew, but the young woman did not know, that the plank was loose. The young woman asked a lawyer to contact the neighbor's homeowner's insurer regarding liability for the young woman's medical expense and wage loss due to her ankle injury. Which of the following best describes how the lawyer should state the neighbor's duty to the young woman, in a jurisdiction that follows the traditional premises-liability classifications? A. The neighbor owed the young woman the duty to warn of known hidden dangers creating unreasonable risk of harm. B. The neighbor owed the young woman a duty of reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonably safe condition. C. The neighbor owed the young woman a duty to make sure that planks in the walkway were safe on which to walk. D. The neighbor owed the young woman a duty not to allow her to come over and talk if the young woman was going to get hurt.

A

Dora, who was eight years old, went to the grocery store with her mother. Dora pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. Dora's mother remained near Dora at all times. Peterson, another customer in the store, noticed Dora pushing the cart in a manner that caused Peterson no concern. A short time later, the cart Dora was pushing struck Peterson in the knee, inflicting serious injury. If Peterson brings an action, based on negligence, against Dora, Dora's best argument in defense would be that A. Dora exercised care commensurate with her age intelligence, and experience. B. Dora is not subject to tort liability. C. Dora was subject to parental supervision. D. Peterson assumed the risk that Dora might hit Peterson with the cart.

A

Kayla was walking on the sidewalk and paying attention to where she was going. Jason, who was driving a sedan, fell asleep at the wheel and subsequently jolted awake, swerving the car and hitting Kayla. Kayla got up and sustained minor injuries. As Kayla walked up to Jason on the driver's side to get his insurance information, Jason swung the door open in a panic and seriously injured Kayla's left arm, costing her weeks in the hospital. Which of the following will most likely be true? A. Kayla can establish actual cause because but for Jason's actions, Kayla would not have been hurt. B. Kayla cannot establish actual cause because Kayla could have moved out of the way when the car swerved. C. Kayla can establish actual cause through the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur. D. Kayla can establish actual cause for Jason's swerving and initial hit only.

A

Oscar purchased a large bottle of no flake dandruff shampoo, manufactured by shampoo company. The box containing the bottle stated in part: "CAUTION—Use only 1 capful at most once a day. Greater use may cause severe damage to the scalp."Oscar red the writing on the box, removed the bottle, and threw the box away. Oscars roommate, Paul, asked to use the shampoo, and Oscar said "be careful not to use too much." Paul there after used the shampoo twice a day, applying two or three capfuls each time, notwithstanding the label statement that read: "Use no more than one capful per day." The more he used the shampoo, the more inflamed his scalp became and the more it itched. After three weeks of such use, Paul finally consulted a doctor who diagnosed his problem as a serious and irreversible case of dermatitis caused by excessive exposure to the active ingredients in the shampoo. These ingredients are uniquely effective at controlling dandruff, but there is no way to remove a remote risk to a small percentage of persons who may contract dermatitis as the result of applying the shampoo substantially in excess of the directions. This jurisdiction adheres to the traditional common law rules pertaining to contributory negligence and assumption of risk. If Paul asserts a claim against Oscar for his dermatitis injuries, Oscar's best defense will be that A. Paul was contributorily negligent. B. Paul assumed the risk. C. Oscar had no duty toward Paul, who was a gratuitous done. D. Oscar had no duty toward Paul, because shampoo company created the risk and had a non delegable duty to foreseeable users.

A

Ted stored fertilizer in a locked and secure shed. Ted negligently left the shed unlocked. Finding the shed conveniently unlocked, a thief stole the fertilizer and made a bomb out of it, destroying a business with the bomb. The business' owner consulted a lawyer over whether to sue Ted in negligence for leaving the shed unlocked. Which of the following is the best evaluation? A. Strong on breach, weak on actual cause. B. Strong on breach, strong on actual cause. C. Weak on breach, strong on actual cause. D. Weak on breach, weak on actual cause.

A or B

Two skateboarders, coming from opposite directions, negligently collided with a pedestrian at the same time. Had the pedestrian only been hit by either one of the skateboarders, instead of being hit by both of them at once, the pedestrian would not have been injured. However, as a result of the dual impact of both skateboarders, the pedestrian suffered an injury. In an action for negligence brought by the pedestrian against just one of the skateboarders, is the pedestrian likely to be able to prove the element of actual causation? A. Yes, because but for the defendant skateboarder's negligent conduct, the pedestrian would not have suffered an injury. B. No, because the pedestrian cannot show that the defendant skateboarder is more than 50% to blame for the pedestrian's injury. C. No, because the pedestrian would not have been injured by the defendant skateboarder's negligent conduct alone. D. Yes, because the skateboarders' concurrent negligence makes it impossible for the plaintiff to prove which of them was primarily to blame for the pedestrian's injury.

A.

Which of the following actual causation tests applies where two negligent acts combine simultaneously to cause harm, and either act alone would have been sufficient to cause the harm, but it is impossible to determine which act caused which portion of the harm? A. The substantial factor test. B. The alternative causes test. C. The but-for test. D. The concurrent causes test.

A.

A mechanic negligently spilled gasoline behind a shop while refueling an engine for testing. The gasoline caught fire from a spark of static electricity as the mechanic attempted to clean up the spilled gasoline. The fire spread across a field to a rancher's barn, where it destroyed the barn and equipment inside it. The rancher consulted a lawyer about whether to sue the mechanic for the loss of the barn and equipment. What issue must the lawyer resolve before advising the rancher? A. The jurisdiction's duty rules for professionals like mechanics. B. The jurisdiction's standard-of-care rules for spilling gasoline. C. The jurisdiction's proximate-cause rule for spreading fires. D. There is no issue to resolve.

C

A motor-vehicle passenger was in an accident caused by the negligence of the vehicle driver. At the moment of the accident, the passenger had braced her hand and arm against the dashboard, sustaining trauma. The passenger fully expected her bruising and soreness from the accident but was surprised at a persistent numbness of the hand that doctors connected with the accident trauma. The passenger further developed an unusual reflex sympathetic dystrophy that resulted in the amputation of her hand. How should the court treat the passenger's amputation in the passenger's negligence action against the driver? A. Prohibit evidence of it as indirect and unforeseeable. B. Prohibit evidence of it given no direct and foreseeable harm. C. Allow evidence of it given some direct and foreseeable harm. D. Allow evidence of it only if amputation was a common result.

C

A company manufactured a window-washing rig for use on high-rise buildings. The company secured the rig's safety line by bolt and nut. During the rig's use, the nut came undone from the bolt, allowing the safety line to come free. The rig suddenly tipped as a result, causing a worker to fall from the rig. Workplace safety officials inspected the rig after the worker's injury. They determined that the company could have secured the nut to the bolt using a lock washer costing a few pennies. Which of the following is the best way to use this evidence to support that the company was negligent in securing the safety line? A. The cost to the company of including a lock washer was so small that the company should have provided it no matter what difference it made in the probability or magnitude of loss. B. If the cost to the company of including a lock washer was less than the probability times the magnitude of loss from the design without the lock washer, then the company should be liable. C. If the lock washer would have secured the safety line, then the company should have provided it, and the company is liable for not having provided an available means to eliminate the risk. D. If the safety line would have saved the worker from injury, then the company should have secured it in a fail-safe manner, whether by lock washer or other means, no matter the reduction in risk or loss.

B

A die-cast operator was running a die-cast machine when the machine malfunctioned. The operator called for a repair person. The operator then went to the back of the machine to look for problems. The operator was leaning on the machine's railing at the back when the repair person cycled the machine from the front. The cycle of the machine crushed the operator's fingers between the die and the railing. The operator later retained a lawyer to investigate whether the operator had a cause of action against the machine's manufacturer for negligent design. Which of the following discoveries would most aid that cause of action? A. A plant inspector's report that a supervisor had failed to train the operator. B. An industry standard that die-cast machine manufacturers guard all pinch-points. C. The repair person's admission that he was unaware of the operator's presence. D. An OSHA citation for failure to lock out the machine while under repair.

B

A father had temporary custody of his child under court order. A case worker assigned to the custody file visited to interview the father and see father and child together. The case worker grew angry during the father's interview. When the case worker stepped forward in an effort to forcibly take the child from the father, the father reached out and shoved her backward. The case worker filed a civil suit against the father that included a claim for battery based on the father having shoved her backward. The father told his own lawyer that the case worker had made the first move and that he was only protecting his child. What advice can the father's lawyer give the father? A. The case worker must prove each element of her battery claim including that the father had no right to defend the child. B. The case worker must prove each element of her battery claim, but the father must prove defense of the child. C. The father must disprove each element of the battery claim including that the father had the right to defend the child. D. The father must disprove each element of the battery claim, but the case worker must prove that the father had no right to defend the child.

B

A man and a woman who were fierce business competitors were both competing for a large job. The man submitted his bid and then went to the woman's office and told her, "If you leave this office, I'm going to get you!" The woman merely laughed and said, "I'm about finished with my bid and will be leaving in a few minutes." The man left the office but placed a large, heavy couch across the entrance to the woman's office, hoping to keep her from leaving. Meanwhile, the woman finished the bid and tried to leave her office but found that she could not open the door. She pushed against the door as hard as she could and was eventually able to force it open, then ran all the way to the place where bids were being taken and got her bid in with one minute to spare. As usual, her bid was slightly lower than the man's, and she was awarded the contract. If the woman sues the man, what causes of action can she assert? A. Assault, but not false imprisonment. B. False imprisonment, but not assault. C. Both assault and false imprisonment. D. Neither assault nor false imprisonment.

B

A missionary was travelling door to door hoping to convert others to his church. At one house, a devout elderly woman answered the door and the two began discussing their religious differences. The conversation took a disagreeable turn, and the woman, greatly offended, slammed her door shut. The missionary had been leaning with his hand on the doorway during their conversation, and as a consequence, his fingers were pinched in the door, causing him injury. If the missionary asserts a claim based on battery against the woman and prevails, what is the most likely reason? A. The woman had not first asked the missionary to leave the property. B. The woman knew that the door was substantially certain to pinch the missionary's fingers. C. The woman acted in anger by slamming the door shut. D. The missionary was not trespassing when he came to the woman's door.

B

A motorist was driving to a luncheon in a car that he knew did not have operating headlights. On the way there he was rear-ended by another driver who had been driving 20 MPH over the speed limit posted on that stretch of road. He suffered personal injuries and his car was extensively damaged. The jurisdiction makes it a misdemeanor to drive a vehicle that does not have operating headlights. If the motorist brings an action against the driver and the above facts are established, will he prevail? A. Yes, because the other driver violated the speeding statute, but the motorist's damages will be reduced despite his violation of the headlight statute. B. Yes, because the other driver violated the speeding statute, and the motorist's damages will not be reduced despite his violation of ;the headlight statute. C. No, because the motorist's violation of the headlight statute constitutes negligence per se. D. No because the motorist had not established that driving 20 MPH over the speed limit created an unreasonable risk of injury to others.

B

A novice climber negligently trapped himself on a precipitous ledge in severe weather through lack of skill, preparation, and proper equipment. An expert climber quickly reached the novice climber leading to the novice's heroic rescue. The expert climber was injured in the rescue process through no fault of her own. The expert climber missed several months of work in her job in the construction trades and had many thousands of dollars in lost income as a consequence. The expert climber consulted a lawyer regarding whether the expert climber had any way of recovering her lost income. Which of the following is the best evaluation? A. The expert climber has no recourse against anyone for the lost income. B. The novice climber is liable to the expert climber for the lost income. C. The expert climber has recourse against her construction trades employer. D. The novice climber is liable only if the novice climber has insurance.

B

A server served a customer several alcoholic drinks at the customer's order. The customer grew louder and ruder with each successive drink. The customer complained to the server about the taste of the last drink. The customer also called the server by a sexual slur and in other ways offended her. The server told the customer that she would bring him another drink. The server purposefully poured a toxic powder into the customer's drink and served it to him, knowing it would make him deathly ill, which it did. What tort, if any, has the server committed? A. Assault. B. Battery. C. Both battery and assault. D. Neither battery nor assault.

B

A valet parking attendant at a restaurant negligently left the keys of a car in the ignition when she parked it on a side street some distance from the restaurant, which was located in a high crime area. While dining, the car's owner received a text message from the security company that operated his car's anti-theft system that his key was in his ignition for over 30 minutes without the car running. The owner started to get up to check with the valet service but then his meal arrived, and he promptly forgot about the car. About 20 minutes later, a teen saw the key in the ignition of the unlocked car and drove off with the car. By the time it was discovered that the car had been stolen, the car had been wrecked and the teen had fled. The owner sued the parking company that employed the attendant for the loss of his car. Is the owner likely to recover? A. Yes, because res ipsa loquitur applies. B. Yes, because but for the negligence of the parking attendant, the opportunity for the theft could not have occurred. C. No, because the teen committed a criminal act and is thus not subject to tort liability. D. No, because the owner assumed the risk of car theft when he left his car with the parking attendant.

B

After a heavy snow and ice storm, a homeowner's roof developed ice. A chunk of ice fell off the homeowner's roof and hit a pedestrian on the sidewalk at the front of the house, causing her to suffer a concussion. The pedestrian was texting on her cell phone and was not looking at her surroundings, and did not see the ice or anything else around her. The pedestrian sued the homeowner for her injuries in a jurisdiction that retains traditional contributory negligence rules. The above facts were established at trial. At the conclusion of the proofs, both parties moved for a directed verdict. How should the trial judge rule? A. Grant the pedestrian's motion, because the homeowner breached his duty to her to keep the home's immediate area safe. B. Deny both motions and submit the case to the jury. C. Grant the homeowner's, because he owed no duty to the pedestrian on the sidewalk for natural conditions. D. Grant the homeowner's motion, because the evidence establishes that the customer was contributorily negligent in not paying attention to her surroundings.

B

An actor hired a plastic surgeon to perform a facelift. During the surgery, the surgeon became angry at the scrub nurse and slapped her hand away as she tried to hand him a scalpel. The scalpel flew out of the nurse's hand, cutting the actor on the shoulder. The surgeon was able to suture the resulting injury in such a way that the actor was left with no visible scar or permanent injury. The actor filed a battery claim against the surgeon. Will the actor prevail? A. Yes, because the actor suffered an injury, albeit a temporary injury, when the surgeon slapped the scalpel out of the nurse's hand. B. Yes, because the surgeon's intent to make offensive contact with the scrub nurse was transferred to the actor. C. No, because the actor was unconscious during the surgery and unaware of the offensive contact. D. No, because the actor suffered no permanent injury to his shoulder.

B

At an intersection, a motorist's car struck the car of a mother, injuring her significantly. The mother brought a negligence action against the motorist. At trial, evidence introduced by the mother established that the motorist drove through a red light at the intersection. Evidence introduced by the motorist showed that the mother looked down at her phone to see her son calling just before the collision occurred. May the evidence introduced by the motorist be used against the mother? A. Yes, to show a breach of duty. B. Yes, to show that the mother was contributorily negligent. C. No, because looking down at a phone is not against the law. D. No, because the mother's inattentive driving was a foreseeable intervening force and does not cut off the motorist's liability.

B

Diggers Construction Company was engaged in blasting operations to clear the way for a new road. Diggers had erected adequate barriers and posted adequate warning signs in the vicinity of the blasting. Although Paul read and understood the signs, he entered the area to walk his dog. As a result of the blasting, Paul was hit by a piece of rock and sustained head injuries. The jurisdiction follows the traditional common-law rules governing the defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and last clear chance. In an action by Paul against Diggers to recover damages for his injuries, Paul will A. Not prevail, if Diggers exercised reasonable care to protect the public from harm. B. Not prevail, because Paul understood the signs and disregarded the warnings. C. Prevail, because but for Digger's blast, Paul would not have been harmed. D. Prevail, unless Paul failed to use reasonable care to protect himself from harm.

B

Doe negligently caused a fire in his house, and the house burned to the ground. As a result, the sun streamed into Peter's yard next door, which previously had been shaded by Does' house. The sunshine destroyed some delicate and valuable trees in Peter's yard that could grow only in the shade. Peter brought a negligence action against Doe for the loss of Peter's trees. Doe has moved to dismiss the complaint. The best argument in support of this motion would be that A. Doe's negligence was not the active cause of the loss of Peter's trees. B. Doe's duty to avoid the risks created by a fire did not encompass the risk that sunshine would damage Peter's trees. C. The loss of the trees was not a natural and probable consequence of Doe's negligence. D. Peter suffered a purely economic loss, which is not compensable in a negligence action.

B

Four participants joined a river guide on an inner-tube ride over huge boulders in a raging current down a turbulent river. Each of the four participants was a stranger to one another. All four participants agreed to the ride after the river guide explained that the ride was extremely bumpy and that there was some slight risk of capsize and injury, which made it fun and exciting. All four participants were shocked at how rough the ride turned out to be. Each participant also suffered some physical injury when the inner tube capsized in the middle. All four sued the river guide's company. A lawyer hired by the insurance carrier covering the river guide's company filed a motion to dismiss the actions. Which of the four participants is most likely to have their claim dismissed based on the company's defense of consent? A. A child participant too young to know what river-riding was like. B. An adult participant of ordinary intelligence but no river-riding experience. C. An adult participant on Social Security disability for low mental function. D. An adult participant who did not understand the river-guide's language.

B

Karen was crossing Main Street at a crosswalk. John, who was on the sidewalk nearby, saw a speeding automobile heading in Karen's direction. John ran into the street and pushed Karen out of the path of the car. Karen fell to the ground and broke her leg. In an action for battery brought by Karen against John, will Karen prevail? A. Yes, because John could have shouted a warning instead of pushing Karen out of the way. B. Yes, if Karen was not actually in danger and John should have realized it. C. No, because the driver of the car was responsible for Karen's injury. D. No, if John's intent was to save Karen, not to harm her

B

Pocket, a bank vice president, took substantial kickbacks to approve certain loans that later proved worthless. Upon learning of the kickbacks, Dudd, the bank's president, fired Pocket, telling him, "If you are not out of this bank in ten minutes, I will have security throw you out." Pocket left at once. If Pocket asserts a claim against Dudd based on assault, will Pocket prevail? A. No, because the guards never touched Pocket. B. No, because Dudd gave Pocket ten minutes to leave. C. Yes, if Dudd intended to cause Pocket severe emotional distress. D. Yes, because Dudd threatened Pocket with a harmful or offensive bodily contact.

B

Through no fault of her own, a driver accidentally caused her vehicle to strike and knock over a road barrier. Road-construction crews had placed the barrier to keep vehicles from entering a construction area. The driver immediately realized that with the barrier down, other drivers would be at risk of injury from entering the construction area. The driver, a petite woman of unusually small size, did not have the strength to replace the barrier. The driver immediately called for help. Another driver was injured because of the missing barrier. That other driver sued the driver who had knocked over the barrier. Which of the following is the most accurate statement of the defendant driver's standard of care? A. The actions of a reasonably prudent person of the defendant driver's knowledge, skill, and experience under the circumstances. B. The actions of a reasonably prudent person of the defendant driver's physical characteristics under the circumstances. C. The actions of a reasonably prudent person without respect to the defendant driver's physical or mental characteristics. D. The actions of a reasonably prudent person of average height, weight, strength, knowledge, skill, and experience.

B

Two members of a backgammon club owned identically sized, red backgammon boards. The first member's board was made of cheap material while the second member's board was quite expensive. One night, after a competitive tournament, the two members met in the finals, playing on a borrowed board. The second member won and the first member, visibly upset, mistakenly grabbed the other's board and drove home. As was her custom, she left the board in the trunk of her car. Meanwhile, the owner of the board discovered the board switch and drove to the first member's apartment to make an exchange. The first member took the second to her parking place and saw that her car had been stolen. The police recovered the car days later, with no backgammon board in the trunk. The second member demanded a replacement board but was refused. In an action to recover the board's value, will the second member recover? A. Yes, because when the first member took the board she committed a trespass to chattel. B. Yes, because when the board was stolen along with the car, the first member became liable for conversion. C. No, because the first member believed in good faith that the board was hers when she took it from the club. D. No, because the board was lost through no fault of the first member.

B

Which of these statements is true? A. Legal Realism and Legal Formalism are the same but for different names. B. Legal Realism takes into account the social, political, and economic context in which law is created, operated, and enforced. C. Legal Formalism takes into account the social, political, and economic context in which law is created, operates, and enforced. D. Legal Realism treats the law as a set of rules and principles independent of other political and social institutions.

B

While Driver was taking a leisurely spring drive, he momentarily took his eyes off the road to look at some colorful trees in bloom. As a result, his car swerved a few feet off the roadway, directly toward Walker, who was standing on the shoulder of the road waiting for a chance to cross. When Walker saw the car bearing down on him, he jumped backwards, fell, and injured his knee. Walker sued Driver for damages and Driver moved for summary judgment. The foregoing facts are undisputed. Driver's motion should be: A. Denied, because the record shows that Walker apprehended an imminent, harmful contact with Driver's car. B. Denied, because a jury could find that Driver negligently caused Walker to suffer a legally compensable injury. C. Granted, because the proximate cause of Walker's injury was his own voluntary act. D. Granted, because it is not unreasonable for a person to be distracted momentarily.

B

A customer approached the entrance to a store during a light rain in cold weather. The customer slipped and fell on a thick layer of ice that had formed in front of the store's entrance as rain ran off the roof onto the concrete at the store entrance. The customer was seriously enough injured in the fall that she required hospitalization. The customer retained a lawyer to sue to get the store's insurer to pay for her medical bills. Which of the following best describes the standard of care the lawyer should allege in the complaint? A. The store owed the customer the duty to reasonably inspect the premises so as to warn the customer against weather conditions. B. The store owed the customer the duty to reasonably design and construct the premises so that rain did not freeze from run-off. C. The store owed the customer the duty to reasonably design, construct, inspect, and maintain the premises, and to reasonably warn and protect the customer. D. The store owed the customer the duty to keep all rain, ice, and snow off of the store entrance under any weather conditions.

C

A father mowed the fields around his home with a tractor. The father had a six-year-old boy who loved to watch from the porch of the home as his dad drove the tractor. The father stopped the tractor by the home and left for work, leaving fields unmown. Though only six years old, the boy decided to help his father finish the mowing using the tractor. The boy climbed onto the tractor seat and started the tractor. The boy managed to get the tractor into gear but could not work the brake pedal to stop it. The tractor ran into and damaged a car that a guest had parked in the home's driveway. The car's owner made a demand that a homeowner's insurer whose liability policy covered the boy pay for the vehicle damage. The insurer consulted a lawyer about whether to pay the demand. Which of the following is the best recommendation based on the standard of care applicable to the boy? A. Deny the claim because children with good intentions make sympathetic defendants. B. Deny the claim because children that age have no negligence liability. C. Pay the claim because a child engaged in that activity has an adult's liability. D. Pay the claim because a guest should not have to worry about vehicle damage.

C

A hunter negligently shot and mortally wounded a hiker. When the hiker was rushed to the hospital, a doctor negligently administered a lethal dose of pain medication to the hiker, who died shortly thereafter. If the hiker's estate sues both the hunter and the doctor for the hiker's death, what is the likely result? A. Both defendants will be found liable as substantial factors in the hiker's death. B. Both defendants will be found liable under the alternative causes doctrine. C. The hunter will be found liable under the but-for test, and the doctor will not be liable. D. The doctor will be found liable under the but-for test, and the hunter will be found liable as a substantial factor in the hiker's death.

C

A man owned an independent grocery store in an upscale urban area. The grocer prided himself on his high-end deli meats and cheeses and his large selection of expensive wines. The grocer had recently noticed, however, that one of the freezers in the store leaked from time to time, causing the tile underneath the freezer to become wet. The grocer had called the freezer company to repair the freezer, but the freezer company had not yet sent a technician to repair it. While the grocer was preparing for the lunchtime rush, a man came into the store and slipped on a portion of the floor that was wet due to the freezer leakage. The man landed awkwardly on his knee, shattering his kneecap. If the man brings suit against the grocer, how should the court rule? A. Judgment for the grocer, because by calling the freezer company to fix the freezer, the grocer took reasonable care to prevent the injury. B. Judgment for the man, but only if the grocer knew that the leakage had expanded to the area around the freezer. C. Judgment for the man, if the grocer could have discovered the risk posed by the freezer leakage by a reasonable inspection of his property. D. Judgment for the man, because the grocer is liable for any condition on his premises that injures a customer.

C

A mountain-bike rider asked her acquaintance if the rider could borrow her acquaintance's road bike for a few days. The acquaintance agreed to the loan of his road bike to the mountain-bike rider, whom he knew to be an extraordinary mountain-bike rider. The road bike had narrow tires on lightweight rims with composite spokes. It also had a lightweight titanium frame, handlebars, and seat post. The mountain-bike rider rode the road bike off the road on a mountain trail. The mountain trail blew out one of the tires, bent the lightweight rims, damaged the composite spokes, and scratched and badly damaged the titanium frame, handlebars, and seat post. Is the mountain-bike rider liable for the road bike's conversion? A. No, so long as the mountain-bike rider was an experienced rider doing her best to make the bike last as long as possible. B. No, so long as the mountain bike had at least nominal remaining value after its substantial destruction. C. Yes, if the mountain-bike rider knew she was ruining the road bike's substantial value by riding the bike on the mountain trail. D. Yes, if the mountain-bike rider should have known she was ruining the road bike by riding the bike on the mountain trail.

C

A rancher maintained a large herd of cattle. Under federal regulations, the cattle were periodically tested for a rare disease. If uncontrolled, the disease could affect the beef supply in a way that would cripple the entire ranching industry. Three of the rancher's prize cows tested positive for the disease. Federal officials condemned the rancher's herd on the basis of the positive tests. The rancher was desolate that his entire herd would be lost simply because three of the cows had tested positive. He consulted a lawyer about legal rights and remedies for the condemnation of his herd. What is the most appropriate evaluation? A. The rancher has a tort claim for conversion of the entire herd. B. The rancher has a tort claim for conversion of the herd except the three infected cows. C. The rancher has no tort claim because of public necessity. D. The rancher has no tort claim because of private necessity.

C

A vehicle owner had the vehicle's tires rotated by an experienced mechanic. On the owner's way home from the mechanic's shop, the vehicle's wheels fell off causing an accident that injured the owner. Damage to the vehicle left it unclear why the wheel had come off. The vehicle owner consulted a lawyer regarding whether the owner had a negligence claim against the mechanic. Which of the following is the best evaluation? A. No claim because no duty. B. No claim because no breach. C. Plausible claim. D. Certain liability.

C

A woman's kitchen smoke-detector battery was losing power, causing the smoke detector to emit a loud warning signal every 30 seconds. Because the woman did not have a replacement battery on hand, she disconnected the detector to stop the alarm from sounding. Weeks later, the woman awoke to find her bedroom filled with smoke, and she fled her apartment. Because the woman's smoke detector was disconnected, the fire that was the source of the smoke spread to the adjacent apartment unchecked, causing extensive property damage. It was later determined that the fire was caused by an electrical short in the woman's wall. Did the woman breach a duty to her adjacent neighbors? A. No, because the adjacent neighbors were not reasonably foreseeable victims of the woman's negligent disconnection of the smoke detector. B. No, because the woman did not cause the fire. C. Yes, because the adjacent neighbors were reasonably foreseeable victims of the woman's negligent disconnection of the smoke detector. D. Yes, because the woman had a duty to warn the adjacent neighbors of a dangerous condition on her property.

C

Desmond fell while attempting to climb a mountain, and lay unconscious and critically injured on a ledge that was difficult to reach. Pearson, an experienced mountain climber, was himself seriously injured while trying to rescue Desmond. Pearson's rescue attempt failed, and Desmond died of his injuries before he could be reached. Pearson brought an action against Desmond's estate for compensation for his injuries. In this jurisdiction, the traditional common-law rules relating to contributory negligence and assumption of risk remain in effect. Will Pearson prevail in his action against Desmond's estate? A. Yes, if his rescue attempt was reasonable. B. Yes, because the law should not discourage attempts to assist persons in helpless peril. C. No, unless Desmond's peril arose from his own failure to exercise reasonable care. D. No, because Pearson's rescue attempt failed and therefore did not benefit Desmond.

C

For the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur to apply, the plaintiff must establish that: A. The defendant's breach of duty was the sole cause of the plaintiff's injury. B. The defendant possessed the instrumentality that caused the injury. C. The accident would not normally occur unless someone was negligent. D. The defendant violated a statute establishing a standard of care.

C

Karen suffered a fall and went to an emergency room for treatment. Her diagnosis was a compound fracture of the left arm. She was taken to surgery. The fracture was set, and while under anesthesia, her arm was placed in a cast. After leaving, she followed all directions given by the treating physician. After six weeks the cast was removed and it was obvious that the arm was grossly deformed. Karen's best option would be to file an action using which theory? A. Strict liability B. Negligence C. Negligence with Res Ipsa Loquitur D. Intentional tort

C

Patron ate a spicy dinner at Restaurant on Sunday night. He enjoyed the food and noticed nothing unusual about the dinner. Later that evening, Patron had an upset stomach. He slept well through the night, went to work the next day, and ate three meals. His stomach discomfort persisted, and by Tuesday morning he was too ill to go to work. Eventually, Patron consulted his doctor, who found that Patron was infected with a bacterium that can be contracted from contaminated food. Food can be contaminated when those who prepare it do not adequately wash their hands. Patron sued Restaurant for damages. He introduced testimony from a health department official that various health code violations had been found at Restaurant both before and after Patron's dinner, but that none of Restaurant's employees had signs of bacterial infection when they were tested one month after the incident. Restaurant's best argument in response to Patron's suit would be that A. No one else who ate at Restaurant on Sunday complained about stomach discomfort. B. Restaurant instructs its employees to wash their hands carefully and is not responsible if any employee fails to follow these instructions. C. Patron has failed to establish that Restaurant's food caused his illness. D. Patron assumed the risk of an upset stomach by choosing to eat spicy food.

C

Plaintiff, a jockey, was seriously injured in a race when another jocker, Daring, cut too sharply in front of her without adequate clearance. The two horses collided, causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground, sustaining injury. The State Racetrack Commission ruled that, by cutting in too sharply, Daring committed a foul in violation of racetrack rules requiring adequate clearance for crossing lanes. Plaintiff has brought an action against Daring for damages in which one count is based on battery. Will Plaintiff prevail on the battery claim? A. Yes, if Daring was reckless in cutting across in front of Plaintiff's horse. B. Yes, because the State Racetrack Commission determined that Daring committed a foul in violation of rules applicable to racing. C. No, unless Daring intended to cause impermissible contact between the two horses or apprehension of such contact by Plaintiff. D. No, because Plaintiff assumed the risk of accidental injury inherent in rising as a jockey in a horse race.

C

Several hikers decided to take an early spring hike up a mountain that others knew to have occasional late-spring snowstorms. An outfitter worked with the hikers to prepare for the hike up the mountain. The outfitter was among the many who knew that the mountain had late-spring snowstorms. The outfitter negligently failed to warn the hikers, as did several friends, family members, park rangers, and other acquaintances. After several days of successful hiking, the hikers were trapped by a snowstorm. Several suffered severe frostbite injuries requiring amputation of toes and fingers. Those hikers sued the outfitter. Which of the following is the outfitter's best argument for dismissal of the hikers' action? A. No duty. B. No breach. C. No proximate cause. D. No actual harm.

C

While returning from transporting a group of children to summer camp, a bus driver and his assistant were caught in the leading edge of a forest fire raging down the high mountains. Hurrying ahead of the flames and smoke, the driver reached the last half-mile of a dirt road that ran to the main highway and safety, but he discovered that the road ahead was already blocked by fallen, burning foliage. Separating the driver's bus from the main highway, which angled off to the right, was the fenced property of a rancher. The bus driver drove across the property to reach the main highway, damaging some turf and a fence, and proceeded to the city. If the rancher asserts a claim against the bus driver to recover for the damage to his property, is the rancher likely to win? A. No, because the bus driver was acting to protect the lives of himself and his assistant. B. No, because the bus driver acted as would any reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. C. Yes because the bus driver damaged the rancher's property when he drove through the fence to get to the main highway. D. Yes, because the bus driver intentionally, drove across the property, knowing it would cause damage.

C

A carpenter was installing doors in a project with the help of an apprentice. The carpenter decided to play a prank on the apprentice. The carpenter sent the apprentice into an outbuilding on which the carpenter had just installed a door that did not yet have a handle. A plank was on the ground outside the door. The carpenter jammed the plank against the door, trapping the shouting apprentice in the outbuilding, and marched happily away, intending to leave the apprentice in the outbuilding for a little while. The apprentice suffered an attack of claustrophobia and injured himself attempting to batter open the door. Which tort claim or claims do these facts support for the apprentice against the carpenter? A. Assault and false imprisonment. B. Assault and battery. C. Battery and false imprisonment. D. False imprisonment.

D

A casino advertised lighted, secure parking. The secure parking was so limited that on any given night most customers had to use a dark and unguarded back lot. A casino customer parked her vehicle in the dark and unguarded back lot because the lighted lot was full one late night. On her way into the casino, the customer was robbed and assaulted in the darkness of the lot. The customer sued the casino. The casino's lawyer moved to dismiss the case based on no duty. How should the court rule? A. Grant the motion based on the event happening outside of the casino. B. Grant the motion based on no duty to protect against criminal acts. C. Deny the motion based on the money the casino would make from the customer. D. Deny the motion based on the advertised and assumed duty.

D

A contractor negotiated a snow-removal agreement with a retail store just as the snow season started. The contract began December 1st. It snowed on December 2nd. The contractor did not hire the personnel to perform the contract until December 3rd. A store customer slipped and fell on snow and ice on December 2nd, before the contractor had performed any aspect of the contract. The customer sued the contractor, whose lawyer (The contractor's) moved to dismiss the lawsuit for no duty. How should the court rule? A. Deny the motion. B. Deny the motion if the contractor should have had the personnel in place already. C. Grant the motion if the contractor is usually prudent in the performance of contracts. D. Grant the motion.

D

A developer constructed several small stores in the commercial district. She received a bid from a contractor to install awnings on the front windows of the stores. The developer had heard that the contractor did shoddy work, but the price was right and the contractor expressly assumed all of the risk of any liability. The developer subsequently sold one of the stores to a barber. A few months later, an awning collapsed without warning, injuring a customer who was about to enter the barbershop. An investigation by the building inspector revealed that the awning collapsed because the brackets used by the contractor where cheaper and weaker than the required brackets, although they looked the same. The developer and the contractor are now both bankrupt. If the customer sues the barber for his injuries, is the customer likely to prevail? A. Yes, because the barber had a nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe for customers and those passing by. B. Yes, because the developer did not exercise reasonable care in hiring the contractor to install the awnings. C. No, because the contractor assumed all of the risks from his work. D. No, because the barber had no opportunity to oversee the contractor's actions.

D

A driver who was texting while driving did not see a deer crossing the road until the very last second. The driver swerved sharply to avoid the deer. However, the swerve caused the driver to veer off the road and into the side of a shed. Unbeknownst to the driver, the farmer who owned the shed had improperly stored highly combustible fertilizer inside, which then exploded and started a fire. The fire demolished the shed and burned an adjacent building. The owner of the adjacent building brought a lawsuit to recover damages for the loss of the adjacent building. Which of the following actions would the court most likely consider the proximate cause of the loss of the adjacent building? A. The deer crossing the road. B. The driver texting while driving. C. The driver veering off the road and into the side of the shed. D. The farmer storing the fertilizer in the shed.

D

A farmer looked over used farm equipment on a sales lot. The farmer inspected a combine he thought he might purchase. The farmer knew from signs and prior conversations with sales agents that the sales lot's strict policy was that customers should stay out of equipment unless accompanied and authorized by a sales agent. The farmer nonetheless climbed into the combine to inspect the cab. Climbing out of the combine, the farmer fell and injured himself due to the combine's broken handrail. The farmer sued the sales lot for his injury. The sales lot's insurance company assigned the case to a lawyer for an answer. The lawyer's research disclosed that the jurisdiction would treat the farmer under the traditional classifications for premises liability. Which of the following best describes how the lawyer should treat the farmer's status at the moment of his injury, in the sales lot's answer? A. As a customer owed a duty of reasonable care. B. As an invitee owed a duty of reasonable care. C. As a licensee owed a duty to warn of known hidden dangers. D. As a trespasser owed no duty.

D

A gang member said to a rival from another neighborhood, "You'd better stay out of my way. The next time I find you around here, I'll beat you up." Two days later, when the rival again visited the thug's neighborhood, the rival saw the thug's identical twin coming toward him. As the two neared each other, the rival saw the twin raise his hand. Mistaking the twin for the thug, and fearing bodily harm, the rival struck the twin. If the twin asserts a claim against the rival and the rival relies on the privilege of self-defense, the rival will: A. Not prevail, because the twin was not an aggressor. B. Not prevail, unless the twin intended his gesture as a threat. C. Prevail, if the rival honestly believed that the twin would attack him. D. Prevail, if a reasonable person under the same circumstances would have believed that the twin would attack him.

D

A host had several friends over to his home for an evening. The host offered beer and wine to his friends. Near the end of the evening, the host urged a departing guest, who was already slurring her words and acting tipsy, to have one last beer, which the guest did. The guest left in her car an hour later but only made it a few blocks before running a stop sign, striking and seriously injuring a pedestrian who was in the crosswalk. In a state with no dramshop act, what is the most likely evaluation of the pedestrian's negligence claim against the host? A. Liability due to the host negligently offering more beer to a drunken departing guest. B. No liability due to no negligence offering more beer to a drunken departing guest. C. No liability due to no actual cause between the drinking and running the stop sign. D. No liability due to no proximate cause with respect to the guest's voluntary drinking.

D

A lawyer presented the plaintiff's proofs in a motor-vehicle negligence case involving a rear-end collision. The lawyer's only witness as to duty and breach was a police officer who testified to the violation of a statute requiring drivers to maintain an assured clear distance ahead. The defense lawyer moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's proofs. What should the plaintiff's lawyer argue in response? A. A police officer is the most credible witness available to any plaintiff, and the court must give such an impressive witness great deference. B. The police officer was the only witness available to this plaintiff, and the court must respect that the plaintiff was at a loss to provide other evidence. C. Courts construe the violation of a safety statute as evidence that the defendant must have done something wrong, which means that the defendant automatically loses. D. Courts construe the violation of a safety statute as negligence per se or allow a presumption or inference of negligence, which satisfy the plaintiff's burden of production.

D

A motor-vehicle collision occurred at an intersection where one driver faced a stop sign and the other driver had a through route. The accident report showed that although the first driver had not stopped at the stop sign, the second driver had been speeding, contributing to the cause of the accident. The first driver, who was injured, consulted a lawyer regarding making a claim against the second driver based on the second driver's speeding. Which of the following is the best evaluation of the first driver's claim, in a contributory-negligence jurisdiction? A. Valid claim because the second driver's speeding contributed to the accident. B. Valid claim because the accident report is the best evidence of what happened. C. No claim because the second driver's speeding probably had nothing to do with it. D. No claim because barred by the first driver's running the stop sign.

D

A motorist ran her vehicle through a red light, hitting a pedestrian who was in the intersection's crosswalk. The pedestrian suffered fractures to both wrists when she put both hands forward to brace herself at the last instant before the collision. The pedestrian was taken to a hospital where an emergency physician overlooked the pedestrian's wrist fractures while treating other serious injuries. The physician's malpractice increased the pedestrian's wrist pain and disability resulting from the motor-vehicle accident. In the pedestrian's negligence claim against the motorist, the motorist's lawyer requested a jury instruction prohibiting the jury from including the increased wrist pain and disability from the physician's malpractice. Which of the following is the best evaluation of whether the jury instruction should be given? A. Yes, because malpractice is not foreseeable and is a superseding cause as to prior negligence. B. Yes, because malpractice is not foreseeable, although if it were, it would not be a superseding cause. C. Yes, because although malpractice is foreseeable, it is a superseding cause as to prior negligence. D. No, because malpractice is foreseeable and not a superseding cause as to prior negligence.

D

A racer crashed her race vehicle because of the actions of another driver. The racer drove a golf cart to the pit area of the other driver to complain. A mechanic met and confronted her there. The mechanic had harassed the racer before and now resumed the harassment again. The mechanic stood face to face with the racer, hollering at her, invading her personal space, and physically intimidating though not threatening her. The racer could have gotten in the golf cart and driven away. Instead, she decided to put an end to the mechanic's harassment. She took a wrench from the golf cart and hit the mechanic on the head, seriously injuring him. Which of the following statements is most likely to be true? A. The mechanic's claim is frivolous because the racer is not liable. B. The mechanic's claim is viable but weak because he started it. C. The racer will be able to successfully claim self-defense. D. The racer will probably be found liable.

D

A resident had a disagreement with an aide at a nursing home. The aide felt that the resident had been unkind, unappreciative, and verbally abusive. So, as the aide left the resident's first-floor room, the aide slammed and locked the door in a manner that would prevent the resident from being able to open it. When the door slammed, the resident just smiled. If the resident sued the aide for false imprisonment, what information would a defense lawyer seeking to challenge the claim most want to know? A. That the aide only intended that the resident be locked in her room long enough not to be verbally abusive. B. That the resident hated being locked in her room but was glad to have irritated the aide enough to make the aide slam the door. C. That the resident did not mind so much being locked in against her will because she knew at least that she could sue for false imprisonment. D. That the resident knew she could step safely out through the first-floor window, as she had secretly done on many prior occasions.

D

A retired professor drove his vehicle to the corner store every evening to purchase a soda pop. The professor had grown into the habit of not wearing his seatbelt for the short drive to the corner store. On one of those occasions, a driver ran a stop sign, causing the professor to drive into the side of the driver's vehicle. Unrestrained by any seatbelt, the professor was thrown into the windshield by the collision, resulting in seriously disabling head injuries. The professor consulted a lawyer regarding a negligence action against the other driver. Which of the following should the lawyer know before advising the driver? A. Whether the other driver was licensed to drive, what his driving record was, and whether his driving record included running stop signs. B. Whether the vehicle the other driver was driving was registered, and whether the professor's vehicle was in good repair. C. Whether the professor really needed a soda pop each evening, or whether he would have been better off without it for his health. D. Whether there is a statute limiting fault for not wearing a seatbelt.

D

A store owner suffered losses due to looting during local power outages over the course of one summer. The outages occurred during predictable peak demand times associated with hot weather and air-conditioner usage. The store owner was fed up with the looting. That winter, he purchased a gun with which to defend his store when the hot weather and power outages returned. But when he heard a warning from his trade association about store-owner liability, he decided to get a legal opinion. What would be the most appropriate counsel to the store owner about his civil liability for use of the gun to defend his store and its goods during looting? A. To shoot in defense of the store and its goods whenever it appeared reasonable, even if mistaken. B. To shoot in defense of the store and its goods only when genuinely necessary, understanding that there would be no excuse for mistakes whether or not reasonable. C. Not to shoot in defense of the store and its goods unless the looters looked as if they were able to shoot back in their own defense. D. Not to shoot in defense of the store and its goods.

D

A teenage girl and her boyfriend have been dating for several years. The girl's father objects to the relationship and tells several of his friends and acquaintances that if the boyfriend doesn't leave his daughter alone, the father will "tear the boyfriend limb from limb." The father never threatens the boyfriend to his face. The father is a retired professional wrestler who was forced into retirement for using excessive force in the ring. The boyfriend sues the father for assault. Should the boyfriend prevail in his assault case? A. Yes, because the father has the apparent ability to carry out his threat. B. Yes, because the father has made the threat in the presence of multiple individuals. C. No, if the boyfriend has incurred no damages as a result of the alleged assault. D. No, because a threat of future violence does not constitute an assault.

D

A teenager who was totally blind in one eye and had only 10% vision in the other could not obtain a driver's license. Nevertheless, on his 18th birthday, he borrowed his father's car and took his girlfriend for a ride. With his 10% vision in one eye, he was able to stay in the correct lane and avoid oncoming traffic, but he failed to see a jogger on the edge of the highway. The teenager's car hit the jogger, causing serious bodily injury. If the jogger brings a negligence suit against the teenager, and the jury finds in the jogger's favor, what is the most likely reason? A. The teenager failed to exercise ordinary and reasonably care under the circumstances. B. The teenager failed to exercise the amount of care an 18-year-old of like education, intelligence, and experience would have exercised. C. The teenager failed to exercise the ordinary and reasonable care that a person with the teenager's disability would have exercised. D. The teenager violated the law when he drove without a license.

D

A vehicle driver was on the road for several hours late in the day. The driver's eyes adjusted as the sun gradually set, so that the driver did not turn on his vehicle headlights as state law required. A second driver drove her vehicle through a stop sign without stopping and directly into the side of the vehicle driven by the first driver without the headlights on. The second driver admitted that she would not have seen the first driver's vehicle and been able to stop in time, even if its headlights had been on. A vehicle passenger injured in the collision consulted a lawyer about the probable liability of the first and second drivers. Which of the following is the best evaluation? A. The first driver and second driver are each liable. B. The first driver and second driver are each not liable. C. The first driver is liable and the second driver is not liable. D. The first driver is not liable but the second driver is liable.

D

A vehicle-finance company employed and trained a young man to repossess vehicles. The young man located a car that he had been assigned to repossess. The car was in the driveway of its owner's residence. The owner was not in sight of the young man. The young man hopped in the car, jimmied the ignition, and drove away, satisfied that he had once again earned his keep for the company. The vehicle-finance company promptly notified the owner that her vehicle had been repossessed. The finance agreement authorized the above actions. Which of the following is most likely true based on the fact pattern above? A. The young man committed a trespass to land when entering the driveway. B. The young man committed a trespass to chattels when entering and moving the car. C. The young man committed a conversion when taking the car for the finance company. D. No torts were committed.

D

An employee of a convenience store mistook a customer for a thief. The employee training manual instructed to call 911. The employee instead tackled and held the customer while others called police. The customer, who was injured in the incident, sued the employee for negligence. At trial, the jury received the training manual as an exhibit, saw the store's video-recording of the incident, and heard the employee's judicial admission that the customer was not a thief. The employee's lawyer moved for directed verdict, arguing that the customer had failed to satisfy her burden to produce evidence of duty and breach. Which of the following is the customer's best argument in response? A. Duty from the video and breach from the admission. B. Duty from the admission and breach from the manual. C. Duty from the manual and breach from the admission. D. Duty from the manual and breach from the video.

D

As a gas-station employee was filling a customer's fuel tank with gasoline, the employee noticed that she had spilled gasoline onto the asphalt near the gas pump. Instead of attending to the spill, the employee went inside the service station to get a drink of water. Five minutes later, a truck driver was pulling into the gas station to fuel his vehicle and tossed a lit cigarette butt out of his truck's window. The cigarette butt landed in the gasoline puddle and ignited it, severely burning a bystander. Was the gas-station employee the proximate cause of the bystander's injury? A. No, because the truck driver's negligent act of tossing his cigarette butt out of his vehicle window was an intervening cause of the bystander's harm. B. No, because the gasoline ignition was an unforeseeable force of nature. C. Yes, because the employee had a special duty to protect those on the gas station property from the foreseeable risk of gas explosions. D. Yes, because the truck driver's negligent act of tossing his cigarette butt out of his vehicle window was a reasonably foreseeable intervening cause of the injury.

D

At the trial of an action against Grandmother on behalf of Patrick, the following evidence has been introduced. Grandson and his friend, Patrick, both aged eight, were visiting at Grandmother's house when, while exploring the premises, they discovered a hunting rifle in an unlocked gun cabinet. They removed it from the cabinet and were examining it when the rifle, while in Grandson's hands, somehow discharged. The bullet struck and injured Patrick. The gun cabinet was normally locked. Grandmother had opened it for dusting several days before the boys' visit and had then forgotten to relock it. She was not aware that it was unlocked when the boys arrived. If the defendant moves for a directed verdict in her favor at the end of the plaintiff's case, that motion should be: A. Granted, because Grandmother is not legally responsible for the acts of grandson. B. Granted because Grandmother did not recall that the gun cabinet was unlocked. C. Denied, because a firearm is an inherently dangerous instrumentality. D. Denied, because a jury could find that Grandmother breached a duty of care she owed to Patrick.

D

At the trial of an action against Grandmother on behalf of Patrick, the following evidence has been introduced. Grandson and his friend, Patrick, both aged eight, were visiting at Grandmother's house when, while exploring the premises, they discovered a hunting rifle in an unlocked gun cabinet. They removed it from the cabinet and were examining it when the rifle, while in Grandson's hands, somehow discharged. The bullet struck and injured Patrick. The gun cabinet was normally locked. Grandmother had opened it for dusting several days before the boys' visit, and had then forgotten to relock it. She was not aware that it was unlocked when the boys arrived. If the defendant moves for a directed verdict in her favor at the end of the plaintiff's case, that motion should be. A. Granted, because Grandmother is not legal responsible for the acts of Grandson. B. Granted, because grandmother did not recall that the gun cabinet was unlocked. C. Denied, because a firearm is an inherently dangerous instrumentality. D. Denied, because a jury could find that Grandmother breached a duty of care she owed to Patrick.

D

Dent operates a residential rehabilitation center for emotionally disturbed and ungovernable children who have been committed to his custody by their parents or by juvenile authorities. The center's purpose is to modify the behavior of the children through a teaching program carried out in a family-like environment. Though the children are not permitted to leave the center without his permission, there are no bars or guards to prevent them from doing so. It has been held in the state where the center is located that persons having custody of children have the same duties and responsibilities that they would have if they were the parents of the children. Camden, aged 12, who had been in Dent's custody for six months, left the center without permission. Dent became aware of Camden's absence almost immediately but made no attempt to locate him or secure his return, though reports reached him that Camden had been seen in the vicinity. Thirty-six hours after Camden left the center, Camden committed a brutal assault upon Pell, a five-year-old child, causing Pell to suffer extensive permanent injury. If an action is brought against Dent on behalf of Pell to recover damages for Pell's injuries, will Pell prevail? A. No, because parents are not personally liable for their child's intentional torts. B. Yes, if Camden was old enough to be liable for battery. C. Yes, because Camden was in Dent's custody. D. No, unless Dent knew or had reason to know that Camden had a propensity to attack younger children.

D

Dieter parked her car in violation of a city ordinance that prohibits parking within ten feet of a fire hydrant. Because Grove was driving negligently, his car sideswiped Dieter's parked car. Plaintiff, a passenger in Grove's car, was injured in the collision. If Plaintiff asserts a claim against Dieter to recover damages for his injuries, basing his claim on Dieter's violation of the parking ordinance, will Plaintiff prevail? A. Yes, Because Dieter was guilty of negligence per se. B. Yes, if Plaintiff would not have been injured had Dieter's car not been parked where it was. C. No, because Dieter's parked car was not an active or efficient cause of Plaintiff's injury. D. No, if prevention of traffic accidents was not a purpose of the ordinance.

D

Dora, who was eight years old, went to the grocery store with her mother. Dora pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. Dora's mother remained near Dora at all times. Peterson, another customer in the store, noticed Dora pushing the cart in a manner that caused Peterson no concern. A short time later, the cart Dora was pushing struck Peterson in the knee, inflicting serious injury. If Peterson brings an action, based on negligence, against Dora's mother, will Peterson prevail? A. Yes, if Dora was negligent. B. Yes, because Dora's mother is responsible for any harm caused by Dora. C. Yes, because Dora's mother assumed the risk of her child's actions. D. Yes, if Dora's mother did not adequately supervise Dora's actions.

D

The effect of the application of Res Ipsa Loquitur is that it: A. Puts the burden wholly on the defendant to disprove negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. B. Ensures that the claimant will win their case. C. Allows both parties to assume certain facts despite the lack of proof. D. Shifts the burden of proof to the defense, who now has to put forward a plausible explanation, consistent with lack of negligence.

D