BLAW Ch 2 Quiz

Sneaky Sam is attempting to steal a candy bar from Richy Rich.

e) I, III, and V are correct (correct) Rationale: Assault is the apprehension of an imminent battery. Battery is an unpermitted harmful or offensive contact. [I] is true, because punching someone in the face would cause apprehension and would be a harmful or offensive contact. [II] is false, because pulling the candy bar would be offensive, and the candy bar would be sufficiently closely connected with Rich to equal "contact." [III] is true, because punching someone in the face would cause apprehension and would be a harmful or offensive contact. Note that Rich being the "good" guy is irrelevant to the tort claim if he hit the bad guy Sam. Each claim is evaluated on its merits. [IV] cannot be true because assault could not have happened, because there could have been no apprehension by Sam when he was asleep. [V] is true, because punching someone while they're sleeping would be a battery but not an assault.

Aggressive Andy, angry that Sneaky Sam had stolen his idea and was about to present it to the boss, decides to take action. Andy grabs the report from Sam, not touching Sam but causing a definite jerking of arms. Sam, upset, takes a ruler and tries to hit Andy, but misses. Andy then tells Sam that unless he agrees not to steal his idea, Andy will not let him out of the cubicle area. Afterward, Sam is seen joking with friends about having stolen your idea. Which torts might have occurred?

b) Assault, battery, false imprisonment, and possibly conversion. (correct) Rationale: Assault is defined as placing someone in fear or apprehension of an impending battery. Here, Sam might have been placed in apprehension of Andy's action, which even if it wasn't harmful would have been offensive to a reasonable person, while Andy might have been placed in apprehension of being hit by the ruler. The fact that Sam might have stolen the idea is not a defense to the action Andy takes. A battery is a harmful or offensive contact. Here, even if an action wasn't harmful, it would have been offensive to a reasonable person. Jerking the report out of Sam's hand would have been sufficient, as the report was sufficiently closely connected with the person to equal "Sam" for purposes of battery. Conversion voluntary act that is inconsistent with the property rights of another. This would be a highly unique legal argument, but it's possible it would meet the test. One issue is "Who is the owner (of the idea)?" This could be the employer rather than Andy, but either way, it would not be Sam. Trespass to land is the entering upon another's land without permission, or remaining on the land after permission is withdrawn, or throwing an object on the land. This would not apply here. Nuisance covers non-physical invasions such as noise, or microscopic invasions such as strong smells, fumes, or other pollution. This also would not apply. Trespass to chattel is the intentional interference with another person's lawful possession of movable personal property As with conversion, this would be a possible tort, though highly unusual. False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person. Here, if a reasonable person in Sam's position would have believed Andy's blocking of the area prevented an exit, this might meet the test. The fact that Sam might have stolen the idea is not a defense to the action Andy takes. Intentional inflection of emotional distress is a cause of action (basis for a lawsuit) that allows a plaintiff to recover if the defendant's action was (1) intentional or reckless; (2) extreme and outrageous; (3) the cause of the distress; and (4) results in severe emotional distress. While we might want to side with Andy rather than Sneaky Sam, in the law the same test applies regardless. Here, this would be possible except that Sam appears not to have been affected, and certainly not severely.

Why would U.S. courts, which are generally predisposed to favor business activity, often place the burden of tort law upon a business defendant?

Because the business and only the business can reduce future injuries (correct) Rationale: While it seems that courts might resist placing the burden of tort law—recovery for injuries—upon business, in fact the courts ask the question: "Who can fix it?" Only business can fix the underlying issue. Thus, placing the burden on business is likely to "encourage" business to fix the problem: to correct the defect, to improve the product, to strengthen the design, to implement new safety features. In this calculus, courts weigh the positions of all future parties as well as of the two parties in the immediate case.

Mens rea is the act that leads to criminal liability.

FALSE (correct) Rationale: Mens rea refers to the "guilty mind" in the commission of a crime. As we cannot know what is in someone's mind, we often infer this from their actions.

Punitive damages are common in tort law cases.

FALSE (correct) Rationale: Punitive damages are an exceptional remedy in tort law, rarely granted. These are, in a sense, a hybrid between tort and criminal law, with the important distinction that the monies for the punishment are a form of extraordinary restitution to the plaintiff To be entitled to punitive damages, the defendant's actions must be sufficiently extreme to meet a gross negligence standard of recklessness, or a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm. Negligence is a lesser action, a failure to exercise reasonable care. Court will generally uphold punitive damages, in cases of extreme conduct, of up to three times compensatory damages.

The Model Penal Code has, through legislation in individual states, modified common law crimes into a more standardized, simplified statutory approach.

TRUE (correct) Rationale: A model code is drafted over an extended time by renowned thinkers in the field. The first Model Penal Code was released in 1962, and became a basis for states in redrafting their criminal law statutes. Courts can, occasionally, refer to the logic in a model code in deciding a case where the statute is not dispositive. In this way, a model code, while not a "controlling authority," is of substantial persuasive authority. The Model Penal Code was updated in 1981.

In criminal law, the defense of defense of others is possible if the defense would have been available for defense of self.

TRUE (correct) Rationale: Defense of others is a defense available to what would otherwise be a crime (such as shooting an assailant) if the defense would have applied for defense of self (i.e., self-defense).

In a strict liability crime, mens rea, or a guilty mind, is not required. Businesses may be liable for criminal punishment in "regulatory crimes" such as health and safety regulations, environmental pollution, or taxation.

TRUE (correct) Rationale: In a strict liability crime, the requirement of mens rea, or a guity mind, is not needed. One can be convicted of a crime regardless of whether one intended to commit the crime, or even knew about it. For example, selling alcohol to a minor is a strict liability crime: a conviction is possible even if the seller honestly thought the buyer was of legal age, and confirmed this through a well-forged document. A significant area of strict liability crimes are regulatory crimes, such as health and safety regulations, environmental pollution, taxation, and a vast array of regulatory mandates. Often these mandates include criminal sanctions for the business—in the form of fines--and even fines and imprisonment for corporate officers.

Rules of evidence concern the admissibility of evidence in a trial.

TRUE (correct) Rationale: Rules of evidence are a body of rules concerning what evidence is admissible at trial.

The Restatement of Torts (2d) has, through legislation in individual states, modified common law torts into a more standardized, simplified statutory approach.

TRUE (correct) Rationale: The Restatements are drafted over an extended time by renowned thinkers in the field. The second Restatement of Torts was released between 1965 and 1979. Its section on strict liability resulted in the change in the law described in the text, and was the basis of the Restatement of Torts, Third: Products Liability in 1997. States legislatures look to the Restatements of Torts in modifying their tort law statutes. Courts can, occasionally, refer to the logic in a Restatement in deciding a case where the statute is not dispositive. In this way, a Restatement, while not a "controlling authority," is of substantial persuasive authority.