Torts - Knowledge Check

While practicing their target shooting at the firing range, a man and woman got into an argument that almost erupted into physical combat, except that they were restrained and separated by bystanders. Later, in the parking lot of the range, the man shot the woman in the shoulder. Bystanders who rushed to the scene immediately after hearing the man's shot found the woman on the pavement with a black flashlight in her hand. The woman's pistol was in her locker at the firing range. At the trial of the woman's civil action for battery against the man, the woman established that the man intentionally shot her. In defense, the man testified that the woman approached him, saying, "We'll settle this once and for all, right now," and raised an object toward the man. He testified that he feared that the woman was about to shoot him with a pistol, so he fired in self-defense. Assuming that the jury decides that the man is telling the truth, what else must the jury need to find for him to prevail?

That a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have believed that the woman was about to shoot. *If the man prevails, it will be because the jury determined that he acted reasonably under the circumstances. One may act in self-defense not only where there is real danger but also where there is a reasonable appearance of danger. An honest but mistaken belief that the woman was about to shoot would justify the use of deadly force by the man if a reasonable person would have acted similarly under those circumstances. The test is an objective one—an honest belief alone is not sufficient. Thus, (A) is incorrect. (C) is incorrect because the woman's fault is not the determining factor—the reasonableness of the man's belief governs for self-defense. (D) is incorrect because it does not resolve whether the man had the right to use deadly force. Even if the man started the altercation at the range, he would have the right to use deadly force if the woman escalated the fight with deadly force.

A motorcyclist was injured in a collision and suffered $100,000 worth of injuries, including $20,000 in hospital and physician's bills. The motorcyclist's medical insurance company paid her $20,000 to cover hospital and medical expenses. Later, she filed suit against the driver of the car that struck her motorcycle. When the case came to trial, the jury agreed with the motorcyclist's contention that her injuries were worth $100,000. The jury also determined that the motorcyclist was 30% negligent and that the driver was 70% negligent. How much should the motorcyclist recover from the driver?

$70,000 *The motorcyclist should recover $70,000 from the driver. Under a pure comparative negligence system, a contributorily negligent plaintiff is allowed to recover a percentage of her damages. The plaintiff's damages are reduced according to her proportionate share of the fault. Thus, the motorcyclist can recover 70% of her total of $100,000 in damages because she was 30% at fault, leaving her with a recovery of $70,000. (A) is incorrect because it fails to reflect the reduction in damages required under comparative negligence. Because the motorcyclist was 30% negligent, she cannot recover the entire $100,000. (C) is incorrect because it is derived from an initial reduction of damages by the amount of the insurance payments ($100,000 minus $20,000, leaving $80,000). This $80,000 figure is then reduced by the 30% negligence of the motorcyclist, leaving an amount of $56,000. However, as a general rule, damages are not reduced or mitigated by reason of benefits received by the plaintiff from other sources, such as health insurance. Thus, the 30% reduction is made from the figure of $100,000, not from $80,000. Similarly, (D) is incorrect because it is derived from a reduction of the $70,000 proportionate recovery by the $20,000 insurance payment. As noted above, the insurance payments are not allowed to reduce damages. Therefore, the $20,000 paid by the motorcyclist's insurance company will not reduce the $70,000 in damages to which she is entitled.

A college student borrowed his roommate's notebook computer without permission because he needed to write a term paper that was due the next day. While the computer was sitting open on the student's desk overnight, a water pipe in the ceiling began leaking and water dripped down on the computer, rendering it inoperable. A computer repair service estimated that it would cost $500 to repair all the damaged components. At the time it was damaged, the computer was worth $700. If the roommate sues the student for the damage caused to the computer, what will be the extent of his recovery?

$700 in damages *The roommate can recover $700 in damages from the student for conversion. To establish a prima facie case of conversion, the following elements must be proved: (i) an act by defendant interfering with plaintiff's right of possession in the chattel, (ii) intent to perform the act bringing about the interference with plaintiff's right of possession, (iii) causation, and (iv) damages—an interference that is serious enough in nature or consequence to warrant that the defendant pay the full value of the chattel.. Even if the conduct is wholly innocent, liability may attach where the interference is serious in nature. Accordingly, accidentally causing damage to another's chattel may constitute a conversion when the damage occurred while the defendant was using the chattel without permission. Here, the student interfered with the roommate's right of possession in the computer by taking it without permission, and it sustained damages of over 70% of its value while in the student's possession. Hence, the student has committed a conversion. The plaintiff in a conversion case is entitled to damages for the fair market value of the chattel at the time and place of the conversion, which in this case was $700. (A) is incorrect because even though the student was not at fault in the water pipe leaking, the damage occurred while the computer was wrongfully in his possession. (B) is incorrect. Had the computer not been damaged, the roommate's recovery would be limited to loss of use damages under a trespass to chattels theory. However, the serious damage that occurred while the computer was in the wrongful possession of the student warrants a recovery for conversion. (C) is incorrect because the damages remedy for conversion is the fair market value; in effect, there is a forced sale of the item. The student may keep the computer but he is liable to the roommate for the entire value of the computer rather than just the cost of repairs.

Which of the following persons is considered to be an invitee of the landowner?

A child accompanying a customer of the landowner *A child accompanying a customer of the landowner is considered an invitee because she came onto the property for a purpose connected to the business. Under traditional landowner liability rules, a landowner owes an invitee a general duty to use reasonable and ordinary care in keeping the property reasonably safe for the benefit of the invitee. This general duty includes the duties owed to licensees (to warn of nonobvious, dangerous conditions known to the landowner and to use ordinary care in active operations on the property). A landowner also owes invitees a duty to make reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions and make them safe. A customer of the landowner who goes through a door marked "employees only" is no longer an invitee. A person loses his status as an invitee if he exceeds the scope of the invitation—if he goes into a portion of the premises where his invitation cannot reasonably be said to extend. A firefighter fighting a fire on the landowner's property is not treated like an invitee. Under the "firefighter's rule," police officers and firefighters are generally treated like licensees, based on public policy or assumption of risk grounds. They cannot recover for a landowner's failure to inspect or repair dangerous conditions that are an inherent risk of their law enforcement or firefighting activity. A hiker on the landowner's open land is not considered an invitee. If an owner or occupier of open land permits the public to use the land for recreational purposes without charging a fee, the landowner is not liable for injuries suffered by a recreational user unless the landowner willfully and maliciously failed to guard against or warn of a dangerous condition or activity.

A bystander who witnesses the defendant negligently injuring another can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in most states by showing:

A close relationship between the bystander and the person injured, the bystander's presence at the scene of the injury, and the bystander's observation or perception of the event. *A bystander must show a close relationship between the bystander and the person injured, the bystander's presence at the scene of the injury, and the bystander's observation or perception of the event to recover. Traditionally, a bystander outside the "zone of danger" of physical injury who sees the defendant negligently injuring another could not recover damages for her own distress. A majority of states now allow recovery in these cases as long as (i) the plaintiff and the person injured by the defendant are closely related; (ii) the plaintiff was present at the scene of the injury; and (iii) the plaintiff personally observed or perceived the event. The bystander's presence within the zone of danger from physical injury is no longer required for a bystander to recover for witnessing an injury to another.

If the plaintiff establishes res ipsa loquitur, it will have the following effect:

A directed verdict will not be given for the defendant. *The circumstantial evidence doctrine of res ipsa loquitur deals with those situations where the fact that a particular injury occurred may itself establish or tend to establish a breach of duty owed. Where res ipsa loquitur has been proven, the plaintiff has made a prima facie case, and a directed verdict will not be given for the defendant. Application of the doctrine does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant, nor does it create a presumption of negligence. Furthermore, the doctrine does not result in a directed verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant may introduce evidence that due care was exercised, and the jury may reject the permissible inference that may be drawn from the res ipsa proof and find for the defendant.

For a design defect in a products liability action, the plaintiff usually must show that:

A less dangerous modification or alternative for the product was economically feasible. *For design defect cases, the plaintiff usually must show a reasonable alternative design, i.e., that a less dangerous modification or alternative for the product was economically feasible. Proof that the product emerged from production different from other products and more dangerous than if it had been made the way it should have been, or that the product was dangerous because of a departure from its intended design, establishes a manufacturing defect rather than a design defect. It is not necessary to show that the product does not comply with government safety standards to establish a design defect. A product may comply with the standards and still be found defective.

A defendant may be liable for a breach of the duty of care to all of the following EXCEPT::

A rescuer employed as a firefighter or police officer. *A rescuer is a foreseeable plaintiff and is owed a duty of care as long as the rescue is not reckless, However, firefighters and police officers may be barred by the "firefighter's rule" from recovering for injuries caused by the risks of a rescue. A duty of care is owed to a viable fetus; prenatal injuries are actionable. A third party for whose economic benefit a legal or business transaction is made is owed a duty of care if the defendant could reasonably foresee harm to that party if the transaction is done negligently. While a landowner owes no duty to an undiscovered trespasser, a trespasser whose presence on the property is known to the landowner is owed a duty to be warned about seriously dangerous artificial conditions on the property.

Which of the following describes only dependent intervening forces in a proximate cause analysis?

A subsequent disease and negligence of rescuers

The defendant negligently blocked a road, forcing the plaintiff to take an alternate road that was equally safe. Another driver negligently collided with the plaintiff on that road. The defendant is not liable to the plaintiff because the collision is:

An unforeseeable result caused by an unforeseeable intervening force

Which of the following best states who may bring a strict liability action against a defendant engaging in abnormally dangerous activities?

Any foreseeable plaintiff injured as a result of the dangerous propensity of the activity *A defendant engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity may be liable only to foreseeable plaintiffs injured as a result of the dangerous propensity of the activity. This is the best statement of the scope of the duty owed. In most states, a defendant will be liable only to those persons to whom a reasonable person would have foreseen a risk of harm under the circumstances. In general, strict liability is not imposed for injuries to a plaintiff to whom no reasonable person would have foreseen a danger. The defendant will not be strictly liable to all plaintiffs who were directly injured by the activity. Rather, the harm must result from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the abnormally dangerous activity; i.e., it must flow from the "normally dangerous propensity" of the activity involved. Conversely, a foreseeable plaintiff may recover even if she was not directly injured by the activity as long as the injury was from the dangerous propensity (e.g., injuries caused by fleeing the danger from the activity).

The "shopkeeper's privilege" allows a shopkeeper to avoid liability for false imprisonment when detaining a suspect that he reasonably believes has committed a theft.The shopkeeper also must:

Conduct the detention in a reasonable manner and detain the suspect for only a reasonable time. *(A) In addition to having a reasonable belief as to the fact of theft, a shopkeeper is required to conduct the detention in a reasonable manner and detain the suspect for a reasonable period of time for the privilege to apply. By statute in some states and case law in others, shopkeepers have been given a privilege to detain someone suspected of shoplifting and thus avoid liability for false imprisonment. The following conditions must be satisfied: (i) there must be a reasonable belief as to the fact of theft; (ii) the detention must be conducted in a reasonable manner and only nondeadly force can be used; and (iii) the detention must be only for a reasonable period of time and only for the purpose of making an investigation. A shopkeeper is not required to notify the police in a reasonable amount of time to avoid liability for false imprisonment when detaining a suspect for shoplifting.

There often is more than one cause for an injury. The "but for" test for actual cause applies to:

Concurrent causes *The "but for" test for actual cause applies to concurrent causes. An act or omission to act is the cause in fact of an injury when the injury would not have occurred but for the act. This test applies in concurrent cause cases, where several acts combine to cause the injury, but none of the acts standing alone would have been sufficient. But for any of the acts, the injury would not have occurred. The "substantial factor" test is used for joint causes, where several causes commingle and bring about an injury, but any one alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury. In that case, it is sufficient if defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the injury. An alternative causes situation arises when two or more persons have been negligent, but uncertainty exists as to which one caused the plaintiff's injury. Under this approach, the plaintiff must prove that harm has been caused to him by one of them (with uncertainty as to which one). The burden of proof then shifts to the defendants, and each must show that his negligence is not the actual cause. Superseding causes arise in the context of proximate cause rather than actual cause. In addition to being an actual cause, the defendant's conduct must also be a proximate cause of the injury. Causes that arise after the defendant's conduct that contribute to the injury may be so unforeseeable as to be superseding causes, which cut off the defendant's liability for his original negligent act.

Which of the following is correct regarding self-defense?

Deadly force may be permissible

The right of contribution among tortfeasors:

Does not apply against a tortfeasor who is immune from liability. *The right of contribution among tortfeasors is a device whereby responsibility is apportioned among those who are at fault. However, it does not apply against a tortfeasor who is immune from liability. If the contributing tortfeasor has a defense that would bar liability, such as intra-family tort immunity, she is not liable for contribution. In most states, contribution is based on relative fault of the various tortfeasors rather than on equal shares of the overall liability. Contribution does not provide for apportionment of damages in the absence of joint and several liability; rather, it can only operate in response to joint and several liability, because it allows any tortfeasor required to pay more than his share of damages under joint and several liability rules to have a claim against the other jointly liable parties for the excess. Contribution does not apply to intentional torts in most states.

A child is required to conform to a higher standard of care than that of a child of like age, education, intelligence, and experience when the child:

Engages in an activity that is normally one in which only adults engage.

Which of the following intentional conduct by the defendant is LEAST likely to constitute a trespass to land?

Exploding a mine on his own land which causes concussion damage to the plaintiff's land. *(A) If a defendant explodes a mine on his land which causes only concussion damage to a plaintiff's land, this will likely not constitute a trespass to land. A trespass to land requires a physical invasion of a plaintiff's real property by a defendant. If no physical object enters onto the plaintiff's land due to the defendant's actions, courts will generally not treat the defendant's conduct as a trespass to land. Instead, this will constitute a case of nuisance or strict liability (if ultrahazardous activities are involved). If a defendant throws a rock onto the plaintiff's driveway, causes water to flow onto the plaintiff's land, or chases someone onto the plaintiff's land, this will likely constitute a trespass to land. Although in none of these scenarios does the defendant actually enter upon the plaintiff's land, a trespass to land does not require that the defendant personally come onto the land. The tort of trespass to land protects a plaintiff's exclusive possession of realty from physical invasion, and all that is required to satisfy this element is a physical invasion of the plaintiff's land. Furthermore, damages are not required for this tort. The defendant has committed a trespass even if the property was not damaged.

A salesman in a highly visible and competitive field went to the police station to post bond for his son, who had been arrested for possession of a small quantity of narcotics. A photographer for the local newspaper who was at the police station took a picture of the salesman flanked by two bulky police officers. The photo, which looked like the pictures of alleged criminals being taken into custody, ran on a quarter of the front page because it had been a slow news day. The photo was accompanied by a very small caption giving the salesman's name and stating that his son had been arrested for possession of narcotics. The salesman's boss was hypersensitive about the reputation of his company and fired the salesman after he saw the picture in the newspaper. If the salesman brings an invasion of privacy action against the newspaper, what is the most likely basis?

False light publicity *The salesman's basis for an invasion of privacy action will be that the newspaper published facts about the salesman that placed him in a false light. To establish a prima facie case for invasion of privacy based on publication by defendant of facts placing plaintiff in a false light, the following elements must be proved: (i) publication of facts about plaintiff by defendant placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye; and (ii) the "false light" must be something that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person under the circumstances. The large picture of the salesman flanked by two bulky police officers could suggest that the salesman committed a crime because it looked like pictures that newspapers often print of alleged criminals being taken into custody.This "false light" would be highly offensive to a reasonable person under the circumstances. (A) is incorrect. This branch of invasion of right to privacy, intrusion upon plaintiff's affairs or seclusion, requires (i) an act of prying or intruding on the affairs or seclusion of plaintiff by defendant; (ii) the intrusion must be something that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (iii) the thing to which there is an intrusion or prying must be "private." Here, the photograph of the salesman was taken at the police station, which is a public place. Hence, the intrusion was not into anything of the salesman's private domain and is not actionable under this branch of invasion of privacy. (C) is similarly incorrect. Public disclosure of private facts requires (i) publication or public disclosure of private information about the plaintiff, and (ii) the matter made public is such that its disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Here, the presence of the salesman outside the police station was not a private fact. (D) is incorrect because appropriation of a plaintiff's picture or name for commercial purposes must be for the promotion or advertisement of a product or service; the fact that the defendant is using the picture in a newspaper that it is selling is not sufficient.

A small cruise ship struck a whale swimming underwater, causing the ship to suddenly lurch sideways. A passenger on the ship who was walking down a corridor lost his balance and bumped his head on the edge of a doorway. Because of a previously existing medical condition that made him susceptible to bleeding on the brain, he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and permanent mental impairment, despite prompt medical attention on the ship. The passenger brought suit against the cruise ship owner for his damages. At trial, the passenger presented evidence of how he was injured as he walked down the hallway, his previous medical condition, and his medical expenses and other damages. The cruise ship owner presented evidence that the cruise ship was following its approved route and that the whale could not have been detected before impact, and that the bump would not have injured someone in ordinary health. At the close of the evidence, the cruise ship owner moved for a directed verdict. How should the court rule?

Grant the motion, because there is no evidence that the crew operated the ship negligently. *The court should grant the cruise ship owner's motion because the passenger has not established a prima facie case of negligence against the cruise ship. To establish a prima facie case for negligence, a plaintiff must show (i) a duty of care, (ii) breach of that duty, (iii) actual and proximate cause, and (iv) damages. As a common carrier and/or an innkeeper, the cruise ship owed its passengers a high duty of care, and therefore would be liable for slight negligence. However, the passenger has offered no evidence to establish that the cruise ship employees breached that duty, and res ipsa loquitur is not applicable here because the collision with the whale swimming underwater is not the type of event that would occur only as a result of negligence. Because the passenger failed to establish breach of duty, the court should grant the cruise ship owner a directed verdict. (B) is incorrect because the cruise ship owner does not need that evidence to prevail. While evidence that a person in normal health would not have been injured by the bump supports the cruise ship's other evidence that it exercised due care, it is not necessary because the passenger has failed to offer evidence that the cruise ship owner breached its duty. On the other hand, if the cruise ship owner had breached its duty of care to its passengers, the fact that a person in normal health would not have been injured by the bump on the head would not be a defense to liability. If a defendant's negligence causes an aggravation of a plaintiff's existing physical illness, the defendant is liable for the damages caused by the aggravation. (C) is incorrect because, as discussed above, the passenger has failed to present evidence that the cruise ship owner breached the high duty of care that it owed to its guests. (D) is incorrect even though it is a true statement of law, as discussed above. The reason the cruise ship owner prevails is because the passenger has failed to establish a prima facie case.

A bicyclist was riding his bicycle in the street when a negligently driven car struck the bike, knocking the bicyclist off the bike and breaking his right ankle. The driver of the car immediately stopped and went to his assistance. She got him to his feet and was slowly moving him toward the curb when a negligently driven taxicab struck him in the left leg. The bicyclist required surgery on both his right ankle and his left leg. If the bicyclist sues the driver and the cabbie, which of the following best states his right to recover?

He can recover from either the driver or the cabbie for the injury to his left leg and recover from the driver only for the injury to his right ankle. *The bicyclist can recover from either party for the left leg injury but only from the driver for the right ankle injury. When two or more tortious acts combine to proximately cause an indivisible injury to a plaintiff, each tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the entire damage incurred. Joint and several liability applies even though each tortfeasor acted entirely independently. However, if the actions are independent, plaintiff's injury is divisible, and it is possible to identify the portion of injuries caused by each defendant, then each will be liable only for the identifiable portion. Here, the cabbie would not be liable for the injury to the right ankle, because the cabbie did not cause the injury. (A) is therefore incorrect. With regard to the left leg, the cabbie was not the only cause of that injury. The original tortfeasor is liable for harm caused by the negligence of third persons when such negligence was a foreseeable risk created by the original tortfeasor's conduct. Here, as a result of the driver's original negligence, the bicyclist was in a position of danger while he was still in the street. The negligence of the cabbie in striking the bicyclist was a foreseeable risk while the bicyclist was in the street; it is therefore a foreseeable intervening force that will not cut off the driver's liability. Hence, both the driver and the cabbie will be jointly and severally liable for that injury. (B) is therefore incorrect. (D) is incorrect because the driver remains responsible for the foreseeable consequences of her original negligence in striking the bicyclist, regardless of whether she acted with due care when she came to his aid.

A principal will be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of her independent contractor:

If the independent contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activities.

A swimmer went to a privately owned lake resort whose owner charged a fee for admission. The beach had a roped-in swimming area and large signs directing swimmers not to swim anywhere but within the ropes. The lifeguards regularly enforced this rule. The resort also rented canoes and rowboats to its patrons, who could take them anywhere on the lake. The swimmer and two of his friends had rented a canoe and started to paddle out toward the other side of the lake when the swimmer saw a volleyball game starting on the beach that he wanted to join. He left his friends in the canoe and started swimming to shore. He was only a few yards outside of the roped-in swimming area when he started, but he angled away from the swimming area toward the area of the beach where the volleyball net was set up. Although the lifeguard on duty saw him, she did not warn him to return to the swimming area. When the depth of the water was about four feet, he put his foot down and was severely cut by the jagged edge of a rusted metal stake protruding a few inches out of the bottom of the lake. The swimmer had not seen the stake even though the water was clear and it was visible if he had looked down. If the swimmer sues the resort for his injury in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, is he likely to recover?

No, because he was swimming outside of the roped area. *The swimmer cannot recover from the resort because he did not have invitee status when he was injured. In jurisdictions following the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, the nature of a duty of an owner or occupier of land to those on the premises depends on the legal status of the plaintiff in regard to the property, i.e., whether the plaintiff is a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. An invitee is a person who enters onto the premises in response to an express or implied invitation of the landowner. Those who enter as members of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public and those who enter for a purpose connected with the business or other interests of the landowner are considered invitees. However, a person will lose his status as an invitee if he exceeds the scope of the invitation—if he goes onto a portion of the property where his invitation cannot reasonably be said to extend. Here, the swimmer was an invitee of the resort in the areas to which it allowed its patrons to go. However, the resort clearly identified the boundaries of the area held open to swimmers, and the swimmer could not reasonably have believed that he was invited to swim in the area where he was injured. Because the swimmer was at most a licensee when he was injured, the resort did not owe him a duty to make reasonable inspections of that area to discover dangerous conditions and make them safe. At most, the resort had a duty only to warn the swimmer of known dangerous conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm to him and that he is unlikely to discover, and nothing in the facts indicates that any employees of the resort knew of the stake under the water. The swimmer therefore cannot recover against the resort. (A) is not as good a choice as (B). While a landowner is not liable for a dangerous condition that is obvious to the entrant on the land, the fact that the stake was visible does not establish that it was obvious, given that the swimmer was looking forward rather than down. Whether a danger is obvious is determined by all of the surrounding circumstances, not just whether the danger is visible. The better reason why the swimmer cannot recover is because he was no longer an invitee. (C) is incorrect because the lifeguard's failure to direct the swimmer to the swimming area would not constitute an invitation to swim in the restricted area; at most, it would establish only that the swimmer was a licensee rather than a trespasser when he swam in that area. A licensee is one who enters onto land with the possessor's permission, express or implied, for his own purpose or business rather than for the possessor's benefit. The lifeguard's conduct may have constituted implied permission for the swimmer to exit the lake in a nonswimming area for his own benefit, but it does not establish that he reasonably believed that he was invited to swim in that area. (D) is incorrect because the swimmer lost his status as an invitee when he exceeded the scope of his invitation by swimming in an area where swimming was not permitted.

A ballplayer became ill soon after consuming sunflower seeds marketed by a farm products company. The package of seeds was inspected and foreign matter was discovered on the seeds. If the ballplayer brings an action against the farm products company on the basis of strict tort liability, which of the following would be most helpful for the company to avoid liability?

In answer to an interrogatory, the ballplayer has acknowledged that he has no evidence that his illness was caused by the foreign matter on the seeds. *The ballplayer's lack of evidence of causation is most helpful to the farm products company. One of the elements of a prima facie case for products liability based on strict liability is causation of some harm to the plaintiff by a defective product. The ballplayer must show that the farm products company is strictly liable as a commercial supplier of the seeds, and that the farm products company marketed a defective product. In addition, the defect must have actually and proximately caused some harm to the plaintiff, and there must be damages. If, as (C) states, the ballplayer can produce no evidence that the illness he suffered was caused by the seeds' foreign matter, then he cannot prove the element of causation. Absent causation, a cause of action for strict liability will not lie. (A) is not as helpful to the farm products company as (C) because it does not preclude the ballplayer from establishing a prima facie case for strict liability. The fact that the foreign matter in the seeds was a rare mold might allow the farm products company to claim that it was not feasible to supply the seeds in a safer condition than they were (i.e., a "state of the art" defense), but the success of this argument is much less certain than the argument of no causation raised by choice (C). (B) is incorrect because the farm products company is strictly liable as a commercial supplier to refrain from selling a defective product. There is no requirement that the defendant in a strict liability action have manufactured or processed the product, only that the defendant be a commercial supplier of the product. The farm products company is a commercial supplier of the seeds by marketing them in its packaging. Therefore, the farm products company can be strictly liable even if the seeds were sold in their natural state. (D) is incorrect because, even if the seeds were actually collected and packaged by another company, the farm products company also is strictly liable as the company that markets the seeds and thus is part of the distributive chain.

A plaintiff who is 40% negligent can recover 60% of his damages in which of the following cases?

In either a pure or a partial comparative negligence jurisdiction, regardless of the number of defendants and their degree of fault.

A man working at a clothing store discovered that his girlfriend, a coworker, had been taking money from the cash register. Not wanting to be a party to the situation, he ended the relationship and found another job. Not long after this, the man's new boss, who knew why the man had quit, came into the clothing store. He asked the girlfriend if she missed her boyfriend working with her at the store. She replied, "Yes, but when we found that he was stealing from the cash register, we had no choice but to let him go." If the man sues his former girlfriend for defamation, the fact that the new boss knew the truth of why the man had left his job at the store will have what result?

It may diminish the damages that the man would be entitled to recover *The new boss's knowledge of the true circumstances behind the man's departure from the store may diminish the man's recovery. The girlfriend is liable for defamation because she made a defamatory statement about the man to a third person. As long as it is understood in its defamatory sense, an accusation need not be believed to be actionable. Because the statement that he was stealing at his job constituted slander per se, damages are presumed. Hence, (A) is wrong. (B) is wrong because actual injury encompasses not only damage to reputation but also humiliation and mental distress, for which the man could recover even though the new boss did not believe the girlfriend's statement. (D) is wrong because the fact that the new boss did not believe the statement does not prove lack of basis for the girlfriend to have made it.

How is "actual malice" defined for purposes of the constitutional law of defamation?

Knowledge that the statement was false, or reckless disregard by the defendant as to the statement's truth or falsity.

For assumption of risk to be available as a defense, the plaintiff must have:

Known of the risk and voluntarily assumed it

A man was negligently driving down the road, not paying attention to where he was going. Because of this, he hit and seriously injured a pedestrian who was lawfully crossing the street. The accident was witnessed by a friend of the woman who was standing on the sidewalk. The friend suffered extreme emotional distress that physically affected her nervous system. The friend brings suit against the driver for negligent infliction of emotional distress in a jurisdiction that has adopted the majority approach in bystander cases. Will the friend prevail?

No, because she was not a close relative of the pedestrian *The friend will lose because she was not a close relative of the pedestrian. If a bystander suffers distress from seeing injury to another, a majority of courts now allow recovery if (i) the plaintiff and the person injured by the defendant are closely related, (ii) the plaintiff was present at the scene of the injury, and (iii) the plaintiff personally observed or perceived the event. Here, the friend is not related to the pedestrian; hence, she cannot recover for her distress. (A) is incorrect because witnessing the injury to another is not sufficient. (B) is incorrect even though the friend did suffer physical symptoms from the distress. As discussed above, she has not met the requirements to recover. (C) is incorrect because the friend's proximity to the pedestrian is only relevant in the minority of jurisdictions that have retained the "zone of danger" requirement for bystander recovery. Here, the jurisdiction has adopted the majority approach.

A columnist for a major metropolitan newspaper had a very antagonistic relationship with the city's mayor. When a restaurant owned by the columnist's family was shut down by city health inspectors, the columnist responded with a column publicizing the shutdown and asserting that it was in retaliation for his prior columns in which he had criticized the mayor. In fact, the mayor had nothing to do with the action by the city health inspectors. While the columnist had no evidence of the mayor's involvement, he believed that there was a connection because "that's how the city works." Can the mayor recover against the columnist for defamation?

No, because the columnist did not act with actual malice. *The mayor cannot recover against the columnist because he did not act with actual malice. A public official, such as a mayor, may not recover for defamatory words relating to his official conduct unless there is clear and convincing proof that the statement was made with actual malice, which is defined as knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity. Reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonable person would have investigated before publishing; rather, there must be a showing that the defendant in fact (subjectively) entertained serious doubts as to the truthfulness of his publication. Here, while the columnist had no evidence of the mayor's involvement with the action of the health inspectors, he believed that there was a connection based on his belief as to how the city operates. Hence, he has not acted with actual malice and is not liable to the mayor for defamation. (B) is incorrect because the columnist's qualified privilege applies only to statements made to defend his own actions, property, or reputation. Even if it were to apply to his explanation of why his family's restaurant was shut down, his statements in the column were beyond the scope of the privilege, which does not extend to making a statement to a mass audience whose reading of the statement would not reasonably further his interest in defending himself. Here, the publication in his newspaper column of his explanation as to why the restaurant was shut down was beyond the scope of any privilege he may have had. (C) is incorrect because malice that will result in the loss of a qualified privilege is defined by most courts as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity, rather than hostility or ill-will. As long as the defendant is using a proper occasion for a qualified privilege in a proper way, he will not lose this privilege simply because he bears ill-will toward the plaintiff. (D) is incorrect because the fact that the columnist should have investigated the accuracy of his assertions and did not only establishes negligence on his part. As discussed above, the mayor, as a public official, must show at least reckless disregard as to truth or falsity to recover in a defamation action.

A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome when the golfer became very annoyed with critical comments made by the instructor. To show the other golfers in the group how annoyed she was with her instructor, the golfer stood a few yards behind him while the instructor was teeing off and swung a club at him. The instructor, who was focusing on his shot, was not within range of the club but unfortunately the club slipped out of the golfer's hands and struck the instructor in the head, injuring him. If the instructor brings a battery action against the golfer, will he recover?

No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact. *The golfer will not be liable because she did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact. The prima facie case for battery has the following elements: (i) an act by the defendant that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person; (ii) intent on the part of the defendant to bring about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person; and (iii) causation. Here, the golfer did not have the intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. Hence, she will not be guilty of battery. (A) is incorrect because even though the golfer had the intent to swing the club, she did not have the intent required for battery—to cause harmful or offensive contact to another. (B) is incorrect because the facts do not support an intent to cause an assault. Under the transferred intent doctrine, an intent to cause an assault (intent to cause apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact) will satisfy the intent requirement for battery when the other elements of battery are present. Here, however, the golfer was standing behind the instructor and was intending only to show the other golfers how annoyed she was. No intent to commit assault is apparent here. (D) is incorrect because it describes a negligence standard. The instructor may be able to recover against the golfer in a negligence cause of action if the golfer acted unreasonably in swinging the club, but this does not establish intent for a battery action.

A homeowner bought "20-pound test" fishing line for hanging potted plants on his porch. "20-pound test" in the fishing industry means that fishing line will not break under an initial stress of up to 20 pounds when a hooked fish tugs against the line, but not that it will support a constant 20-pound weight. Most sportfishers are aware of this technical meaning, but most laypersons are not, and the manufacturer put no warnings or explanations on the package in which the line was sold. The homeowner hung a 15-pound basket from his front porch, directly above an old-fashioned porch swing. A friend visiting the homeowner was sitting on the swing when the line holding the basket broke, causing the plant to fall and strike the guest on the head. In a jurisdiction following the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, will the guest prevail against the homeowner in a suit to recover damages for her injuries?

No, because the homeowner could not be expected to know the technical meaning of "20-pound test." *The guest will not prevail in a suit against the homeowner. As a social guest of the homeowner's, the guest is deemed to be a licensee; i.e., one who enters onto land with the owner's permission for her own purpose or business rather than for the owner's benefit. In a jurisdiction following the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, the owner owes a licensee the duty to warn of or make safe a dangerous condition known to the owner that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to the licensee and that the licensee is unlikely to discover. The owner has no duty to a licensee to inspect for defects nor to repair known defects. The homeowner, as a person who was not involved with fishing, had no reason to suspect that a fishing line that was "20-pound test" could not support the constant weight of a 15-pound basket. Thus, the homeowner did not know of the dangerous condition present in the form of the basket overhanging his porch. Because the homeowner was unaware of the danger, he was under no duty to warn the guest, a licensee, of the dangerous condition. Having violated no duty owed to the guest, the homeowner will not be held liable for her injuries. (A) is accurate in stating that the guest was a social guest. However, as detailed above, the duty owed to a guest is simply to warn of concealed dangerous conditions of which the owner is aware. The homeowner had no duty to warn of a danger of which he neither knew nor had reason to know. (B) is incorrect because there is no indication either that the homeowner hung the basket in a negligent manner or that he was negligent in failing either to warn the guest or to be aware of the danger. The homeowner appears to have acted as would a reasonable person with no knowledge of the meaning of technical terms of fishing. (D) is incorrect because a social guest would indeed be a foreseeable plaintiff. If the homeowner had been negligent in hanging the basket directly above the swing, it would have been reasonably foreseeable that an injury would befall any person who sat on the swing. Thus, (D) reaches the correct result that the guest will not prevail, but for an incorrect reason.

A hiker in an isolated area encountered a cross-country skier who had broken her leg. The hiker created a makeshift sled and began pulling the skier to the nearest road. As the hiker was pulling her across the ice of a lake, the ice gave way and they went into the water. The hiker was unable to get out of the water and drowned. The skier was able to pull herself to shore and eventually was rescued. However, she suffered severe hypothermia and lost some of her toes to frostbite as a result of being in the water. Does the skier have a cause of action for damages against the hiker's estate?

No, unless the hiker acted negligently in attempting to cross the ice. *The hiker's estate may be liable to the skier if the hiker acted negligently when he was rescuing the skier. As a general rule, no legal duty is imposed upon any person to affirmatively act for the benefit of others. However, one who gratuitously acts for the benefit of another, although under no duty to do so in the first instance, is then under a duty to act like a reasonable person. Here, the hiker was under no duty to come to the skier's assistance. Having done so, however, he was under a duty to use reasonable care in undertaking the rescue. If he acted negligently in doing so, he was in breach of his duty to the skier and the skier would have a cause of action against his estate. To prevail, the skier would also have to establish that her injuries would not have occurred but for the hiker's negligent attempt to cross the ice, and that the skier herself was not at fault. In any case, the skier has a cause of action stemming from the hiker's negligent conduct. Thus, (C) is correct and (A) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect. At common law, a tort action abated at the death of either the tortfeasor or the victim. However, most states have adopted survival statutes that change this result. Thus, the fact that the potential tortfeasor died would not preclude the skier from bringing an action against the tortfeasor's estate. (D) is incorrect because the skier would have a cause of action even for the hiker's ordinary negligence. Many states have "Good Samaritan" statutes that exempt those who gratuitously render emergency assistance from liability for other than gross negligence, but most of these statutes apply only to health care providers rendering emergency medical assistance. Therefore, the skier could recover even if the hiker's negligence did not amount to gross negligence.

Which of the following is correct at common law regarding affirmative duties to act?

One who acts for the benefit of another has a duty to continue the assistance

In a products liability case based in strict liability, a plaintiff may recover:

Personal injury damages and property damages *In a products liability case based on strict liability, a plaintiff may recover both personal injury damages and property damages for the supplying of a defective product. If the plaintiff's complaint is only that the product does not work as well as expected or requires repairs (i.e., no personal injury or property damages), most courts do not permit recovery of damages for economic losses under either a strict liability or a negligence theory; the plaintiff must bring an action for breach of warranty.

Which of the following is NOT part of the prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Physical symptoms caused by the emotional distress *(D) Physical symptoms caused by the emotional distress are not required. A prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof of: (i) an act by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent on the part of the defendant to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, or recklessness as to the effect of the defendant's conduct; (iii) causation; and (iv) damages—severe emotional distress. Intent to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress establishes the intent element of the tort. Reckless disregard of a high probability that emotional distress will result also satisfies the intent element of the tort. Evidence of severe emotional distress must be shown; hurt feelings are not sufficient. An act by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct is an element of the tort.

In a negligence action, the plaintiff cannot recover:

Presumed damages *In a negligence action, the plaintiff cannot recover presumed damages. Damage is an essential element of a plaintiff's prima facie case for negligence. This means actual harm or injury. Unlike for some intentional torts, damage will not be presumed in negligence. A plaintiff is entitled to all damages that he can prove, even if the extent of the damages was unforeseeable. Permissible damages includes economic damages, such as medical expenses and lost earnings, and noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering. The plaintiff is also entitled to damages for lost future earning capacity, discounted to present value to avoid an excess award; i.e., the plaintiff receives an amount that, if securely invested, would produce the income that the jury wishes him to have.

Which of the following invasion of privacy branches require the plaintiff to show "publicity"?

Publication of facts placing plaintiff in a false light and public disclosure of private facts about plaintiff. *The invasion of privacy branches based on publication of facts placing the plaintiff in a false light and public disclosure of private facts about the plaintiff require "publicity" concerning the false light or private facts—i.e., widespread dissemination of the facts. Mere publication to a third person is not sufficient for liability. In contrast, invasion of privacy based on intrusion on the plaintiff's affairs or seclusion requires neither publication nor publicity - just the act of intruding.

In contrast to products liability cases based on negligence, those based on strict liability do not:

Require that suppliers have an opportunity to inspect

A housecleaning agency was given a key to a customer's house so that the agency could have its employees clean while the homeowner was away. After a maid sent by the agency had finished and left the homeowner's house, she went back because she had forgotten her cigarettes. She neglected to lock the door when she left the second time because she was already late for the next job. When the homeowner returned after a few days away, she discovered that her house had been ransacked and several items of jewelry stolen. The front door was open, and there were no signs of forced entry. If the homeowner brings an action against the agency that employed the maid, what is the likely result?

She will prevail, because the maid's failure to lock the door created the risk that someone might enter and take the homeowner's valuables. *The homeowner will prevail because the maid's negligence increased the risk of criminal conduct by a third party. Criminal acts and intentional torts of third persons are foreseeable independent intervening forces if the defendant's negligence created a foreseeable risk that they would occur. Here, the maid's failure to lock the door was negligent because it created a risk of burglary; hence, the burglary does not cut off the agency's liability for the maid's negligence. As the maid's employer, the agency is vicariously liable under respondeat superior. (A) is wrong because there is nothing in the facts to indicate that the homeowner waived her right to bring tort claims against the agency; having a contractual relationship with a party does not automatically preclude bringing a tort action against the party. (B) is wrong because the burglary was not a superseding cause of the loss; it was within the increased risk caused by the maid's negligence. (D) is wrong because she reentered to retrieve a personal item that she had brought with her when she went to the job; her return just to get the item was within the scope of her employment and would not make her a trespasser.

Which one of the following types of common law defamation requires pleading and proof of special damages?

Slander not falling into one of the four per se categories *(B) Slander not falling into one of the four per se categories requires pleading and proof of special damages (i.e., pecuniary losses). Injury to reputation is not presumed for spoken defamation unless it falls into one of the four categories of slander per se. Damages will be presumed if the defamation (i) disparages the plaintiff in the conduct of her business or occupation; (ii) asserts that the plaintiff is suffering from a loathsome and communicable disease; (iii) alleges that the plaintiff has committed a serious crime or crime of moral turpitude; or (iv) imputes unchastity to a female plaintiff. Libel does not require special damages, even libel not falling into one of the four per se categories. In most jurisdictions, general damages are presumed by law for all libel; i.e., special damages need not be established. The fact that slander is not defamatory on its face does not affect whether special damages are required; rather, whether the slander falls into the per se categories determines that requirement. Only a minority of courts require special damages for libel not defamatory on its face. As stated above, most states do not require special damages for libel.

Which of the following need NOT be shown by the plaintiff under the attractive nuisance doctrine?

The child was lured onto the property by the attractive nuisance. *The plaintiff does not need to show that the child was lured onto the property by the attractive nuisance. The plaintiff does need to show that the owner was or should have been aware of the dangerous condition, that it was likely to cause injury because of the child's inability to appreciate the risk, and that the expense of eliminating the danger is slight compared with the magnitude of the risk. Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a landowner has a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to children caused by artificial conditions on the property. To recover under this doctrine, the plaintiff must show that (i) there is a dangerous condition present on the land of which the owner is or should be aware, (ii) the owner knows or should know that young persons frequent the vicinity of this dangerous condition, (iii) the condition is likely to cause injury, i.e., is dangerous, because of the child's inability to appreciate the risk, and (iv) the expense of remedying the situation is slight compared with the magnitude of the risk.

A homeowner purchased a riding lawn mower from a lawn mower dealer. During his first use of the mower, the homeowner noticed that the mower was vibrating when he turned, but he was able to finish mowing. A few days later, the homeowner lent the mower to his neighbor. The neighbor was driving the mower back to his yard when he made a turn and a wheel broke off, causing the neighbor to be thrown off the lawn mower and onto the sidewalk. The neighbor was injured. The neighbor brought a negligence action against the dealer for his injuries. At trial, the neighbor presented evidence that the wheel broke because of a manufacturing defect. The dealer presented evidence that the homeowner could have discovered the defect after the mower began vibrating when he used it for the first time. In this action, who is likely to prevail?

The dealer, because there is no evidence that the dealer had reason to know that the lawn mower was defective. *The dealer will prevail because there is no evidence that it should have discovered the defect. To prove breach of duty in a products liability action based on negligence, the plaintiff must show (i) negligent conduct by the defendant leading to (ii) the supplying of a defective product by the defendant. However, a dealer who buys from a reputable manufacturer with no reason to anticipate that the product is dangerous need make only a cursory inspection of the goods to avoid liability for manufacturing defects. Here, there is no evidence that the dealer should have known that the wheel was defective; hence the dealer will likely prevail. (A) is incorrect because merely selling the lawn mower with an unreasonably dangerous defect, without knowing or being expected to know of the defect, will not subject the dealer to liability for negligence. The statement in (A) is more appropriate in an action based on strict liability. (B) is incorrect because the use of res ipsa loquitur suggested by that choice would be directed at the manufacturer rather than the dealer, and the dealer is not liable for the manufacturer's negligence. (C) is incorrect because the negligent failure of an intermediary to discover a defect is not a superseding cause. If the dealer were otherwise liable, the negligent failure of the homeowner to discover the defect in the wheel would not cut off the dealer's liability.

To prove breach of duty in a products liability action based on negligence, the plaintiff must show:

The defendant supplied a defective product

A new homeowner had two dogs that frequently barked at birds and squirrels in the yard, especially during the day while the homeowner was at work. A neighbor who worked nights was aggravated by the barking, which disturbed his sleep, and decided to let the homeowner know how he felt. One evening, upon learning that the homeowner was entertaining her boss and several clients, the neighbor came to her front door with a boombox and started playing a recording of the dogs barking, putting it at full volume. When the homeowner came to the door, he began yelling at her and berating her in front of her guests for having no consideration for her neighbors, while continuing to play the recording. The homeowner was very upset, especially because her guests decided that they had better leave, and she ended up losing a bonus that her boss was going to give her at the end of the evening. If the homeowner asserts a claim based on intentional infliction of emotional distress against the neighbor, what will be the probable result?

The homeowner will prevail because the neighbor's conduct was extreme and outrageous. *The homeowner will probably prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the neighbor's conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous and the other elements of the tort are present. Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires: (i) an act by defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause severe emotional distress or recklessness as to the effect of defendant's conduct; (iii) causation; and (iv) damages. "Outrageous conduct" is extreme conduct that transcends all bounds of decency. The neighbor's use of the recording and his insults against the homeowner for the benefit of her guests would probably qualify as extreme and outrageous conduct, particularly because there is no evidence that he had previously tried to resolve the problem with the homeowner in a more civilized manner. The neighbor had the requisite intent (either he intended to cause emotional distress or he was reckless as to its effect), there was causation, and the homeowner suffered damages (i.e., she was severely distressed) as a result of the neighbor's actions. (B) is wrong because pecuniary harm is not required for purposes of this tort—all that is required is severe emotional distress. (C) is wrong because, in contrast to negligent infliction of distress, intentional infliction of distress does not require proof of physical harm to recover. (D) is wrong because the fact that the barking constituted a nuisance would not be a defense to conduct amounting to intentional infliction of distress; abatement of a private nuisance by self-help must be preceded by notice to the other party and must be conducted in a reasonable manner.

Which of the following is true of the duty owed to a licensee by a landowner in a jurisdiction following traditional liability rules for landowners and possessors of land?

The landowner owes a duty to warn of or make safe known dangerous conditions on the land of which the licensee is not aware. *In a jurisdiction following traditional liability rules for landowners and possessors of land, a landowner owes a duty to a licensee to warn of or make safe known dangerous conditions on the land of which the licensee is not aware. A licensee is one who enters on land with the landowner's permission, express or implied, for her own purpose or business, rather than for the landowner's benefit. The owner has a duty to warn of or make safe a dangerous condition known to the owner that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to the licensee and that the licensee is unlikely to discover. As to a licensee, the landowner does not need to inspect for dangerous conditions on the land. Similarly, the landowner need not repair known dangerous conditions on the land of which the licensee is not aware; a warning generally will suffice. The landowner does have a duty to protect the licensee from active operations on the land. The owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the conduct of active operations for the protection of a licensee whom he knows to be on the property

If a statute providing for a criminal penalty is applicable to a common law negligence case, the statute's specific duty will replace the more general common law duty of care. Which of the following does a plaintiff NOT need to show to prove the availability of the statutory standard?

The plaintiff suffered physical injury because of the defendant's violation of the statute. *The plaintiff need not suffer physical injury from the defendant's violation of the statute. While damages is an element of the prima facie case for negligence, any type of damages, including property damages, will suffice. To prove the availability of the statutory standard, a plaintiff must show that the standards set out in the statute are clearly defined. For the statute to apply, (i) the plaintiff must be in the class intended to be protected by the statute, and (ii) the statute must have been designed to prevent the type of injury that he suffered.

Which of the following statements is NOT true under the rule that the tortfeasor takes the victim as he finds him?

The rule applies to the victim's existing physical condition but not his mental condition. *The rule that the tortfeasor takes the victim as he finds him applies to both the victim's existing physical condition and his mental condition. In both direct cause cases and indirect cause cases, the fact that the extent or severity of the harm was not foreseeable does not relieve defendant of liability; in other words, the unforeseeable severity of the plaintiff's harm, or its extent, is irrelevant under this rule. This rule is also known as the "eggshell-skull plaintiff" rule.

What is the key difference between trespass to chattels and conversion?

The seriousness of the interference with the plaintiff's possession

For purposes of private nuisance, the interference with the plaintiff's use of the land is unreasonable only if:

The severity of the plaintiff's inflicted injury outweighs the utility of the defendant's conduct. *The interference with the plaintiff's use of the land will be considered unreasonable under nuisance law when the severity of the plaintiff's inflicted injury outweighs the utility of the defendant's conduct. In balancing these respective interests, courts take into account that every person is entitled to use his own land in a reasonable way, considering the neighborhood, land values, and existence of any alternative courses of conduct open to the defendant. Whether the interference is offensive or annoying to an average person in the community is the test for whether the interference is substantial, which is a separate requirement for establishing a nuisance. Whether the remedy of damages is unavailable or inadequate determines only whether the plaintiff may be able to obtain an injunction remedy. A nuisance is sometimes called a "nuisance per se" when it is based on strict liability (e.g., a nuisance arising from an abnormally dangerous activity).

What must be shown for a qualified privilege to apply for defamatory statements?

The statement must be reasonably relevant to the interest being protected *For a qualified privilege to apply, the statement must be reasonably relevant to the interest being protected. The privilege does not encompass the publication of irrelevant defamatory matter unconnected with the public or private interest entitled to protection. However, there need not be a common interest between the publisher and the recipient; statements made in the interest of one party but not the other may fall within a qualified privilege. While a qualified privilege does not apply if the defendant acted with actual malice, that term refers to knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of truth rather than ill will; hence, a defendant acting with ill will may still assert a qualified privilege. Finally, the statement need not be in response to a request by the recipient; if the publisher has a relationship with the recipient, volunteered statements may fall within the privilege.

To assert the defense of property, a defendant using force against another may not:

Use force against one with a privilege to enter the property. *(D) A defendant cannot assert the defense of property if she uses force against one with a privilege to enter the property. Whenever an actor has a privilege to enter upon the land of another because of necessity, right of reentry, right to enter upon another's land to recapture chattels, etc., that privilege supersedes the privilege of the land possessor to defend her property. It is not true that the defendant may not use force that may injure the entrant. The force used must be reasonable and not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. It is also incorrect to state that the defendant may not use force without a request to desist. A request to desist must usually precede the use of force, but if the circumstances make it clear that the request would be futile or dangerous, then a request to desist is not required. It is also incorrect to state that the defendant may not make a mistake about the right to use force. A reasonable mistake is allowed as to the property owner's right to use force in defense of property, where the mistake involves whether an intrusion has occurred or whether a request to desist is required.

In the course of repainting an apartment, the landlord of a small apartment building used a professional strength, stain-killing primer manufactured by a paint company for professional painters. The building's common ventilation system was running as the landlord applied the primer, and some fumes from the primer went through the ventilation system into the apartment of the upstairs tenant, who suffered injuries to her eyes as a result. The warning label on the can, which the landlord read, stated: "Danger. This material is extremely hazardous and volatile. Do not use near open flame. Use only with adequate ventilation." The product contained a chemical known to be harmful to people's eyes, but in the 15 years that the product has been on the market, there were no reported cases of anyone suffering an eye injury from the product. However, professional painters routinely close off or shut down any common ventilation systems in buildings before using the product. If the tenant brings an action against the paint company on a theory of strict liability, will she recover?

Yes, because the label on the product did not warn of the risk of the fumes causing eye injury. *The tenant will likely prevail because the lack of a warning about eye injuries made the product unreasonably dangerous. A products liability action based on strict liability requires the following: (i) the defendant is a commercial supplier; (ii) the defendant produced or sold a defective product; (iii) the defective product was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (iv) the plaintiff suffered damage to person or property. Here, the paint company is a commercial supplier of a "defective" product. Although the primer was not actually defective in that it apparently performed as it was meant to do, it is legally defective if it was unreasonably dangerous and could be made safer by adequate warnings. Here, the paint company knew of the danger and could easily have placed a specific warning on the label. Even though professional users may have known of the danger, it was not obvious, and it could have been avoided at minimal cost by including a specific warning. That would have alerted the landlord to the danger, making it more likely that he would take precautions that would have prevented the tenant from being injured. To prove actual cause where the plaintiff's claim is that the product is defective because of lack of an adequate warning, the plaintiff is entitled to a presumption that an adequate warning would have been read and heeded. Thus, the tenant can likely establish liability on her cause of action. (A) is wrong because even in a strict liability action, liability will be found only if the product is defective, not just because someone was injured when it was used for its intended purpose. (C) is wrong because the manufacturer must warn of the danger, and its duty is not satisfied merely because there have been no injuries to date by following the instructions on the label. (D) is wrong because, given the inadequacy of the warnings, any negligence on the landlord's part would be ordinary foreseeable negligence that would not cut off the paint company's liability for its defective product.

A landowner had a swimming pool and a dressing cabana constructed in her spacious backyard. The pool was entirely within the confines of the landowner's property. However, one corner of the cabana extended a few inches onto a far corner of her neighbor's land. At the time of the construction, neither the neighbor nor the landowner was aware that the cabana extended onto the neighbor's property. Does the neighbor have a cause of action for trespass?.

Yes, because the cabana extends onto the neighbor's land *The homeowner will probably prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the neighbor's conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous and the other elements of the tort are present. Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires: (i) an act by defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause severe emotional distress or recklessness as to the effect of defendant's conduct; (iii) causation; and (iv) damages. "Outrageous conduct" is extreme conduct that transcends all bounds of decency. The neighbor's use of the recording and his insults against the homeowner for the benefit of her guests would probably qualify as extreme and outrageous conduct, particularly because there is no evidence that he had previously tried to resolve the problem with the homeowner in a more civilized manner. The neighbor had the requisite intent (either he intended to cause emotional distress or he was reckless as to its effect), there was causation, and the homeowner suffered damages (i.e., she was severely distressed) as a result of the neighbor's actions. (B) is wrong because pecuniary harm is not required for purposes of this tort—all that is required is severe emotional distress. (C) is wrong because, in contrast to negligent infliction of distress, intentional infliction of distress does not require proof of physical harm to recover. (D) is wrong because the fact that the barking constituted a nuisance would not be a defense to conduct amounting to intentional infliction of distress; abatement of a private nuisance by self-help must be preceded by notice to the other party and must be conducted in a reasonable manner.

A state statute required that any freight train operating within the city limits be able to stop within 200 yards of applying its brakes. No fixed speed limit was established or particular type of braking mechanism required, but through either lowered speed or braking power, the 200‑yard limit was required of all trains. Another statute prohibited vehicles from being within the railroad crossing when the lights on the warning signs are flashing or when the gates are lowered. One day, as a freight train was entering the city limits, the engineer saw a car stalled at a street crossing ahead. He immediately applied full braking power, but was unable to stop the train before it had hit and demolished the car. The driver of the car had gotten clear before the impact, but brought suit against the freight line for property damage to the $25,000 car. At trial, the parties stipulated that the car was stalled within the crossing while the warning lights were flashing. Evidence at trial established that the distance from the point at which the engineer applied the train's brakes to the point of impact was 150 yards, and from the braking point to the point at which the train finally stopped was 225 yards. No other evidence of negligence was presented by the driver. At the end of the driver's case, the freight line moved for a directed verdict. Should the court grant the motion?

Yes, because the freight line's violation of the braking statute was not the cause in fact of the accident. *The court should grant the motion because the driver did not establish the cause‑in‑fact element of his prima facie case against the freight line. The primary test for cause in fact (actual cause) is the "but for" test: An act is the cause in fact of an injury when the injury would not have occurred but for the act. Even though the freight line had a duty created by the statute to be able to stop its train within 200 yards of first braking, and breached that duty (establishing the first two elements of the driver's prima facie case), it must still be shown that the collision would not have occurred in the absence of the breach. Because the car was only 150 yards from the point of braking, even a train in compliance with the statute would have struck it. Since no other evidence of negligence has been presented, the motion should be granted. (A) is incorrect because establishing the freight line's "negligence per se" through violation of the statute only establishes a conclusive presumption of duty and breach of duty; the plaintiff must still prove causation. (B) is incorrect because generally violation of a statute does not create strict liability; even if it did in this case, the plaintiff would still have to prove causation as part of the prima facie case for strict liability. (C) is not correct because the court will not reach the issue of the plaintiff's contributory negligence in this case because the prima facie case for the defendant's negligence has not been established. Furthermore, establishing the plaintiff's contributory negligence by violation of a statute uses the same rules that govern whether a statute can establish the defendant's negligence. Hence, the driver's violation of the crossing statute may be excused if the trier of fact determines that compliance was beyond his control because his car stalled.

A patient troubled by an irritating skin rash consulted a dermatologist for treatment. The dermatologist diagnosed the rash as a genetic condition that had no cure and would ultimately spread and lead to disfigurement. The patient was shocked and distressed by the diagnosis. On the advice of her family, a week later the patient consulted another doctor. That doctor immediately diagnosed the skin rash as a common bacterial infection and prescribed an ointment that cleared up the condition in a few days. Because the doctor was a friend of the family, the patient was not charged for that visit. Can the patient recover from the dermatologist for the emotional distress caused by his erroneous diagnosis?

Yes, because the misdiagnosis by the dermatologist caused the patient actual harm. *The patient's distress is a recoverable element of damages caused by the dermatologist's breach of duty to her. A doctor owes a duty to possess and exercise the degree of knowledge and skill exercised by other doctors in good standing. The dermatologist also owes a duty to exercise the superior knowledge and skill that he possessed in his area of specialty. He breached his duty by misdiagnosing a common skin infection that another doctor was able to diagnose immediately. His failure to properly diagnose the condition was the actual and proximate cause of injury to the patient; but for the misdiagnosis, she would not have had to continue suffering from the rash until the other doctor properly treated it. The continuation of the rash and any pain and suffering from it are compensable damages that she can recover from the dermatologist. Also compensable is the emotional distress that she suffered because of the misdiagnosis. While recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress is not always available in many jurisdictions when there is no other injury caused by the breach, these restrictions do not apply when plaintiff is the victim of another tort that causes physical injury. Plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress that arise from the tortious conduct. Hence, (A) is incorrect. (C) is incorrect because the patient has suffered compensable injury regardless of whether she had to pay for the second doctor visit. The continuation of the skin rash until she saw the other doctor suffices as the damage element of the prima facie case. (D) is incorrect because, given the patient's physical condition, a failure to make a proper diagnosis did create a foreseeable risk that she would continue to suffer from a painful condition that could otherwise have been alleviated. Thus, the dermatologist's conduct constituted a breach of duty.

A trainer of homing pigeons brought several of them to a park that he often used for training. He had trained this group of pigeons carefully and was confident that they would readily find their way home. When they were released, one of the pigeons inexplicably turned in the opposite direction from home. Several blocks away at the other end of the park, it collided with a radio-controlled model airplane that its owner had just purchased and was trying out for the first time. The collision sent the airplane out of control; it dipped low across a highway and was struck and run over by a truck. The airplane owner sued the pigeon trainer for the destruction of his airplane. The parties stipulated to the above facts and the airplane owner presented evidence of his damages. The trainer then moved for a directed verdict. Should it be granted?

Yes, because the trainer took reasonable care in training his pigeons. *The court should grant a directed verdict for the trainer because the airplane owner has not shown that the trainer breached any duty that he owed to him. A prima facie case of negligence requires plaintiff to show the following elements: (i) the existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to conform to a specific standard of conduct for the protection of the plaintiff against unreasonable risk of injury, (ii) breach of that duty by the defendant, (iii) that the breach of duty was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, and (iv) damage to plaintiff's person or property. Here, it is doubtful that the trainer's releasing his pigeons created any duty to other users of the park. To the extent that it did, the fact that he had taken great care to train them to return directly to their roosts indicates that he did not breach his duty to the airplane owner. Because the airplane owner has offered no other evidence of negligence, nor any reason to impose strict liability on the trainer (as discussed below), the trainer's motion for a directed verdict should be granted. (A) is incorrect because that choice indicates the imposition of a strict liability standard on the trainer. The owner of a domestic or inherently nondangerous animal is not strictly liable for the injuries it causes. The conduct of the trainer's homing pigeon would not make the trainer liable in the absence of some negligence on his part. (B) is incorrect because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies only to situations where the fact that a particular injury occurred itself establishes that defendant breached a duty. If the doctrine is applicable, no directed verdict may be given for defendant because plaintiff has established a prima facie case. However, the accident must be the type that would not normally occur unless someone was negligent. The collision between the trainer's homing pigeon and the model airplane is not that type of accident; by itself, it provides no suggestion that anyone was negligent. (C) is incorrect because the truck is not a superseding force that breaks "the causal connection" between the action of the trainer's pigeon and the airplane's destruction. In indirect cause cases, where a force came into motion after defendant's act and combined with it to cause injury to plaintiff, defendant will still be potentially liable for foreseeable intervening forces that are within the increased risk caused by his acts. Even if the intervening force is independent (i.e., not a natural response or reaction to the situation), it will be foreseeable where defendant's negligence increased the risk that the independent force would cause harm. Hence, if the trainer were negligent in releasing his pigeon, the fact that the destruction of the airplane was directly caused by the truck would not relieve the trainer from liability, because the initial collision with the pigeon caused the airplane to go out of control and created a substantial risk that it would be damaged by an intervening force.

A defendant intended to commit an assault on A, but his conduct only constituted a battery on B.Under the transferred intent doctrine, the defendant is liable for:

battery of B