TORTS
A man was drinking at a bar. He started arguing with the man sitting next to him, and the verbal argument quickly escalated into a physical altercation. The two men began punching each other, and then one of the men put on brass knuckles and started to hit the other man. The bartender quickly grabbed a knife from behind the bar, and tried to break up the fight between the two men. The man with the brass knuckles punched the bartender repeatedly. The bartender responded by trying to stab him. However, he accidentally stabbed a woman next to him instead. The woman has filed a battery claim against the bartender to recover damages for the stabbing. Who will prevail? A The bartender, because he was trying to protect himself from the man. B The bartender, because he did not intend to stab the woman with the knife. C The woman, because the bartender's intent to stab the man transferred to her. D The woman, because the bartender was required to retreat before using deadly force.
Answer choice A is correct. A person may use deadly force to defend himself if he has a reasonable belief that force sufficient to cause serious bodily injury or death is about to be intentionally inflicted upon him. In this case, the woman will not prevail because the bartender's use of deadly force, stabbing her with a knife, was reasonable to defend himself from the man's attack using brass knuckles.
An elderly couple was walking down a street in a busy shopping and business district. The husband crossed the street to buy a bottle of water from a convenience store for his wife. While the wife waited across the street, she noticed a construction worker standing on scaffolding directly above the entrance to the convenience store. As the husband exited the convenience store, the construction worker and the scaffolding suddenly crashed down on top of the husband, seriously injuring him. The wife immediately fainted and hit her head on the sidewalk. As a result, she sustained a severe concussion. The wife filed suit against the construction worker for damages resulting from her emotional distress. At trial, it was established that the scaffolding collapsed due to the construction worker's negligence. Is the wife likely to prevail? A Yes, because the wife fainted and suffered a concussion after watching the scaffolding seriously injure her husband. B No, because the harm to the wife was not reasonably foreseeable. C No, because there was no threat of physical impact to the wife when the scaffolding fell across the street. D No, because the construction worker did not intend to cause any harm to the wife.
Answer choice A is correct. A plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress from a defendant whose tortious conduct placed the defendant in harm's way if the plaintiff demonstrates that: (i) he was within the "zone of danger" of the threatened physical impact—that he feared for his own safety because of the defendant's negligence; and (ii) the threat of physical impact caused emotional distress. However, a bystander plaintiff who is outside the zone of danger can still recover if she is closely related to the person injured by the defendant, she was present at the scene of the injury, and she personally observed (or otherwise perceived) it. Here, the wife suffered physical injury when she fainted and suffered a concussion after the scaffolding fell on top of her husband. Although the wife was not within the zone of danger, as she was across the street, she was present at the scene of the injury, closely related to the injured party, and personally observed her husband being injured by the scaffolding. Thus, she can recover as a bystander under a theory of NIED.
A man liked to exercise late at night in the gym located in his condominium. As he entered the gym one night, he heard a woman screaming for help. The man rushed over to the woman, who was trapped under an 80-pound barbell. The man lifted the barbell off the woman, but injured his back in his rush to help the woman. The woman thanked the man, and told him that she knew she should not have been lifting the barbell by herself because it was too heavy for someone her size. The man has brought a negligence action against the woman to recover for his back injury. Will he prevail? A Yes, because the man's actions were reasonable given the woman's need for help. B Yes, because the woman failed to exercise reasonable care. C No, because the man had no affirmative duty to help the woman. D No, because the man's own negligence was the cause of his injury.
Answer choice B is correct. A person who comes to the aid of another is a foreseeable plaintiff, and a person who negligently puts herself in danger is liable for her rescuer's injuries. Here, the woman negligently put herself in danger because she was lifting a barbell that was too heavy for her size by herself.
A college student and her roommate regularly shared their clothing with one another. One day, when the roommate returned to their dorm room after class, she discovered that the college student was taking a nap in a blouse that the college student knew the roommate planned to wear to a party that evening. Not wanting to wake her up, the roommate quietly unbuttoned the blouse without touching the college student. Realizing that she would not be able to get the blouse off without waking her up, the roommate gave up. Later, when the college student woke up and noticed the buttons on her blouse were undone, she accused the roommate of trying to undress her. If the college student files a suit against the roommate for battery, is she likely to succeed? A Yes, because the college student suffered actual harm. B Yes, because the college student did not consent to the roommate taking the blouse off her. C No, because the college student was asleep when the roommate tried to unbutton the blouse. D No, because the roommate did not touch the college student when she tried to unbutton the blouse.
Answer choice B is correct. One is liable for battery when he intentionally causes a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another and acts with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension of such contact. Contact with the plaintiff's person includes contact with anything closely connected to the plaintiff's person. Here, the roommate intentionally tried to take the blouse off the college student without her permission, which is an offensive contact. The blouse was connected to the college student because she was wearing it. Thus, touching the blouse constituted contact with the college student's person.
A plaintiff was injured when he fell in the parking lot of a chemical plant. The chemical plant, located in an uninhabited area, stored dangerous toxic chemicals that needed to be specially contained. The chemical plant exercised the utmost care in maintaining and containing the chemicals. At the time of his injury, the plaintiff was walking towards the entrance of the chemical plant. Distracted by his cell phone ringing, the plaintiff stepped into a pothole and twisted his knee. The plaintiff brought a strict liability action against the chemical plant, seeking damages for his injury. The plaintiff can establish that the plant failed to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the parking lot. Can the plaintiff recover? A No, because the chemical plant exercised the utmost care in conducting its storage activities. B No, because the plaintiff's injury did not result from an abnormally dangerous activity. C Yes, because the chemical plant didn't exercise reasonable care in maintaining the parking lot. D Yes, because the chemical plant engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.
Answer choice B is correct. Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity exists only if the harm that occurs results from the risk that made the activity abnormally dangerous. In this case, stepping into a pothole caused the plaintiff's injury. The injury did not result from toxic chemicals escaping from the storage facility (i.e., the risk that made the operation of the chemical plant abnormally dangerous). Therefore, the plaintiff cannot recover in a strict liability action against the chemical plant for the injury to his knee.
A college professor was administering an exam to her students. After all but one of the students completed the exam and left the room, the college professor locked the classroom door and told the remaining student that she would fail him out of the class if he did not solve every problem on the exam. The professor did not know that the student was diabetic. Because the professor had a well-known reputation for failing students who did not complete her exams, the student did not ask the professor to unlock the door and stayed an extra half-hour in order to solve the last problem. Due to the delay, the student missed his scheduled dinner and his blood glucose began to drop as he tried to rush home. As he waited for the subway, the student lost consciousness and fell off the platform and onto the electric rails. The student filed a claim for false imprisonment against the professor to recover damages for the severe electrical burns he sustained. Who will prevail? A The professor, because the professor's actions were not the proximate cause of the student's injuries. B The professor, because the student's loss of consciousness and injuries were unforeseeable. C The student, because the professor intended to confine him to the classroom. D The student, because the professor's use of future threats constitutes confinement.
Answer choice C is correct. False imprisonment results when a person acts (i) intending to confine or restrain another within boundaries fixed by the actor; (ii) those actions directly or indirectly result in such confinement; and (iii) the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it. In this case, the professor, who had a reputation for failing students, intended to confine the student in the classroom as evidenced by the fact that she locked the classroom door. The professor's actions directly resulted in confining the student, and the student was aware of the confinement. Thus, the professor can be held liable for false imprisonment.
