Torts MBE Questions

Réussis tes devoirs et examens dès maintenant avec Quizwiz!

A 10-year-old boy and two other children were caught by the police while breaking the windows of and causing other damage to a woman's automobile one night. The damages totaled $2,000. By statute, the jurisdiction makes parents liable for up to $5,000 for the willful and intentional torts of their minor children. In a suit by the car owner against the boy for the damages to her automobile, will the car owner likely prevail? A) Yes, because the boy, at the age of 10, should have been aware of the consequences of his action. B) Yes, because the boy deliberately damaged her car. C) No, because the boy is presumed to be under the care of his parents and, therefore, is not legally responsible for his tortious conduct. D) No, be

A 13-year-old boy who lived on a farm with his parents in a rural area had learned to drive the family's tractor when he was 11. A state statute permitted persons without a driver's license to operate farm vehicles on public roads for short distances. One morning the boy took the tractor onto a public road to reach one of the outlying fields a few hundred yards away. As he neared the field he was distracted by a girl riding by on a bicycle, and cut in front of a milk delivery truck that was starting to pass him. The truck swerved off the road, injuring the driver. If the driver sues the boy to recover damages for his injuries, which of the following statements is most correct regarding the standard of care to be applied? A) The state statute replaces the general common law standard of care with a statutory standard. B) The trier of fact should take into account the boy's experience at driving a tractor when considering the applicable standard of care. C) Persons 13 years of age or older are held to the same standard as adults. D) An adult standard of care will not be applied because it is common in that region for children of that age to be operating tractors.

A 14-year-old was the youngest licensed pilot in the state. On a foggy day when pilots were being advised to fly only if necessary, the pilot took his plane out so that he could fly low over the football field where his friends were practicing. When he attempted to land on his return to the airport, he ran off the runway due to the fog and damaged an executive's airplane, which was in the parking area. If the executive sues the pilot for damage to his airplane and prevails, what is the likely reason? A) A reasonable pilot would not have flown that day. B) A pilot with the same age, education, and experience would not have flown that day. C) It was not necessary for the pilot to fly that day. D) The flying of a plane by a 14-year-old is an inherently dangerous activity, and the pilot is strictly liable for the damage.

A 16-year-old teenager was playing baseball in a sandlot when the ball was hit over his head and onto a landowner's adjacent property. Ignoring "beware of dog" signs, the teenager climbed over the fence into the landowner's yard to retrieve the ball and was attacked by a vicious guard dog belonging to the landowner. The dog bit the teenager, causing him to suffer severe lacerations that required numerous stitches. If the teenager brings an action against the landowner to recover damages for his injuries, will he likely prevail? A) Yes, because the landowner may not use a vicious dog to protect only his property. B) Yes, because the landowner is strictly liable for injuries caused by the vicious dog. C) No, because the teenager was trespassing on the landowner's property. D) No, because the landowner had posted signs warning about the dog.

A basketball player suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game. The injury occurred when the player and an opponent each tried to obtain possession of the ball, and the player was struck and injured by the opponent's elbow. The player now seeks compensation from the opponent. At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been rough from the beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to discourage interference by opposing players. Nevertheless, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff player. What is the likely explanation? A) The opponent intended to strike the player with his elbow. B) The player did not actually consent to harmful or offensive contact from the opponent. C) The player was not engaging in as much use of physical force as the other players. D) The opponent intentionally used force that exceeded the player's consent.

A boater often used a channel that connected the stream abutting his land to a lake as a shortcut. The boater erroneously believed the channel to be a public waterway and often traveled through it by motorboat. In fact, the channel cut through his neighbor's land and was owned by the neighbor. The boater's use of the channel caused no harm to the neighbor's property. If the neighbor asserts a claim for damages against the boater based on trespass, which of the following would be a correct disposition of the case? A) Judgment for the neighbor, because the boater intentionally used the channel. B) Judgment for the neighbor, because the boater interfered with the neighbor's use and enjoyment of her property. C) Judgment for the boater, because he caused no harm to the neighbor's land. D) Judgment for the boater, because when he used the channel he believed it was a public waterway.

A boy mowing his lawn noticed a strong vibration from the engine but continued to mow. The engine housing suddenly broke apart and pieces flew off the lawnmower. One piece struck the boy in the head, seriously injuring him. The boy's mother was inside the house and heard yelling from the backyard. She went to the window and saw her son lying on the ground by the lawnmower and a friend of his kneeling over him. She became very upset and fainted. Subsequent investigation showed that a negligent repair by a local mechanic caused the engine housing to shatter. The mother brought a lawsuit against the mechanic, seeking recovery for her son's injury and the emotional distress she suffered. Can the mother recover damages for her emotional distress? A) No, because her son's continuing to mow after noticing the vibration was a superseding cause of the harm. B) No, because the mother was not within the zone of danger from the mechanic's negligence. C) Yes, because the mother was closely related to someone in the zone of danger from the mechanic's negligence. D) Yes, because her son was injured by the mechanic's negligence.

A boy was playing softball in a neighborhood park when a ball was hit over the fence and into a neighbor's yard. The boy knocked on the neighbor's door and obtained permission from her to retrieve the ball from her yard. As he bent to retrieve the ball in some bushes, the boy brushed against an exposed electric wire that was partially hidden by the bushes and received a severe electric shock and burns. The neighbor had failed to maintain the bushes, allowing them to become overgrown, and was not aware of the exposed wire. If the boy sues the neighbor in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, what is the likely result? A) The neighbor is liable because the boy entered with her permission. B) The neighbor is liable because she failed to repair a dangerous condition on her property. C) The neighbor is liable because she failed to reasonably inspect the property, which would have made her aware of the dangerous condition of the wire. D) The neighbor is not liable because she did not know of the condition of the wire.

A car owner lent her automobile to her girlfriend for the specific purpose of picking up a pizza that the owner and the girlfriend had ordered for dinner. The girlfriend drove to the shopping mall where the pizzeria was located and parked the owner's car there. Instead of going directly to the pizzeria, the girlfriend went into a bookstore, browsed, and eventually purchased a book. The girlfriend then went to the pizzeria and picked up the pizza, which had been ready for 15 minutes. Just as the girlfriend left the pizzeria to return to the car, another car struck the owner's parked car, causing extensive damage to the car. The owner did not carry collision insurance, and the car required $800 worth of body work. If the owner sues the girlfriend on a negligence theory for damage to the car, who will prevail? A) The owner, because the girlfriend exceeded her authority when she went to the bookstore. B) The owner, because but for the girlfriend's delay in getting the pizza, the owner's car would not have been damaged. C) The girlfriend, because she did not create a foreseeable risk of damage to the owner's car. D) The girlfriend, because the family car doctrine imputes any of the girlfriend's negligence to the owner.

A chemical plant and a steel mill located on a river both negligently discharged toxic waste into the river during the same time period. A farmer downstream who used water from the river for irrigation suffered substantial crop losses as a result of using the poisoned water. He brought suit against the chemical plant. At trial, the evidence established that the discharge from either plant alone was sufficient to have caused the farmer's crop losses. How much of the farmer's damages should he recover from the chemical plant? A) All of his damages, because the chemical plant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the farmer's damage. B) Half of his damages, because he did not present evidence to allow the court to reasonably apportion damages between the two tortfeasors. C) None of his damages, because he needed to join the other tortfeasor in the litigation. D) None of his damages, because the harm would have occurred even in the absence of the chemical plant's negligence.

A college senior placed a small quantity of a hallucinogenic drug in a freshman's ginger ale at a sorority initiation rite. The senior did not expect an adverse reaction and did not intend to harm the freshman in any way. However, the drug did cause an adverse reaction in the freshman. The senior took the key to the freshman's car from the freshman's room and drove the freshman to a local clinic. The senior then took a cab back to the party. The doctor examined the freshman, who was now feeling fine, and neglected to realize the likelihood of recurrent symptoms. The doctor released the freshman and let her drive home. On the way, she suffered another adverse reaction and crashed her car, causing her severe injury. If the freshman sues the senior in battery for her injuries sustained in the automobile accident, is she likely to prevail? A) Yes, because the senior should not have left the freshman at the clinic with her car keys. B) Yes, because the senior intended that the freshman ingest the hallucinogenic drug. C) No, because the accident would not have occurred but for the negligence of the doctor. D) No, because the automobile accident could not have reasonably been foreseen

A college student was holding a loud party at her house. The next-door neighbor, a butcher, became very angry with the noise and called the student on the phone. He told her that if she did not stop the noise, he would "come over there and cut your throat." The visibly shaken student told her guests what had just happened, and they all decided to leave immediately. The student was unable to sleep that night and began suffering heart palpitations from her distress, requiring treatment by a doctor. She also purchased an alarm system for her house and a gun to keep next to her bed. If the student brings an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and succeeds, what is the likely reason? A) The neighbor had the apparent present ability to make good on his threat. B) The student suffered physical harm as a result of her distress. C) The student suffered pecuniary injury as a result of his threat. D) The neighbor's conduct was extreme and outrageous.

A commercial aircraft crashed into a mountain, killing everyone on board. The flying weather was good at the time of the crash. The flight recorders were not recovered. A traveler's legal representative brought a wrongful death action against the airline. At trial, the legal representative offered no expert or other testimony as to the cause of the crash. On the airline's motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the legal representative's case, how should the court rule? A) Grant the motion, because the legal representative has offered no evidence as to the cause of the crash. B) Grant the motion, because the legal representative has failed to offer evidence negating the possibility that the crash may have been caused by actions of a third party that the airline could not have prevented. C) Deny the motion, because the jury may infer that the aircraft crashed due to the airline's negligence. D) Deny the motion, because under these circumstances common carriers are liable even in the absence of negligence.

A company that was the leading supplier of home water filtration systems had a network of sales promoters who were under contract for two- or three-year terms and were compensated solely by commissions earned from sales and by occasional bonuses. Veteran promoters also earned commissions by recruiting other promoters for the company. One of the company's veteran promoters was contacted by a former top sales representative for another manufacturer who was looking for similar sales opportunities in the region. The sales rep knew that the promoter might be able to get her a position with his company, which was looking for additional promoters. At the time he met with the sales rep, the promoter's contract with the company had one more month to run. When the promoter's contract with the company expired, he announced that he was forming his own business to market a different line of water filtration systems manufactured by a competitor of the company, and that the sales rep would be in charge of his promotional network. The company brought an action against the promoter for interference with business relations for hiring the sales rep. At a preliminary hearing, the parties stipulated to the above facts and that the promoter was an independent contractor rather than an employee of the company. The promoter then filed a motion for a summary judgment in his favor. Should the court grant the promoter's motion? A) Yes, because the sales rep had no business relationship with the company at the time the promoter's alleged interference occurred. B) Yes, because the promoter was an independent contractor rather than an employee of the company. C) No, because the jury could find that the means the promoter used to obtain the sales rep were not privileged. D) No, because the jury could find that the promoter breached his contract with the company by meeting with the sales rep.

A con man posed as a trick shot artist with a show persuaded a college student to audition as his partner in one of his trick shot demonstrations. The con man requested that the student stand 75 feet away and hold a lighted cigarette between her lips. Using a high-powered rifle, the con man shot a cigarette out of her mouth three times in as many tries. He immediately offered her the job with the show. However, when the student reported to the show's headquarters, she was told that he had been discharged from the show several years ago because of failing eyesight and mental instability. The student was very upset and brought an intentional tort action against the con man. If the con man raises the defense of consent, what is the best argument for rejecting that defense? A) The student was under age 21. B) The student was misled about the job opportunity. C) The student was misled as to the artist's ability as a sharpshooter. D) A person cannot legally consent to dangerous acts.

A cyclist was riding on a sidewalk when someone in a parked car suddenly opened the door of the car into her path. She swerved to avoid the car door and rode onto a landowner's property, damaging some plastic lawn ornaments of waterfowl placed in his front yard. In a suit by the landowner against the cyclist for the damage to his lawn ornaments, what is the likely result? A) The cyclist is liable because she had no privilege to enter onto the landowner's property. B) Whether the cyclist is liable depends on whether she was exercising due care. C) The cyclist is liable for the damage to the lawn ornaments even though her entry was privileged. D) The cyclist is not liable for the damage to the lawn ornaments because her entry was privileged.

A defendant unlawfully closed off part of a public way. A plaintiff, wishing to pass through this area, was prevented from doing so by the defendant's barrier. The plaintiff was required to take an alternate route to his destination, which took an additional 10 minutes. In an action for false imprisonment by the plaintiff against the defendant, what is the likely result? A) The plaintiff will prevail, because he was unlawfully denied access to the public way. B) The defendant will prevail, because the plaintiff was restrained from his route for only a short period of time. C) The defendant will prevail, because no force or threats of force were used to prevent the plaintiff from using the public way. D) The defendant will prevail, because the plaintiff was not restrained to a bounded area.

A dentist filling a child's cavities used a newly developed local anesthetic that was more effective than Novocain. However, it carried a 1% risk of causing a serious seizure when administered to children, which the dentist did not mention to the child's mother or note in the consent forms, which stated only that a local anesthetic would be used. The child's dental work was completed without any problem, but the mother looked up the anesthetic on the Internet and learned about the risk. She complained to the dentist that she would not have consented to use of the anesthetic had she known of the risk, but the dentist argued that using the new anesthetic was justified in the child's case because otherwise he would not have been willing to sit still for the dental work. Does the mother have a cause of action on behalf of the child against the dentist? A) Yes, because a reasonable person would have considered information about the risk important. B) Yes, because the mother would not have consented to the use of the anesthetic if she had known of the risk of seizure. C) No, because the dentist used his best judgment in deciding that the benefits of using the anesthetic outweighed the risk. D) No, because the child suffered no harm from use of the anesthetic.

A driver borrowed a car from a friend. When the driver picked up the car, the friend forgot to warn the driver that the brake fluid had a tendency to leak out of the brake system and needed to be replaced regularly. The friend telephoned the driver's wife and warned her about the brake fluid problem. The wife, however, forgot to tell the driver. Shortly thereafter, the driver was driving the wife to work in the borrowed car. The driver was proceeding along at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit. As he approached an intersection, he saw another car run through the red light and into the intersection. The driver, on seeing the other car, stepped on the brakes, but the brakes failed and the two cars collided. If the proper amount of brake fluid had been in the brake system, the driver could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. The driver and the wife were injured. The jurisdiction has adopted "pure" comparative negligence. If the driver asserts a claim against the operator of the vehicle that ran the red light, the driver will: A) Recover only a portion of his damages, because the wife was also at fault. B) Recover the full amount of his damages, because the driver himself was not at fault. C) Not recover, because the driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. D) Not recover, because the wife was negligent in not telling the driver about the defective brake condition, and the wife's negligence would be imputed to the driver.

A driver in the local racing circuit brought his customized yellow stock car to a body shop to have it repainted before the new racing season began. When the driver returned to pick up the car, he was horrified to discover that it was repainted pink instead of yellow. The owner of the body shop apologized and offered to repaint the car, but the driver refused because the first race was in two days. The driver lost a couple of endorsements because the endorsers' ads did not work with the new color. He was also subjected to ridicule at the track, but he felt better after he drove the car to victory in the first race. If the driver sues the body shop for their treatment of his car, will he prevail? A) No, because he won the race with the car. B) No, unless he can prove that the body shop breached a duty of care owed to him. C) Yes, because the value of his car was reduced. D) Yes, because he suffered severe distress as a result of the conduct of the body shop

A driver left her car parked on the downward side of a hill. Two minutes later, the car rolled down the hill and struck and injured a pedestrian. In the pedestrian's negligence action against the driver, the pedestrian introduced into evidence the facts stated above, which are undisputed. The driver testified that, when she parked her car, she turned the front wheels to the curb and put on her emergency brakes, which were in good working order. She also introduced evidence that, in the weeks before this incident, juveniles had been seen tampering with cars in the neighborhood. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the driver, and the pedestrian moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. How should the court rule on the pedestrian's motion? A) Grant the motion, because it is more likely than not that the driver's negligent conduct was the legal cause of the pedestrian's injuries. B) Grant the motion, because the evidence does not support the verdict. C) Deny the motion, because, given the driver's evidence, the jury was not required to draw an inference of negligence from the instances of the accident. D) Deny the motion, because the driver was in no better position than the pedestrian to explain the accident.

A fan attended a hockey game between the local team and their rival team and sat in a seat just above the level of the glass. During the game, one of the players for the rival team intentionally swung his hockey stick at the head of one of the local players. The stick slipped out of the rival player's hand and flew into the crowd, striking the fan on the face and causing severe damage to his eye. In an action of battery by the fan against the rival player, who will likely prevail? A) The fan, under the doctrine of transferred intent. B) The fan, because the rival player's conduct was also criminal in nature. C) The rival player, because the rival team is the responsible party under the doctrine of respondeat superior. D) The rival player, because the fan assumed the risk by sitting so close to the rink.

A farmer employed a 16-year-old high school student for a summer agricultural labor job. One afternoon, a violent storm suddenly erupted as the farmer was driving a tractor up a hill in an open field with the student in the wagon behind. When loud claps of thunder erupted, the farmer stopped his tractor, jumped off without saying anything, and ran swiftly down the hill toward the low ground, which he knew would be safer. The student, who lived in a nearby city and had never seen an electrical storm in open country (except as a passenger inside an automobile), had never been told how to act safely during such a storm. Once the storm began, the student was struck by lightning and seriously injured as he stood at the crest of the hill watching the farmer run. Is the farmer liable to the student for the injuries caused by lightning? A) Yes, because the student was an employee, acting within the scope of his employment. B) Yes, because the student was a minor. C) No, because the student was injured by an act of God. D) No, because lightning is never foreseeable.

A father enrolled his seven-year-old son in an older level baseball league by falsifying his son's age. During a ball game, the father was infuriated when his son was called out on strikes and shouted in a loud voice, "Kill the ump!" The son, who was still holding his bat, swung it at the umpire and hit him in the arm. In an action by the umpire against the father for battery, will the umpire prevail? A) No, because the father did not intend to commit a battery against the umpire. B) No, because the father did not swing the bat at the umpire. C) Yes, because the son acted on the father's order. D) Yes, because after falsifying his son's age, the father became responsible for his son's conduct.

A foreman at a plant was stopped at the gate of the plant and surrounded by strikers who had formed a picket line. A striker raised a bat and came running at the foreman. The foreman picked up a brick and threw it at the striker, who leapt out of the way. The brick struck a security guard who had come up behind the striker in an attempt to prevent him from swinging the bat. Can the security guard recover in a battery action against the foreman? A) Yes, because the security guard was attempting to help the foreman. B) Yes, because the foreman did not have the right to use force against the security guard. C) No, because the foreman did not intend to strike the security guard. D) No, because the foreman did not have an opportunity to retreat.

A gardener employed at the estate of a wealthy political candidate covertly entered her office and planted a bug which was able to copy and receive the private emails she exchanged with her husband. The gardener had agreed to sell the emails to a national tabloid for a large sum. Unknown to the gardener, a surveillance camera in the office captured the entire incident. The bug was removed by in-house security personnel. The gardener was apprehended before he could send anything to the tabloid and was terminated immediately. The candidate was away fundraising at the time of the security breach. Before the bug was removed, she had sent her husband several emails on the server prior to being informed of the incident. If the candidate brings an action against the gardener, on what basis will she likely prevail? A) She will prevail based on public disclosure of private facts upon proof of special damages. B) She will prevail based on intrusion on seclusion without proof of special damages. C) She will prevail based on commercial appropriation based on the gardener's agreement with the national tabloid. D) She will not prevail because the bug was removed before the emails were sold to the national tabloid.

A gardener saw a group of boys sneak into his garden shed with a cooler, which he suspected was full of beer. He crept up to the shed and, unbeknownst to the boys, locked the already closed door. The shed had windows that were too small to climb out of. The gardener then called the police and waited until they came. One of the boys noticed the police arriving and climbed into a storage bin. The police then unlocked and opened the door and began questioning the other boys. The boy in the storage bin suddenly yelled in pain and jumped out when he was bitten by a poisonous spider. The spider bite resulted in his hospitalization for several days. In an action by the boy for false imprisonment against the gardener, what is the likely result? A) The boy will prevail because he suffered actual harm. B) The boy will prevail because there were no windows in the shed large enough to allow the boys to climb out. C) The gardener will prevail because he was protecting his property against trespassers. D) The gardener will prevail because the boy was not aware of his confinement.

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? A) Yes, because the golfer acted intentionally and caused harmful contact to her instructor. B) Yes, because the golfer intended to cause the instructor reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact. C) No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact. D) No, unless the golfer acted unreasonably in swinging the club at her instructor

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? A) No, because the hiker had no duty to come to the skier's aid. B) No, because the hiker did not survive the accident. C) No, unless the hiker acted negligently in attempting to cross the ice. D) No, unless the hiker acted with gross negligence in his attempt to cross the ice

A hockey player who was playing in the final game of the season before a hostile crowd in the opponent's packed stadium had an opportunity to get his team into the playoffs, but he missed a shot into an open net as the horn sounded, ending the game. As the crowd cheered and jeered, the puck bounced back to him and he shot it in anger toward the stands. A fan who had been looking the other way turned back toward the rink just in time to be struck in the face by the puck. He suffered a broken nose and a severe gash under his eye. After the game, the league commissioner fined the player for violating league rules by intentionally directing the puck out of the playing area. If the fan sues the player for battery, will the fan likely prevail? A) No, because by attending a hockey game, the fan assumed the risk of pucks being shot into the stands. B) No, because the player did not have the intent to strike the fan with the puck. C) Yes, because the player knew that it was substantially certain that a fan would be hit by the puck. D) Yes, because the player violated league rules by intentionally shooting the puck out of the playing area.

A homeowner born on the fourth of July celebrated his birthday in his backyard with an assortment of fireworks and skyrockets, despite a severe drought and watering ban that left the grass extremely dry. One of the fireworks landed in a pile of dry grass clippings behind his garage, but the homeowner neglected to check whether it was extinguished. The grass clippings ignited, and the fire eventually spread to the rear wall of the garage. By the time the homeowner discovered the fire and called the fire department, the flames were reaching as high as the vacant apartment on the second floor of the garage. The first firefighter to arrive rushed with a hose to the back of the garage. As he went up the outside stairs leading to the back door of the apartment, one of the steps broke, causing him to fall to the ground and break his leg. Unbeknownst to the homeowner, the wood on the underside of the step had rotted away. In a suit by the firefighter against the homeowner, will the firefighter likely prevail? A) Yes, because the homeowner was negligent in allowing the fire to start. B) Yes, because it was foreseeable that the homeowner's shooting off the fireworks would necessitate the assistance of the fire department. C) No, unless the jury determines that the homeowner could have discovered the condition of the step with a reasonable inspection. D) No, because a firefighter cannot recover for negligent conduct of another that causes him to be injured from risks that are inherent to his duties.

A homeowner looked out his front window one day and saw a neighbor standing on a narrow ledge on the second story of the house across the street. He also saw a ladder lying on the ground beneath where the neighbor was stranded. The homeowner ran out and picked up the ladder and placed it against the side of the house. However, he set it atop a patch of ice. As the neighbor started down the ladder, a rotten rung broke and he fell to the ground and was injured. If the neighbor sues the homeowner for damages for his injuries, will he recover? A) Yes, because the homeowner's action caused the injury to the neighbor. B) Yes, because the homeowner assumed the duty of aiding the neighbor. C) Yes, because it was foreseeable that the neighbor would be injured as a result of the homeowner's negligent conduct. D) No, because the homeowner's negligence did not cause the injury to the neighbor.

A homeowner owned a house on a lake, and her neighbor owned a house across a driveway from the homeowner's property. The neighbor's house sat on a hill and he could see the lake from his living room window. The homeowner and the neighbor got into an argument about access to the lake, making the homeowner very angry. She erected a large spotlight on her property that automatically comes on at dusk and goes off at sunrise just to annoy the neighbor. The glare from the light, which shines in the direction of the neighbor's house, severely detracts from the neighbor's view of the lake in the evening. The neighbor had an appraisal prepared that showed a decline in his property value. In a suit by the neighbor against the homeowner, is the neighbor likely to prevail? A) Yes, because the homeowner installed the light solely to annoy the neighbor. B) Yes, because the neighbor's property value is adversely affected. C) No, because the neighbor's view of the lake is not fully obstructed. D) No, because a spotlight provides added security to the homeowner's property.

A homeowner who was feuding with his neighbor told him, "You better stay in your house and not come out. If I see you around the next couple of days I'll kill you." That afternoon, as the neighbor walked out to get his mail, the homeowner's identical twin, who lived out of town, came walking down the street to visit the homeowner. As he neared the neighbor, the twin put up his hand to wave. The neighbor punched the twin in the face. If the twin asserts a claim against the neighbor for battery, which of the following best states what the neighbor must establish to successfully raise the privilege of self-defense? A) The neighbor honestly believed that the twin was going to attack him. B) The neighbor reasonably believed that the twin was going to attack him. C) A reasonable person would have believed that the twin was going to attack him. D) The neighbor had no opportunity to retreat safely.

A landowner owned a large commercial building downtown and the vacant lot next to his building. The landowner agreed to let a Scout troop use the vacant lot to practice outdoor-type activities. One weekend while the landowner was away on business, the Scout leader asked the landowner's building manager if he would permit the Scouts to practice their archery. The building manager agreed, but insisted that the targets be set up against the building so that an errant shot would merely strike concrete and not injure someone on the streets bordering the lot. The building manager supervised the set-up of the targets and ensured that responsible adults were present to assist the Scouts, then left the area. One of the Scouts jokingly shot an arrow up into the sky, and it came down on the street next to the vacant lot, striking and injuring a motorcyclist who was riding past. Which of these statements, if true, would defeat an action by the motorcyclist against the landowner for personal injuries? A) The landowner had no personal knowledge of the archery practice by the Scouts. B) The precautions taken by the landowner's building manager were those a reasonable person would have taken. C) The Scout acted recklessly by shooting the arrow into the air. D) The failure of the adults present to prevent the Scout's action was an intervening cause of the injury.

A landowner's backyard, landscaped with expensive flowers and shrubs, was adjacent to a golf course. While a golfer was playing on the course, a thunderstorm suddenly came up. The golfer was returning to the clubhouse in his golf cart when lightning struck a tree. The tree began to fall in the golfer's direction. To avoid being hit, the golfer steered his cart onto the landowner's property. The cart caused damage to the landowner's expensive plantings in her garden. In an action by the landowner against the golfer to recover damages for the harm to her plantings, what is the likely result? A) The landowner will prevail because, although occasioned by necessity, the golfer's entry onto the landowner's property was for the golfer's benefit. B) The landowner will prevail, for nominal damages only, because the golfer was privileged to enter the landowner's property. C) The landowner will not prevail because the lightning was an unforeseeable act of God. D) The landowner will not prevail because the golfer's entry onto the landowner's property was occasioned by necessity and therefore privileged.

A local entertainment section of a newspaper published a story on the town's business district, accompanied by photos of various businesses in the district. A minister who happened to be walking on the sidewalk in front of an adult bookstore when a photo was taken for the story became very upset when he saw it in the newspaper, because the camera angle made it appear that he was exiting the bookstore. If the minister sues the newspaper for invasion of privacy and establishes the above facts, is he likely to prevail? A) Yes, because the photo made it appear as if he was exiting an adult bookstore. B) Yes, because the newspaper made a public disclosure of a private fact. C) No, because he was on a public sidewalk when the photo was taken. D) No, because he has not alleged any economic or pecuniary damages.

A man and his friend became angry with a bartender who had refused to serve them any more drinks. The man said loudly to the bartender, "If you weren't so ugly, I would break your skull." While saying this, the man tapped the bartender on the hand. If the bartender can successfully sue the man, for what tort would the bartender's claim most likely be? A) Assault. B) Slander. C) Battery. D) Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

A man and his neighbor were attending a leadership conference at coastal resort. While walking along the beach, they spotted a 20-foot cliff overlooking the ocean. The man challenged his neighbor to climb up the rocks and jump off the cliff with him. The man knew his neighbor was afraid of heights, but also realized his neighbor was very competitive. The man said, "This will prove you're no wimp. To make it easier, we'll jump together." On the man's count, they joined hands and both jumped at the same time. However, upon hitting the water, the man's foot awkwardly came down on the neighbor's wrist, breaking it. The neighbor brought an action against the man for negligence. What is the key issue to be determined by the finder of fact? A) Whether the man's motive was to take advantage of the neighbor's fear of heights. B) Whether the two men were acting in concert. C) Whether the neighbor appreciated the risk and decided to jump voluntarily. D) Whether the type of harm suffered was a foreseeable risk.

A man arranged to meet his girlfriend at a jewelry store to select her engagement ring. The man, arriving at the store before the girlfriend, asked the clerk to show him some rings. The clerk took out a tray of rings and was reaching down for a second tray when the man, seeing the girlfriend waiting outside the door, ran toward the door to get her. The clerk, thinking that the man had taken some rings from the tray, called to a guard who was standing by the door, "Don't let that man leave." The guard stood in front of the man and, without touching him or making a threatening gesture, stated, "Will you please go to the back of the store to be searched." The man went to the back of the store, at which point the clerk told the guard that all the rings were in the case. If the man brings an action for false imprisonment against the jewelry store and loses, what is the likely reason? A) The man was guilty of contributory negligence in running toward the door under the circumstances. B) The jewelry store was privileged to detain the man. C) The jewelry store allowed the man to leave as soon as it discovered its error. D) The rings the man was looking at were very valuable.

A man heard that his neighbor intended to sell his house to the man's coworker, whom he despised. He told the neighbor, "Don't sell your house to my coworker if you value your life, because there'll be hell to pay." The neighbor was very upset by this threat; he then called the coworker and told her that the deal was off and he would not be selling his house to her. He ended up selling the house to another party for substantially less. In a suit by the neighbor against the man for intentional infliction of emotional distress, will the neighbor likely recover? A) No, because the neighbor suffered no physical harm. B) No, because the man made no threat of immediate physical harm to the neighbor or his family. C) Yes, because the neighbor suffered actual economic harm. D) Yes, because the neighbor suffered severe emotional distress.

A man posing as a trick shot artist with a show persuaded a student to audition as his partner in one of his trick shot demonstrations. The man had the student stand 75 feet away with a lighted cigarette between her lips. Using a high powered rifle, the man shot a cigarette out of her mouth three times in as many tries. He immediately offered her the job with the show. However, when the student reported to the show's headquarters, she was told that he had been discharged from the show several years ago because of failing eyesight and mental instability. The student became very upset and required medical treatment for her distress. If the student brings an action against the man for battery, who will prevail? A) The man, because his mental instability prevented him from forming the intent to commit a battery. B) The man, because he did not bring about any harmful contact to the student. C) The student, because she did not validly consent to his conduct. D) The student, because she suffered harm that required medical treatment.

A man walking along a public street was struck without warning by a rock thrown by a boy he did not know. The boy was mentally ill and suffered from hallucinations. In a suit against the boy for battery, which of the following would be the boy's best defense? A) The boy did not understand that his act was wrongful. B) The boy did not want to cause harm to the man. C) The boy did not know that he was striking a person. D) The boy thought the man was about to attack him.

A man went into his neighbor's garage without permission and borrowed the neighbor's chain saw. The man used the saw to clear broken branches from the trees on his own property. After he had finished, he noticed several broken branches on the neighbor's trees that were in danger of falling on the neighbor's roof and decided to cut them off for his neighbor. While he was cutting the neighbor's branches, the saw broke and it would be unlikely that it could be fixed. In a suit for conversion by the neighbor against the man, will the neighbor recover? A) Yes, for the actual damage to the saw. B) Yes, for the value of the saw before the man borrowed it. C) No, because when the saw broke, the man was using it to benefit the neighbor. D) No, because the man did not intend to keep the saw.

A man who had been living with a woman in an old farmhouse left without warning. In a note, he told her that he was not coming back other than to get his possessions in the spring, and he told her not to touch them. Among his possessions was an extensive set of woodworking tools that he kept in a workshop. During the winter, the cost of heating the farmhouse, which the two had previously shared, became too high for the woman to pay. The manager of the local heating oil company agreed to provide heating oil in exchange for unlimited use of the woodworking tools. The man learned that the tools were being used by the manager of the heating oil company and sued the woman for conversion. No harm was done to the tools. If the woman prevails, what is the most likely reason? A) The use of the tools was compensation for the man's share of expenses to heat the farmhouse over the winter. B) She had lawful possession of the tools. C) No harm was done to the tools. D) She was in lawful possession of the premises.

A man who had been living with a woman in an old farmhouse left without warning. In a note, he told her that he was not coming back other than to get his possessions in the spring, and he told her not to touch them. Among his possessions was an extensive set of woodworking tools that he kept in a workshop. During the winter, the manager of the local heating oil company agreed to provide heating oil in exchange for unlimited use of the woodworking tools, which he thought were owned by the woman. After several weeks of using the tools, the manager agreed to purchase one of the tools, a saw, from the woman for $200, although it was worth about $500. He also accidently damaged some of the other tools. If the man returns and brings a successful conversion action against the woman, what damages can he recover? A) The value of the tools at the time he left. B) The cost of repair to the damaged tools, plus $500 for the saw. C) The cost of repair to the damaged tools, plus $200 for the saw. D) The value of the tools at the time the woman converted them.

A man who had been living with a woman in an old farmhouse left without warning. In a note, he told her that he was not coming back other than to get his possessions in the spring, and he told her not to touch them. Among his possessions was an extensive set of woodworking tools that he kept in a workshop. During the winter, the manager of the local heating oil company agreed to provide heating oil in exchange for unlimited use of the woodworking tools, which he thought were owned by the woman. After several weeks of using the tools, the manager offered to purchase one of the tools, a lathe, from the woman for about half of what it was worth. The woman agreed and the manager took it home with him. Is the manager liable for conversion of the lathe? A) No, because he did not intend to deprive the man of possession of the tools. B) No, because the man was not in possession of the tools when the manager purchased the lathe. C) Yes, because the manager took possession of the man's lathe. D) Yes, because the manager purchased the lathe for only half of what it was worth

A man who was a trick shot artist persuaded a college student to audition as his partner in his trick shot performances for a show. The man drove the student to an open field to practice his shooting, but in talking with him, she soon realized that he was no longer a part of that show and refused to participate any further. If the student brings an action for false imprisonment against the man for the time she was in his car, which of the following would be the man's best defense? A) The student was not harmed by the ride in the man's car. B) The student went willingly to the practice area. C) The student did not try to get out while the car was in motion. D) The man would have stopped the car and let the student out if she had asked.

A mapping service on the Internet that provided maps and satellite images of urban areas developed a "tourist view" option that offered street level views on its website of many downtown locations in major cities. In one of the street view images posted by the mapping service, a pedestrian could be seen on the steps outside the doors of a business while smoking a cigarette. He was recognized on the website by his supervisor, who was surprised to see him smoking because he had obtained an employee health insurance discount by affirming that he was a nonsmoker. If the pedestrian sues the mapping service for invasion of privacy, how should the court rule? A) For the mapping service, because the disclosure was of someone in a public place. B) For the mapping service, unless the pedestrian's employer canceled his health insurance discount. C) For the pedestrian, because there was widespread public disclosure by the mapping service of a private fact. D) For the pedestrian, because he was on the premises of a business rather than a public sidewalk when the image was taken.

A missile company was engaged in research and development of an interplanetary space shuttle, under contract with the United States government. Over a period of years, it developed the prototype of a huge, solid-fuel rocket engine for use in this program. To evaluate the performance of this engine, it conducted a static test of the engine at a remote desert test site. The rocket engine was mounted on a concrete test stand, with the thrust of the engine directed downward into the ground. When the engine was fired up, huge clouds of flame and smoke filled the air, and particles of debris from the rocket fell onto an adjoining farm. If the farmer files an action against the company for trespass, which of the following facts, if proved, would be most helpful to the company in avoiding liability? A) The farmer bought and operated his farm knowing that the company used the adjoining property for testing its rocket engines. B) Neither the company nor anyone in its employ set foot upon the farmer's land. C) The company had no reason to anticipate that the tests would cause any of the results that occurred. D) The rocket testing program is essential to national security, so that the company's conduct was completely privileged as a public necessity.

A mother and a daughter who had taken their bikes on a tour of an island took a ferry back to the mainland. Following instructions from the boat's crew, they wheeled their bikes on board themselves and parked them along with many others by the side of the ship where cargo boxes were stored. They were told to retrieve the bikes and disembark in the same manner when they arrived at the mainland. During the trip another passenger who had gotten into a dispute with the mother and daughter complained to the captain that her bike had been stolen on the island that day and she was sure she saw it on the boat when she boarded. The captain promised he would let her look for it before everyone disembarked. When they landed at the dock, the captain instructed the crew to delay the removal of the cargo boxes so as to keep all of the bikes blocked in, and he and the passenger examined each bike. The mother and the daughter complained about the delay because they had to catch a bus back to their home. They were told that they could either leave, file a claim for lost cargo, and wait to be notified by mail when their bikes were available, or wait in the ticket office for the bikes to be unloaded. They decided to wait. Twenty minutes later, their bikes were unloaded and returned to them, causing them to miss their bus connection. What is the strongest basis for the mother and daughter prevailing in an action for false imprisonment against the ferry company? A) The mother and daughter had to pay much more for transportation back home because they missed their bus connection. B) The mother and daughter reasonably believed they might lose their bikes if they left the ticket office. C) The other passenger made the complaint intending to cause the mother and daughter to be delayed. D) The ferry is a common carrier and owes a high duty of care to its passengers.

A motorist was negligently driving close to the shoulder of a highway when his vehicle skidded and hit a support column of a bridge that crossed over the highway. The impact from the car caused structural damage to the support column, which caused the bridge to drop 18 inches. The sag of the bridge was clearly visible from the highway. The motorist died in his heavily damaged car as a result of the accident. A rescuer, who had been five miles away at the time of the accident, came on the scene and pulled his car off the road to see if he could render assistance. Shortly thereafter, a trucker approached the scene of the accident. The trucker saw that an accident had occurred, and had adequate time to slow down or stop, but he proceeded ahead without reducing speed. Under ordinary circumstances, his truck could have passed easily under the bridge, but the 18-inch drop caused the top of the truck to strike the bridge. A chunk of concrete fell from the bridge, striking the rescuer in the head and seriously injuring him. If the rescuer sues the motorist's estate, who will prevail? A) The motorist's estate, because the trucker's actions caused the rescuer's injuries. B) The motorist's estate, because the rescuer was five miles away when the initial accident occurred and therefore not a foreseeable plaintiff. C) The rescuer, because he stopped to render assistance. D) The rescuer, because the motorist's negligence was the proximate cause of the rescuer's injuries.

A nervous man was persuaded by his girlfriend to go with her to a haunted house. He saw the signs in front of the haunted house warning that this attraction has live "monsters" who will be trying to scare people and is not for the faint of heart, and he also noticed the same warning printed on the tickets. He paid for his ticket and reluctantly went into the darkened house with his girlfriend. In the first room, an actor dressed as a large monster came at them with a shriek, and the man dove through one of the plate glass windows to the outside, severely lacerating his arms and face in the process. If the man brings an action against the actor, will he recover? A) No, because the man expressly assumed the risk of injury. B) No, unless the jury determines that the actor was negligent in trying to scare the man. C) Yes, because the actor intended to cause apprehension on the part of the man. D) Yes, but the man's recovery will be reduced by a certain percentage if the trier of fact determines that he was also at fault.

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? A) No, because the dermatologist's conduct did not create a foreseeable risk of physical injury to the patient. B) Yes, because the misdiagnosis by the dermatologist caused the patient actual harm. C) No, because the patient did not have to pay for the second doctor visit. D) Yes, provided that the patient's distress caused her some physical injury.

A patron who had been drinking heavily in a bar was stopped by two bouncers at the exit as he was getting his car keys out. The bouncers, who were employed by the bar owner, offered to call him a cab because he was too drunk to drive, but the patron refused. The bouncers then took the patron into a back room and locked him in the room for an hour to sober him up, despite his protests that he was capable of driving. The bouncers then allowed him to leave the premises. If the patron sues the owner of the bar for false imprisonment, is he likely to prevail? A) Yes, because the patron did not consent to being locked in a room for an hour. B) Yes, because employees of the bar were negligent in allowing the patron to become intoxicated. C) No, because the bouncers were acting in the patron's best interests by keeping him there until he sobered up. D) No, because an employer is not liable for the intentional torts of his employees.

A pedestrian walking along an unpaved road on his way to work saw a school bus coming in the opposite direction suddenly begin to careen toward him. The bus driver had momentarily lost control of the bus while attempting to light a cigarette. To avoid being hit by the bus, the pedestrian jumped off the road into a landowner's yard. Unfortunately, he landed in a bed of prize-winning zinnias and damaged them extensively. In a suit by the landowner against the bus driver for the damages to her zinnias, what is the likely result? A) The bus driver is liable for trespass because his driving caused the pedestrian to enter the landowner's yard and damage her zinnias. B) The bus driver is liable on the theory of negligence. C) The bus driver is not liable because the landowner's zinnias were not within the scope of any duty he owed in operating a bus on a public road. D) If the bus driver is held liable on any theory, he is entitled to indemnity from the pedestrian, who did the damage.

A photographer snuck into the house of a celebrity to take some photos. She went upstairs and was taking photos of the celebrity on the balcony of his bedroom when the celebrity noticed the photographer and yelled, "Get out of here!" The photographer replied, "I mean no harm; I just wanted a photo," and ran out of the room. However, the celebrity's butler heard the commotion, saw the photographer and caught her, dragged her to the balcony, and pushed her over the railing, seriously injuring her. May the photographer recover from the celebrity in a battery action for the conduct of his employee? A) No, because the butler was entitled to use force to protect the celebrity. B) No, because the ordinary duties of a butler do not include removing trespassers from the premises. C) Yes, because the butler used excessive force and was acting to further the interests of the celebrity when he acted. D) Yes, because the butler was not entitled to use force against a trespasser.

A photographer trying to get a photo of a celebrity without her sunglasses on picked up a small rock, approached the celebrity, and poised the rock as if he were about to throw it at her. He called to her, "Take off those glasses or I'll let you have it." The celebrity was frightened and took off her glasses. May the star recover from the photographer in an action for assault? A) Yes, because he was within striking distance of the star when he poised the rock. B) Yes, even though the photographer's threat was conditional. C) No, because the photographer had no intent to throw the rock. D) No, because mere words cannot constitute an assault.

A physician performing scheduled surgery on her patient's right ear to alleviate recurring infections discovered that the problem was caused by a previously unsuspected anatomical abnormality. The physician knew that it was very likely that this same abnormality existed in the patient's left ear, and that a similar course of recurring infections was likely to transpire involving that ear, so the physician extended the surgery to her patient's left ear. The surgery was carried out with due care and was successful. If the patient sues the physician on the grounds that he only consented to surgery on his right ear, will the patient likely recover damages? A) No, because the extension of the operation was successful and the patient suffered no damages. B) No, because the extension of the operation was carried out with due care. C) Yes, under a negligence theory. D) Yes, under a battery theory.

A pilot flying his private plane suddenly encountered a flock of large birds. He was unable to avoid striking some, which damaged his engine. He made a forced landing in a farmer's field, damaging some of his crops. If the farmer sues the pilot for damages, what will he likely collect? A) Nothing, because the landing was caused by an emergency. B) Nothing, because the pilot was not negligent. C) Damages for the trespass and for the crop damage. D) Damages for the crop damage but not for the trespass.

A pilot had given her 15-year-old son informal piloting lessons, including practice on takeoffs and landings on their farm's landing strip. Confident in her son's ability, she agreed to the son's request to fly by himself to his uncle's ranch, which also had a landing strip, to attend his cousin's high school graduation party. The son took off safely, but about five minutes later the aircraft's engine stopped running; the plane stalled and then crashed, killing the son. It was later determined that the engine ran out of fuel because a burst fuel line had been overlooked during a routine maintenance check of the pilot's plane the week before the crash. An airplane mechanic at the small private airport where the pilot went for fuel and maintenance had performed the maintenance check. The pilot brought a wrongful death action for the loss of her son against the mechanic's employer, the owner of the private airport. At trial, the owner of the airport raises a contributory negligence defense. Whose negligence, if found by the jury to be a contributing factor in causing the accident, will reduce the pilot's recovery? A) The pilot in permitting her son to fly the airplane. B) The son in his handling of the plane after the engine quit. C) Both the pilot in permitting her son to fly and the son in handling the plane. D) Either the pilot in permitting her son to fly or the son in handling the plane.

A pilot was flying his airplane, which he always kept well maintained. Due to a flock of birds that suddenly got in his way, the pilot was forced to seek an emergency landing area and glided toward a field where children were playing. As the pilot made his landing, he was unable to avoid striking and injuring one child. If the parents of the child bring an action against the pilot to recover for the child's personal injuries, what is the pilot's best defense? A) He did not act willfully and wantonly. B) He could not reasonably foresee that he would have to make an emergency landing. C) He used reasonable care in the maintenance of his airplane. D) His conduct was not the cause of the injury to the child.

A plaintiff purchased a new car manufactured by an automotive corporation. While the plaintiff was driving home from the local dealership, she stopped at a stop sign. She was struck from behind by a jeep driven by a driver who had negligently failed to stop. On impact, the plaintiff was injured when she hit her head on the front windshield. The car's airbag should have prevented this, but the airbag was defective and failed to inflate. Assume that a state law requires all automobiles to be equipped with airbags that will prevent drivers from hitting their heads on windshields on impact. If the plaintiff asserts a claim against the driver, will the plaintiff prevail? A) Yes, unless the corporation was negligent in the manufacture of the car that the plaintiff was driving. B) Yes, because the driver's negligent driving was a cause in fact of the collision. C) No, because the airbag in the plaintiff's car violated a state law. D) No, because the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the failure of the airbag.

A police office patrolling on a bike became angry at a slow jogger who was blocking her way on a trail. The officer stopped the jogger and said falsely that he matched the description of a vandalism suspect that the officer had been searching for. The officer recorded his name and address and ordered him to report to the police station in one hour to be booked and fingerprinted. The jogger reported to the station house, where he learned that he was not a suspect for anything. In a suit by the jogger for false imprisonment against the officer, what is the likely outcome? A) The officer will prevail, because the jogger willingly reported to the police station. B) The officer will prevail, because the jogger was not restrained from leaving the police station. C) The jogger will prevail, because the officer was motivated solely by anger with the jogger. D) The jogger will prevail, because the officer did not see him commit a crime.

A professional football player signed a written consent for his team's doctor to perform a knee operation. After the athlete was under a general anesthetic, the doctor decided that the surgery was more complicated than he had thought and asked a world famous orthopedic surgeon to perform the operation. The surgeon's skills were superior to the doctor's, and the operation was successful. In an action for battery by the athlete against the surgeon, what is the likely result? A) Prevail, because the athlete did not agree to allow the surgeon to perform the operation. B) Prevail, because the consent form was in writing. C) Not prevail, because the surgeon's skills were necessary to successfully perform the operation. D) Not prevail, because the operation was successful and the athlete suffered no harm.

A shopper asked a clerk the price of a certain item. The clerk, who was in a bad mood, told the shopper she would have to find out for herself, and then added, "An ugly person like you shouldn't go around asking stupid questions." The shopper was shocked and upset by his response and suffered a heart attack shortly thereafter. What must the shopper establish before she can recover damages in an action against the clerk for intentional infliction of emotional distress? A) The heart attack was caused by the shopper's emotional distress. B) The clerk intended that the shopper suffer severe emotional distress. C) The clerk's conduct was extreme and outrageous under the circumstances. D) The shopper cannot recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

A shopper at a grocery store slipped and fell when he stepped in some water that had seeped out from a malfunctioning freezer case. The fall caused the shopper to break an ankle, so he filed suit against the store in a jurisdiction applying the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land. At trial, the shopper presented evidence of the above facts, and testified that the floor around the water appeared dirty. To survive a motion for summary judgment by the store, what additional evidence must the shopper present? A) No additional evidence. B) He was planning to make a purchase at the store. C) The store employees knew that the freezer case was leaking. D) His attention was diverted by store displays so that he did not notice the water on the floor.

A student borrowed her roommate's car to pick up a pizza that they had ordered. On the way and without permission from the roommate, the student drove the car to a bookstore approximately two miles from the pizzeria and spent 10 minutes in the store finding and purchasing a book she needed for a class. She arrived at the pizzeria 10 minutes after the pizza was supposed to be ready but had to wait a few more minutes for it to be done. She brought it back to the car, which she had parked on the street in a marked parallel parking space, and saw to her dismay that the car had been struck by a hit-and-run driver. There were a number of dents in the back of the car, amounting to $900 in damages. If the roommate sues the student for the damage to her car, what will she likely recover? A) Nothing, because the student had to wait for the pizza even after her 10-minute detour. B) The value of the car before the accident, because the student used the car for unauthorized purposes. C) $900, because the car was under the student's control. D) $900, because the student used the car for unauthorized purposes.

A student unknowingly drank a small quantity of a hallucinogenic drug as part of a sorority initiation rite. It caused an adverse reaction several hours later while the student was having a cup of coffee at a local restaurant. The student thought that someone was strangling her, so she picked up the cup and swung it, breaking it over the waitress's head and injuring her. In a civil action for battery filed by the waitress against the student, which of the following, if factually correct, would provide the best defense for the student? A) The student believed that the waitress was about to strangle her, and thus her actions were in self-defense. B) The student only intended to get the waitress's attention and assistance and did not intend to harm her. C) Because the student was involuntarily under the influence of drugs, she did not appreciate the fact that her conduct was wrongful. D) The student did not know that when she swung the cup, she was striking a person.

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 in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, is he likely to recover? A) No, because the stake could have been seen by the swimmer. B) No, because he was swimming outside of the roped-in area. C) Yes, because the lifeguard on duty saw him and did not warn him to return to the swimming area. D) Yes, because he is a public invitee of the resort.

A tenant discovered that her landlord, who occupied the manager's apartment in the same building, changed the lock on the tenant's door while she was out. When the tenant demanded an explanation, the landlord told the tenant that he had changed the lock because she was using the apartment for prostitution. This statement was not true and the landlord had no reason to believe it to be true. In fact, the landlord wanted to induce the tenant to vacate so he could rent her apartment to his nephew. The landlord also told the tenant that if she did not vacate within 24 hours, he would file suit to evict her on grounds that she had been using the premises for prostitution. The tenant was very upset and feared that her reputation would be irreparably damaged. Does the tenant have a tort action against the landlord? A) Yes, for defamation because the landlord's statement was slander per se. B) Yes, for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the landlord's conduct was extreme and outrageous. C) Yes, for both defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. D) The tenant has no claim for relief against the landlord.

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? A) No, because the trainer's pigeon caused the destruction of the airplane. B) No, because the jury could find negligence on the trainer's part under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. C) Yes, because the truck, rather than the pigeon, was the direct cause of the airplane's destruction. D) Yes, because the trainer took reasonable care in training his pigeons.

A traveler passing through a city stopped at a service station and asked the owner to check the oil in her car. The owner had just received an alert about a suspect in several armed robberies of service stations. The traveler and her car matched the description of the suspect. After checking the oil, the owner called the police and then falsely informed the traveler that she had a broken fan belt, that her car could not be driven without a new belt, that it would take him about an hour to replace it, and that she should stay in his office while he fixed it. The traveler was annoyed that her journey was delayed, but she waited in the office. The police arrived shortly thereafter and, after brief questioning, determined that the traveler was not the robber. The traveler was upset when she learned that the broken fan belt was just a ruse, and she consequently brought an action for false imprisonment against the owner. If the jury finds in favor of the owner, what is the likely reason? A) The owner reasonably believed that the traveler committed felonies. B) The traveler suffered no physical or mental harm. C) The traveler was free to leave the owner's premises. D) The owner was acting as an agent of the police.

A well-known local businesswoman was the featured speaker at an annual business dinner. Just as she was heading for the podium to deliver her speech, another guest speaker who was already on the platform kicked a circular napkin ring into the businesswoman's path. Not seeing the ring, she slipped on it as she was stepping onto the platform and almost fell to the floor. Although she was not hurt physically, the businesswoman was very embarrassed by being made to look so foolish in front of a group of her peers and colleagues. In addition to the above facts, what will the businesswoman need to establish to recover damages against the other speaker for her embarrassment? A) That the other speaker was negligent in kicking the napkin ring into her path. B) That the other speaker knew that the businesswoman would slip on the napkin ring. C) That the other speaker acted out of spite against the businesswoman. D) No additional facts.

A woman became furious with her neighbor and the neighbor's husband for selling their house to someone she despised. She entered her neighbor's house and began throwing lighted matches on the floor and against the closed door where the neighbor's husband was sound asleep, saying that she was going to make them pay by burning down their house. The neighbor stomped out the lit matches and chased the woman out of the house. When her husband awoke, the neighbor told her husband about the woman's visit, her message, and what she had done. If the neighbor's husband sues the woman for assault, will he prevail? A) Yes, because the woman's conduct was extreme and outrageous B) Yes, because the woman's actions placed the neighbor's husband in danger of physical harm. C) No, because the neighbor's extinguishing the matches eliminated any danger of physical harm to her husband. D) No, even if the woman may have intended to place the neighbor's husband in fear of immediate physical harm.

A woman loaned her car to a friend to use while his car was in the shop for repairs. When the friend's car was repaired, he let his neighbor borrow the woman's car instead of returning it to the woman. The neighbor took the woman's car for several days on a 900-mile trip. While the neighbor was gone on the trip, the woman discovered that the friend had gotten his car repaired and asked him for her car back. She was furious when he told her that he had lent the car to his neighbor. The neighbor eventually returned the car to the friend, who then attempted to return the car to the woman. The woman refused to accept the car even though it was undamaged, and sued the friend for conversion of the car. Which of the following would be the most likely result of this suit? A) The woman will not recover for conversion. B) The woman cannot recover for conversion, but can recover for trespass to chattel. C) The woman will recover the rental value of the car for the 900-mile trip. D) The woman will recover the fair market value of the car from the friend.

A worker at a petrochemical plant was severely burned when a pipe carrying hot oil exploded. The worker brought a negligence action against the company that manufactured and installed the pipe. At trial, the worker established what happened and the injuries he suffered. He also presented evidence that the pipe burst because it had corroded at a higher than normal rate, which according to testimony of the worker's experts indicated a defect in the manufacture of the pipe. At the close of the worker's case, the manufacturer moved for a directed verdict. How should the court rule? A) Deny the motion, because the pipe was defective and injured the worker. B) Deny the motion, because the jury could find that the premature corrosion of the pipe would not have occurred absent negligence by the manufacturer. C) Grant the motion, because the worker has not established that the manufacturer was negligent. D) Grant the motion, because the pipe was in the petrochemical plant's possession when it exploded.

After picking up a load of hazardous chemical waste, a truck driver for a waste management company set out on the road to his next stop. However, he had failed to secure the latch on the back panel of the truck. Consequently, the panel opened while the truck was on the road, and a metal canister full of chemical waste fell onto the road. A car struck the canister, causing the car to veer off the road and injure the driver. The driver filed suit against the company for his injuries. The jurisdiction in which the above events took place has adopted a rule of partial comparative negligence. At trial, the driver of the car admitted that he had momentarily taken his eyes off the road to look at his speedometer. When he had looked up again, the canister was there and he could not stop in time. The jury found that the company, through its truck driver, had acted willfully and wantonly and was 90% at fault, while the driver of the car was 10% at fault. The driver filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, seeking recovery for 100% of his damages. If the judge grants the motion, what is the most likely reason? A) A plaintiff's comparative negligence is not taken into account in cases of willful and wanton conduct by the defendant. B) A state ordinance mandating motorists to stay within the posted speed limit requires as a matter of law an occasional glance at the speedometer. C) The company was more than 50% at fault. D) The company was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.

After their marriage, a wife and husband went for genetic counseling because of a hereditary incurable genetic disease in both of their families. When it was determined that their offspring were certain to inherit the disease, they decided not to have children of their own. The wife went to a doctor to have her fallopian tubes tied to ensure that she would not become pregnant; for religious reasons, abortion was not an option for her. The doctor did not properly perform the surgery. Tests taken after the surgery indicated that it was not successful, but the doctor failed to inform the wife of that fact. Two years later, the wife became pregnant and gave birth to a child who was afflicted with a disabling version of the genetic disease. Furthermore, the pregnancy left the wife partially disabled because of an internal condition that could not have been foreseen by her or her doctor. The wife sues the doctor, seeking to recover the medical expenses of her pregnancy and her pain and suffering during labor, her lost future earnings because of her disability, the future costs of raising her child, and the extraordinary medical expenses to treat her child's disease. Under current law, which element of damages is the wife least certain to recover? A) Medical expenses and pain and suffering for her labor. B) The future costs of raising the child. C) The additional medical expenses to treat the child's disease. D) Lost future earnings because of her disability.

An architect who specialized in the design of large buildings designed a resort hotel for a hotel chain. The architect took into account weather conditions where the hotel was to be built, and came up with two designs that would cost approximately the same amount to construct to specifications. One of them had the four large supporting pylons set so that it could withstand winds 20% higher than the region had experienced in the 85 years that the weather bureaus kept records for the area. The other design set the pylons farther apart, but they would withstand winds 50% higher than the region had experienced. The architect decided to go with the first (20% margin) design, because he felt it was more aesthetically pleasing, and also because a 20% safety margin was usually considered adequate. Officers of the hotel chain reviewed and approved the architect's plans, and the hotel was constructed according to the plans. Two years after the hotel opened, a freak storm struck, bringing with it winds of hurricane force. The hotel suffered significant damage, which would have been avoided had the supporting pylons been placed farther apart. If the hotel chain sues the architect for the damage to the hotel, who will prevail? A) The architect, because the hotel chain reviewed and approved the plans. B) The architect, because innkeepers, rather than architects, are subject to strict liability. C) The architect, if he acted in the manner of a reputable member of his profession. D) The hotel chain, because the placement of the pylons resulted in extensive damage to the hotel.

An electric company is the sole distributor of electrical power in the city. The company owns and maintains all of the electric poles and equipment in the city in compliance with government standards. The electric company has had to replace insulators on its poles repeatedly because unknown persons regularly shoot at and destroy them, which causes the power lines to fall to the ground. On one of these occasions, a five-year-old child who had wandered out of his yard intentionally touched a downed wire, and was seriously burned. If a claim on the child's behalf is asserted against the electric company, will the child recover? A) Yes, if the electric company could have taken reasonable steps to prevent the lines from falling when the insulators were destroyed. B) Yes, because a supplier of electricity is strictly liable in tort. C) No, unless the electric company failed to exercise reasonable care to stop the destruction of the insulators. D) No, because the destruction of the insulators was intentional.

An employee of a construction company working in a high crime neighborhood negligently cut through power cables. The accident knocked out power to the area and disabled a home's security system. The homeowner, who was out of town, received an alert from the security company advising her to arrange for someone to go to the house and restart the system with a backup power source. The homeowner got distracted soon after getting the message and neglected to contact anyone. That evening, a burglar broke into the home while power was still off in the neighborhood. Because the security system was not working and the alarm did not go off, the burglar was able to steal jewelry and other valuables from the home and escape. The homeowner sued the construction company for the loss of her valuables in a jurisdiction that has adopted pure comparative negligence rules. Is the homeowner likely to recover? A) Yes, because the homeowner's negligence contributed the least to her loss. B) Yes, because the conduct of the construction company's employee created the opportunity for the burglar to steal the valuables. C) No, because the homeowner's negligence was a superseding cause of her loss. D) No, because the burglar committed a criminal act that was a superseding cause of the loss.

An impatient driver who was fed up with jaywalking pedestrians drove straight at one of them, leaning on the horn and intending to make her jump. She did not hear him or change her pace, however, because her music player was turned to full volume. A bystander on the curb rushed out to pull her to safety. She tripped as she was being pulled to the curb, fracturing her kneecap. If the pedestrian sues the driver for assault, what will be the likely result? A) The driver wins, because the pedestrian did not know at the time that she was in danger from the driver. B) The driver wins, because he did not intend for the pedestrian to be injured by his conduct. C) The pedestrian wins, because the driver intended to create in her an apprehension of immediate harmful contact. D) The pedestrian wins, because the driver's conduct was a substantial factor in causing her injury.

An investor who owned several thriving shopping malls was negotiating to purchase a local mall from the company that currently owned it. A staff attorney for the state transportation department who shopped at the mall regularly learned of the negotiations and contacted the investor. The mall had deteriorated noticeably during the time the current company had owned it and the attorney believed that new ownership would revitalize the mall considerably. Although the attorney had no information to support this, she told the investor that the state was currently planning to construct a new interchange for the turnpike only three blocks from the mall. The investor went ahead with the purchase, believing that the new interchange would boost sales. In fact, no interchange was being considered by the state at that time, and nothing that the investor did after he purchased the mall could stem the decline in sales. He ended up selling the property at a substantial loss several years after the purchase. Does the investor have a cause of action against the attorney for his losses? A) Yes, for negligent misrepresentation, because the owner made a business transaction in reliance on the attorney's statements. B) Yes, for intentional misrepresentation, because the attorney was aware that she did not know whether the state was planning an interchange. C) No, because the attorney's statement pertained to a future event that may not be justifiably relied upon. D) No, because the attorney made her statement to the owner gratuitously.

An ordinance of a city makes it unlawful to park a motor vehicle on a city street within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. At 1:55 p.m., a man, realizing he must be in the bank before it closed at 2 p.m. and finding no other space available, parked his automobile in front of a fire hydrant on a city street. The man then hurried into the bank, leaving his elderly neighbor as a passenger in the rear seat of the car. About five minutes later, and while the man was still in the bank, a woman was driving down the street. The woman swerved to avoid what she mistakenly thought was a hole in the street and sideswiped the man's car. The man's car was turned over on top of the hydrant, breaking the hydrant and causing a small flood of water. The man's car was severely damaged and the elderly neighbor was badly injured. If the elderly neighbor asserts a claim against the man, will the elderly neighbor recover? A) Yes, because the man's action was negligence per se. B) Yes, because the man's action was a continuing wrong that contributed to the elderly neighbor's injuries. C) No, because a reasonably prudent person could not foresee injury to the elderly neighbor as a result of the man's action. D) No, because a violation of a city ordinance does not give rise to a civil cause of action.

As a motorist was driving on a road, a driver on an intersecting road failed to see a stop sign at the intersection and crossed into the motorist's path. The motorist would have had time to avoid the driver's vehicle except that he was making a call on his cell phone. He slammed on the brakes as soon as he saw the driver, so the impact occurred at a low speed. The driver's car sustained only minor damage, but the motorist's car sustained such heavy damage that it was a total loss. If the motorist sues the driver in a jurisdiction following traditional contributory negligence and assumption of the risk rules, what is the driver's best defense? A) The driver's running the stop sign was unintentional. B) The motorist was negligent in purchasing a car that would suffer heavy damage when struck at low speed. C) The motorist was contributorily negligent. D) The motorist had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.

At a youth baseball game, a seven-year-old boy was called out on strikes. The boy's father was so infuriated with the umpire's decision that he shouted in a loud voice, "Kill the umpire!" The boy, who was standing behind the umpire and still holding his bat, swung the bat at the umpire. The umpire saw it at the last second and ducked, and the boy missed. In a tort action by the umpire against the boy, will the umpire recover? A) Yes, on an assault theory only. B) Yes, on either an assault theory or a negligence theory. C) No, because the boy did not intend to commit an assault. D) No, because the boy is only seven years old.

At the end of the season, the owner of a private beach stacked up his rental canoes onto a trailer, and arranged for them to be moved the next day into a storage shed for the winter. That evening, two nine-year-old boys came onto the owner's property even though they knew that the lake was closed to the public for the season. Both of them had used the canoes (with an adult) several times during the past summer. They unhooked one of the canoes from the rack, lifted it down, and pushed it into the water. Although the life vests were sitting in an open bin nearby, neither boy put one on. When they were out in the middle of the lake with the canoe, they tried to switch seats and caused the canoe to capsize. They both tried to swim to shore. One was able to make it, but unfortunately the other boy could not make it and he drowned. Had he been wearing a life vest, he would have survived. The boy's parents bring a wrongful death action against the beach owner. If the beach owner prevails, what will be the likely reason? A) Children of the boy's age, intelligence, and education would not likely take the canoe out without a life vest. B) The owner took precautions to make the canoes inaccessible. C) The boy appreciated the risk of taking the canoe out onto the lake without a life vest. D) The boy was not lured onto the owner's property by the canoes.

At the request of local police, security officials for an intercity passenger train made random searches of passenger luggage for contraband as it was being sent to the baggage claim area, although they did not have legal authority to search bags without a warrant. The searches were conducted so that there was no delay in the luggage being released to those claiming their bags. A traveler went to the baggage claim area but his luggage, which contained a number of valuables but no contraband, did not appear. It had been selected for a search but the security officers were having difficulty getting it unlocked to search it. When the traveler inquired about the luggage, he was told that it was being inspected and that he would have to remain in the area if he wanted to claim it when it was released, and that its return could not be guaranteed if he was not around when it was released. About 30 minutes later, the luggage was returned to the traveler with an apology for the delay. The delay caused the traveler to miss his commuter train to the suburbs, so he had to pay for cab fare. Assuming there are no issues of governmental immunity, can the traveler bring an action against the security officials for false imprisonment? A) Yes, because the traveler suffered harm as a result of the delay in releasing his luggage. B) Yes, because the traveler reasonably believed that he would not get his luggage back if he left the baggage area. C) No, because the traveler was not restrained from leaving the baggage claim area. D) No, because the delay in releasing the luggage was not done for the purpose of restraining the traveler.

In his backyard, a homeowner unwittingly built a garage that encroached two feet across the property line onto property owned by his neighbor. The next year, the homeowner discovered his error in the course of selling his property to a buyer. After the sale, the neighbor learned of the encroachment of the garage onto her property and sued the homeowner for damages and trespass. In this action, will the neighbor prevail? A) No, because the homeowner was not aware of the encroachment when the garage was built. B) No, because the homeowner no longer owns or possesses the garage. C) Yes, because the homeowner knew where the garage was located when he built it, even though he did not know where the property line was. D) Yes, because the homeowner learned of the encroachment when he sold the property to the buyer.

In response to the latest energy crisis, an oil company began testing a new method of extracting oil from certain types of subsurface rock. The process used concentrated sound waves to pulverize the rock and draw out the oil. The tests, conducted in a sparsely populated area, caused heavy vibrations in the ground and the slumping of subsurface earth structures surrounding the test site. This led to the collapse of a water well on a rancher's property. If the rancher brings a negligence action against the oil company, which of the following would be most helpful to the oil company in avoiding liability? A) The subsurface earth structures that collapsed as a result of the tests were unstable before the tests took place. B) The rancher's property is located at such a far distance from the test site that no risk to the rancher was foreseeable. C) The oil company exercised due care in selecting the personnel who chose the test site and conducted the tests. D) The oil company built its test site and conducted the tests in conformity with safety procedures and standards used by all other companies engaged in similar tests.

The defendant, delivering a package at the plaintiff's residence, entered by opening an outside door into a sun porch. He left the door open and crossed the sun porch to ring the bell at an inner door. The plaintiff's one-year-old child, whom the defendant did not see, crawled through the open door, fell down four steps and was injured. In the plaintiff's action as next friend of her child against the defendant for trespass, evidence was admitted that there was no doorbell at the outside door leading to the sun porch. What will be the effect of this evidence? A) It favors the defendant's defense of privilege. B) It favors the defendant's defense of implied consent. C) It favors the defendant's defense of a good faith entry. D) It favors the plaintiff's claim for trespass.

The governor of an arid western state owned a vacation home and permitted his son to have a party there. At the end of the night the son failed to properly extinguish a bonfire that he and his friends had built, and within a few hours, wind-blown cinders had spread the fire to the trees east of the lodge. At the same time several miles away, a worker at a lumber mill was making emergency repairs to a pipe running between two mill buildings. He did not notice some of the sparks from his welding torch land in a pile of dried lumber and catch fire, and he failed to check the area after he was finished. By the time the fire was noticed by another employee, it was out of control. The wind blew both fires toward a landowner's hunting lodge. They merged a mile away and shortly thereafter totally consumed the lodge. For political reasons, the landowner did not bring a lawsuit against the governor or his son. He did, however, file a lawsuit against the lumber mill, alleging that its employee's negligence caused the destruction of his lodge. Evidence at trial established that either fire alone would have destroyed the lodge as well. Can the landowner recover from the lumber mill? A) No, because the landowner's lodge would have been destroyed regardless of the conduct of the lumber mill's employee. B) No, because the damage is indivisible and cannot be apportioned unless the landowner adds the other tortfeasor to the lawsuit. C) Yes, because the negligence of the lumber mill's employee was a cause of the landowner's injury. D) Yes, but the landowner can recover only 50% of his damages from the lumber mill.

The owner of a collection of old anvils lent it to the local museum and hired professional movers to transport the anvils to the second floor of the museum, where they would be displayed. The movers used a rope and pulley apparatus to lift the anvils on the outside of the building to a second-story window. While one of the largest anvils was being lifted, it slipped and fell, crashing to the ground. However, the anvil was not even dented. If the owner brings a negligence action against the movers for allowing the antique anvil to fall, what can the owner recover? A) Nominal damages. B) Punitive damages. C) Both nominal damages and punitive damages. D) Neither nominal damages nor punitive damages.

The owner of a valuable painting hired professional movers to transport it to an auction house when she decided to sell it. As the movers were carrying it to their van, a window air conditioner that a tenant had been trying to install fell out of his second floor window and crashed through the painting and onto the ground. The owner had been watching from her apartment across the street and saw her painting destroyed. She became extremely upset and needed medical treatment for shock. If the owner brings a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the tenant, is she likely to recover? A) Yes, because she suffered physical symptoms from her distress. B) Yes, because she was a foreseeable plaintiff. C) No, because she was not within the zone of danger. D) No, because she suffered no physical impact.

The plaintiff's house was blown up on orders of the town's fire chief to prevent the spread of a fire to the entire town. The plaintiff was thereby prevented from removing personal goods from the house. Assuming the fire chief's conduct was reasonable, what can the plaintiff recover in an action against the town? A) The value of the house but not the personal goods, because personal goods cannot be the subject of eminent domain. B) The value of the personal goods, but not the house, because the house would have been destroyed by the fire anyway. C) Nothing, because the action was taken by a public official. D) Nothing, because the action was for the public good.

The plaintiff, an elderly man, was suspected by the defendant store manager of having stolen goods from the store. The store manager waited until the plaintiff left the store and then sent a clerk out to catch up to the plaintiff. The clerk told the plaintiff that he was suspected of stealing goods and requested that he return to the store for questioning. The plaintiff returned and produced a sales slip for the goods, and the store manager apologized for questioning him. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for false imprisonment. At trial, the plaintiff established the above facts. At the close of the evidence, the defendant moved for a directed verdict on the basis that reasonable persons could find only that the plaintiff consented to return to the store for questioning. How should the trial judge rule? A) Grant the motion, because the defendant's clerk only requested that the plaintiff return to the store. B) Grant the motion, because the plaintiff did not resist either physically or verbally the request that he return to the store. C) Deny the motion, because the plaintiff was elderly. D) Deny the motion, because the defendant store manager caused the plaintiff to be detained.

The superintendent of a waste management company that operated a landfill noted that some children who lived in a nearby residential development had taken to sledding down the snow-covered mounds of dirt that were piled on the site. A construction company needing dirt fill for a highway project had offered to remove the mounds of dirt at minimal cost but the superintendent had not yet arranged for their removal. In the meantime he posted numerous signs around the landfill site that stated in bold letters, "NO TRESPASSING—NO SLEDDING." Despite the signs, which he saw and read, a 10-year-old neighborhood child sledded down one of the mounds of dirt and was propelled onto a busy highway adjacent to the landfill, where he was struck by a car and seriously injured. In a jurisdiction that retains traditional contributory negligence rules, is the waste management company liable for the child's injuries? A) Yes, because the company could have had the piles of dirt removed at minimal cost. B) Yes, because the company created a public nuisance. C) No, because the child was a trespasser. D) No, because the child read and understood the warning signs and appreciated the danger.

When a crowded city bus braked suddenly, the standing passengers were thrown together, and a woman wearing very high-heeled shoes began to stumble. A man who was unacquainted with her kept her from falling by reaching his arm around her waist. If the woman sues the man for battery, will she recover? A) Yes, because the man intended to put his arm around her waist. B) Yes, because the man touched her without her permission. C) No, because the man prevented her from harm. D) No, because his conduct was socially acceptable.

When a diner began choking on a piece of shrimp, a waitress rushed to the diner's assistance. Before she could reach the diner, the waitress slipped on some pudding that a busboy had failed to remove from the floor. The waitress fell on top of another restaurant patron, injuring him. If the injured patron sues the waitress for his injuries, can he recover? A) Yes, because the waitress had no duty to rescue. B) Yes, because the waitress assumed the risk. C) No, because the touching was unintentional. D) No, but he may recover against the restaurant.

Voir tous les ensembles d'études

Torts MBE Questions

Ensembles d'études connexes

Unit Test : Nervous System (part I)

Anatomy and Phys Exam 4

McKenzie MyBizLab Ch.11 Quiz

PHYSICS CONCEPTUAL QUESTIONS: CH 1, 2, 3

math quiz 4.1-4.2

CH. 10 Stockholders' Equity (550-580)

C170 - Data Management Applications

ALG 1B Unit 1: Mid-Year Refresher Lesson 3: Review of Solving Equations

8 Times Table :D

Praxis 5006- Math & Science

BYU APUSH 062 Semester 2 Unit 5 Quiz

chapter 3 practicing individual ethics in organizations personal ethical development

SOCIOLOGY FINAL LETS GOOOO

American Music Final Study

Économie chapitre 8 part 1

Federalist No. 70 (Hamilton)

MAR 4613 Marketing Research Final Exam prep

Inquizitive review for midterm

APES Unit Test

The Language of Anatomy Review Sheet 1