Torts I

Which of the following is an example of an exception to the presence requirement for third persons who bring claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

A child is kidnapped and the parent brings a claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against the kidnapper.

In Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation the court ruled:

Defendant acted reasonably and prudently in availing itself of the plaintiff's property for the purpose of preserving its own more valuable property, but was still liable for the damage caused to the plaintiff's property.

Would likely not be the subject of a tort claim?

A person not making a car payment

Which of the following would likely be an intentional tort?

A person purposefully hurts another person

In Gortarez v Smitty's Super Valu, Inc., the court ruled that:

A shopkeeper's detention of a person suspected of shoplifting is permissible if the shopkeeper has reasonable cause to believe that the person stole items from store, the purpose of the shopkeeper's action was proper, and the detention was carried out in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time.

In O'Guin v. Bingham County, 122 P. 3d 308 (Idaho 2005), the court held that:

A statute and regulation that required the defendant to fence or otherwise block access to a landfill established the defendant's duty under negligence per se and replaced the common law duty of a landowner to trespassers.

Which of following statutes could be used for negligence per se? Question 1 options: a) A statute that defines ski resort liability b) A statute that defines inherent risks in horseback riding c) A statute that makes it a crime to run a stop light. d) All the above

A statute that makes it a crime to run a stop light

In Bradley v. American Smelting Company, the court ruled:

The defendant had the requisite intent to commit trespass to land because it was substantially certain that the particulate matter emitted from the defendant's smokestack would settle to the ground on someone's property.

In Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, the court ruled that:

When multiple defendants could have been the manufacturer of a product that caused of harm, those that cannot prove they were not the actual cause of the harm will be liable for damages based on their market share of sales of the product.

Which of the following accurately states the duty to retreat?

Under the minority view, a person has a duty to retreat when self-defense would require serious bodily injury or death and the person could reasonably retreat instead.

The Learned Hand risk calculus formula is:

A way to try to assess unreasonableness.

Which of the following is not an example of Puffery?

"Satisfaction guaranteed."

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

(1) a material misrepresentation (2) acted with requisite scienter (example: the statement was false or made it with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity); (3) intended to induce reliance; (4) misrepresentation caused plaintiff's justifiable reliance; and (5) pecuniary damages resulted to the plaintiff.

Which of the following is true about strict liability?

- A defendant can be liable even if they did not intend to cause harm - A defendant can be liable even if they used due care - Strict liability claims generally involve dangerous activities, dangerous products, and injuries from animals.

Required for trespass to chattels?

- Actual damage, substantial deprivation, or dispossession. - Interference - Personal property

The purpose of tort law?

- Compensate injured parties - Shift loss to responsible parties - Deter wrongful conduct

Which of the following statements is true regarding safety custom?

- Evidence that defendant violated customary safety precautions of the relevant profession or trade can be used to establish a breach of duty. - Evidence that defendant complied with customary safety precautions of the relevant profession or trade can be used to establish the defendant did not breach the duty care.

Which of the following are differences between torts and crimes?

- The parties involved - The remedies - The burden of proof

A material misrepresentation is:

A fact about something in the past or present that is false and important to the decision that the plaintiff makes about a transaction.

In Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., the court ruled that:

A jury could find that the driver's acts were not a superseding intervening force.

What is a tort?

An act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability.

The defense of others is:

Available if the victim could have successfully asserted self-defense. Available if the defendant made a reasonable mistake as to the need to intervene or defend the third party.

In the Learned Hand risk calculus formula of B < PL what do the B, P and L stand for?

B = burden on the defendant, P = probability of harm, L = likely seriousness of the harm.

Not required for false imprisonment?

Bad motive

Which of the following accurately describes a difference between battery and negligence?

Battery requires intent to touch and negligence requires a breach of duty.

Why did the court in Cosgrove v. Commonwealth Edison Co. find that res ipsa loquitur applied to the defendant responsible for the gas line, but not the defendant responsible for the downed electrical wire?

Because a gas line leaking does not generally occur absent negligence, but other factors like weather can explain a downed electrical wire.

In Snyder v. Turk, why did the court of appeals determine that the trial court erred in granting the directed verdict for the doctor on the claim of battery?

Because a reasonable jury could find that the doctor intended offensive contact.

Which of the following statements is true regarding the role of the jury in deciding whether or not a defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances?

Because reasonableness is a question of fact, the jury usually decides this issue, unless the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could decide a certain way and then the judge can make the decision as a matter of law.

Why were the plaintiff's claims in Baska v. Scherzer considered battery claims and not negligence claims?

Because the defendants intended to hit each other and that intent transfers to the contact to the plaintiff who was an unintended target.

Scott threw a bachelor party for his friend Dave at Dave's house. Scott got very drunk and passed out in the back bedroom. Dave left the house in the middle of the night to get aspirin and, as a joke, locked all the doors and windows to the house so Scott could not leave if he woke up. Unknown to Dave, another guest, Phil, had passed out in the bathroom. Dave was arrested for DUI and did not return to the house until the next day. Scott and Phil awoke and tried to leave the house. Upon realizing they were locked in Scott and Phil got very angry and broke a window to leave the house. If Scott and Phil sue Dave, who will prevail?

Both Scott and Phil, since Dave locked all the windows and doors.

If Dave fails to extinguish a campfire and it spreads overnight and burns down Paul's motorhome, which test would a court use to determine actual cause?

But for

The Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (1853), decision is an example of which defense:

Public necessity

Which actual cause test applies to the following situation: Dan takes his car to Dave's shop to replace the front brakes. After the repair, Dan pulls out into the road and his brakes do not work. Dan swerves to avoid traffic and runs into a street sign knocking it over into oncoming traffic. Derek is driving and cannot stop in time to miss the sign, so he swerves and collides with Paula who is injured.

But-for test.

How do courts determine if a statute or regulation is designed to protect against the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff?

By finding the intent of the statute or regulation.

If Jan is injured when Dale intentionally hits her, which of the following remedies would be the primary way of compensating her for her injuries in a tort case?

Compensatory damages

How is offensive contact defined?

Contact that offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.

Rob had been lusting after Joe's lovingly restored 1968 Mustang Fastback for months. Finding the keys in the car one Saturday, Rob was overcome with his desire for the car and decided to take the Mustang on a drive around the block. Just before turning the final corner to bring the car back, Rob decided to show the car off to his friends before returning it. After driving around town showing off the car for an hour, Rob realized that he had better return the car before Joe noticed that the car was missing. As Rob was headed back to return the car to Joe, Rob decided to race another car that pulled up next to him at a stoplight. While racing, Rob lost control of the Mustang and collided with a utility pole - totally destroying Joe's Mustang. Rob is liable for:

Conversion, because Rob either substantially interfered with Joe's possession of the Mustang, or completely deprived Joe of possession of the Mustang.

What type of remedy in a tort case is primarily designed to deter wrongful conduct?

Punitive damages

Which of the following is an example of a material misrepresentation causing reliance by a plaintiff?

Dan wants to rent an apartment to Paul. Paul tells Dan that he needs peace and quiet and asks whether the neighbors are loud. Dan tells Paul that the neighbors are quiet which is not true. Paul talks it over with his girlfriend and decides to rent the apartment because Dan said the neighbors were quiet and his girlfriend liked the apartment.

At her best friend's wedding Debbie stood up and objected to the marriage since she had slept with the groom the night before. Although uncomfortable with the news the bride was still willing to marry her fiancée. Debbie then stood up and started going into details about the liaison. The wedding was called off and the bride spent 6 weeks in therapy. Once she completed therapy the bride sues Debbie for intentional infliction of emotional distress. If the bride prevails, it will most likely be because:

Debbie stood up and went into details about the relations she had with the groom in front of the guests.

n Travelers Insurance Co. v. Smith, the court:

Determined that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict that the defendants should have known that their actions would cause deep and severe emotional distress to the plaintiffs, and that they acted in reckless disregard of that fact.

Joker was invited to a cocktail party at the home of Host. Joker knew that Host was terribly afraid of mice so Joker brought his pet mouse in his pocket to the party intending to play a joke on Host in the middle of the party by letting the mouse run across the dinner table when everyone was seated. Spoiler, another party guest, found out about Joker's plan to let the mouse run across the dinner table and immediately informed Host right after Joker sat down at the table. Host was relieved, but had to retire to the bedroom and lie down when Host thought about how close Host had come to having her entire party ruined by Joker. If Host brings a lawsuit against Joker for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Host will need to prove the following in order to recover damages: I. Joker intended to physically injure Host. II. Joker's conduct was extreme and outrageous. III. Host must have suffered severe mental distress. IV. Host must have suffered some type of physical injury.

II and III.

Based on your reading of the Pipher v. Parsell case, which statement does not represent any of the legal principles of breach of duty considered by the court?

If actions of a passenger that cause an accident are not foreseeable, negligence is still attributed to the driver.

According to the court in Garratt v. Dailey, how could Bryan Dailey's intent to commit harmful or offensive contact be shown?

If he moved the chair when the person was in the act of sitting down in the chair, or if he moved the chair when he was substantially certain that the person would try to sit down where the chair had been.

In Totsky v. Riteway Bus Service, the court ruled that the statute at issue:

Implicitly protected motorists from harm by requiring motorists to stop at stop signs.

Why did the court in Cosgrove v. Commonwealth Edison Co. find that a downed power line was not likely the result of negligence and the court in Koch v. Norris Public Power District find that a downed power line was the likely result of negligence.

In in Cosgrove, there was some evidence that other forces such as weather could have caused the downed wire, while in Koch there were not alternative explanations.

What are the required elements of battery?

Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact and harmful or offensive contact results.

Which of the following statements is correct with regard to intentional or criminal intervening acts?

Intentional or criminal intervening acts often break the chain of causation.

What are the three main types of torts?

Intentional torts, negligence, strict liability

What is the significant difference between intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic relations?

Interference with contract requires a valid contract while interference with prospective economic relations requires a legitimate economic expectancy.

Which of the following is true about negligence per se?

It can establish the standard of care and a breach of the standard of care.

Which of the following statements is true regarding res ipsa loquitur?

It is a form of circumstantial evidence to aid plaintiff in establishing unreasonable conduct.

Which of the following cases stated that a land owner cannot use a spring gun that that will cause death or serious bodily injury against a person who is about to enter their premises unless the invasion threatens death or serious bodily harm to the land occupiers or users?

Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971).

The defendant's conduct in GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce did not involve which of the following?

Knowledge of plaintiff's vulnerability.

Dan and Paul are neighbors. Dan asks Paul if he can build a shed in an area that is where their property abuts, so it would be on Dan's property, but would also be on Paul's property. Paul just stares at Dan for a moment and then walks away. Did Paul consent to Dan building the shed?

No, because Paul's actions do not objectively manifest consent.

Dale is out hunting with his friends. He has his gun out and loaded and forgets to put the safety on as he is walking. He trips and falls and the gun goes off and a shell hits his friend about 20 yards away. Did Dale commit battery?

No, because his actions were not voluntary or intentional.

Dan is trying to sell a car to Paul and he tells Paul that the car has 98,000 miles on it when the car's odometer shows that it has 198,000 miles on it. Paul inspects the car and takes it for a test drive and the odometer is in clear view of Paul during this time. Is his reliance on Dan's statement about the mileage justifiable?

No, because reliance is justifiable when it is reasonable based on the circumstances and here Paul could easily see the actual mileage of the car.

A patient gives permission for a blood transfusion necessary for surgery on the condition that the blood comes from family donated blood. After the patient is unconscious the hospital realizes that it cannot locate the family donated blood, so it uses other blood. The plaintiff contracts a blood borne illness and sues for battery. Can the defendant successfully claim consent as a defense?

No, because the blood transfusion exceeded the scope of the consent.

Can the North Carolina Statute, § 20-158, in your assigned reading be used to establish negligence per se?

No, because the statute expressly states that it is not to be used to establish negligence per se.

A intends to hit B with ink and misses, but hits C's book instead, completely destroying the book. Can the defendant be held liable for conversion?

No, because transferred intent is not applicable to conversion.

John operated a construction supply store. He is very knowledgeable about all types of construction and the necessary tools required for any project. Walt came into John's store asking how to build a patio and what tools were necessary. John explained everything to Walt and referred him to the proper aisle. While choosing wood saws Walt overheard two men talking. One man said to the other that John had recommended the Steel electric saw for cutting even pieces of wood. After hearing this Walt decided to buy the Steel electric saw the man pointed out, even though it was not the one he had been told to buy in his previous discussions with John. Walt also purchased the wood and stain John told him to buy. Walt spent three weeks building the patio. During that time the wood and equipment stood outside in the driveway. As a result the wood became brittle and was difficult to nail. The saw did not function as well as Walt expected and the patio was a complete failure. Walt went back to John's store and demanded a refund. He yelled at the top of his voice that John was an ignorant construction person and that everything he recommended failed. John asked Walt to leave several times before having him thrown out of the store. Several people left the store after witnessing Walt's tirade. Walt is seeking damages due to misrepresentation by John. Will he prevail?

No, since John was honest when he told Walt how to build a patio.

Jason was found on the floor of the public library unconscious and not breathing. Robert, an employee of the library, called 911 and performed CPR until the paramedics arrived. Unbeknownst to anyone, Jason was trying to kill himself because his favorite PBS television show was taken off the air. Jason could not live in a world without watching "Books from Small Countries." Jason is very angry at Robert and sues him for saving him. Will Jason prevail?

No.

Dale and Ferguson were sitting in a coffee shop watching a television program about a controversial political issue when Dale reached out and grabbed Ferguson's shirt. Ferguson pushed Dale and knocked Dale down. Perris, another coffee shop patron, attempted to get between Ferguson and Dale to break up the fight. While attempting to strike Ferguson, Dale swung his fist and struck Perris. Perris brought a battery action against Dale. In this suit, which of the following defenses will be successful if asserted by Dale against Perris? I. Perris was a stranger to Dale and Ferguson with no legal obligation to break up the fight. II. Dale did not intend to strike Perris. III. Dale did not intend to strike Ferguson, only to frighten Ferguson.

None of the above

Which of the following statements is true regarding deviation from custom?

Part of the analysis is whether or not the practice is widespread enough that defendant knew or should have known of the custom.

Regarding multiple defendants in res ipsa loquitur case, which of the following statements is true?

Plaintiff will have a better chance of establishing a res ipsa case if simultaneous control of the relevant instrumentality by two or more defendants is established rather than if consecutive control of the relevant instrumentality is established.

In Collins v. Superior Air Ground Ambulance Service, the court ruled that:

Res ipsa loquitur applied because the plaintiff established that the injury occurred when one of both of the defendants were in control and responsible for the plaintiff's well-being.

Under which of the legal theories listed below can a defendant be held liable for causing harm to plaintiff despite the fact that defendant's actions were not a but-for cause of the harm?

Respondeat superior.

Which case, in the assigned reading, held that the technical legal injury concept (which permits recovery of nominal damages) does not apply to negligence actions?

Right v. Breen, 890 A.2d 1287 (Conn. 2006).

Which of the following is not required for trespass to land?

Substantial deprivation or dispossession of property

Which one of the following tests for actual cause will a court usually apply when there are multiple defendants and redundant causes of plaintiff's harm?

Substantial factor test.

In Hale v. Ostrow, the court ruled:

That both the owner of the sidewalk and the owner of the bushes could be the but for cause of the plaintiff's harm.

Which of the following is not a requirement of res ipsa loquitur?

That the defendant was probably not negligent.

In defense of one's property, an individual may use:

The amount of force reasonably necessary to overcome resistance and expel the intruder.

Regarding the process and effects of res ipsa loquitur, which of the following statements is true?

The basic application of res ipsa loquitur is that the case will be given to the jury and then it will be up to the jury to finally determine if there was a breach of duty and negligence.

In the case of Summers v. Tice, the court held that

The burden of proof regarding causation is shifted to the defendants to prove that they were not the cause of plaintiff's injury.

In determining the standard of care to be applied to children in a case involving a statutory violation and negligence per se, most jurisdictions hold:

The child standard of care should be applied, unless the child was engaged in an adult activity at which point the statutory negligence per se standard should be applied.

Which of the following demonstrate the required intent to commit harmful or offensive contact?

The defendant desired contact with the plaintiff, or it was substantially certain that contact would occur.

In Indiana Consolidated v. Mathew, why did the court rule that the defendant did not breach the duty of care to the plaintiff by starting a lawnmower inside the plaintiff's garage?

The defendant did not do anything unreasonable in starting the mower and the garage was built to have machines and cars started in it, so it a fire was not likely to happen.

Scienter for fraudulent misrepresentation means that:

The defendant knew that the representation was false or acted with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.

Why did the defendant's touching and seeing the women unclothed in Cohen v. Smith constitute offensive contact?

The defendant was aware that the women had not consented to being seen unclothed or touched by a man.

In Wal-Mart Stores v. Mitchell:

The defendant's actions were not justified because they exceeded the authority to detain provided in the state statute.

Which of the following statements best describes the court's ruling in Medcalf v. Washington Heights?

The defendant's failure to maintain the intercom system was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm.

Which of the following statement is true regarding res ipsa loquitur?

The doctrine does not apply when there is direct evidence to establish breach of duty.

Which of the following best represents the Supreme Court of Indiana's holding in Cullison v. Medley?

The facts alleged and testified to could allow a reasonable jury to find the defendants liable for assault.

Based upon your reading of the United States v. Carroll Towing Co. case, which statement below regarding the Learned Hand "Risk Calculus" formula was not true?

The formula was intended to be inflexible.

Why did the court in Koch v. Norris Public Power District find that res ipsa loquitur applied to a downed power line.

The line fell without explanation and if a line falls without explanation, it must have been negligently constructed or maintained.

Based on your reading of the of the Giles v. City of New Haven case, which of the following best addresses the issue of control in res ipsa loquitur cases?

The plaintiff's use of the item does not preclude control by the defendant.

In McCann v. Wal-Mart, the court ruled that:

The plaintiffs were confined because the defendant's actions were enough to induce a reasonable person to believe that they could not leave the store.

Based on the fact pattern in the prior problem, if Dan builds the shed on Paul's land without asking for consent, what tort would he be committing?

Trespass to land

In Jacobson v. Hofgard, which statements were considered material misrepresentations?

The statement that the Townhouse was "newly renovated." The statement that the Townhouse had an "English Basement set up with full kitchen."

Before a statute can be used to provide the standard of care under a negligence per se theory, the judge must determine which one of the following?

The statute was designed to address the type of harm the plaintiff suffered.

Doug sees Peter playing with his new hand held computer game while at school. Doug watches as Peter saves the planet from evil space demons, and gets very excited about the game. In his excitement Doug grabs the game away from Peter and returns it in a few minutes after playing a game. Peter sues Doug. If Peter does not prevail, it will be because:

There was no damage to the computer game.

In Alyeska Pipeline v. Aurora Air Service, the court ruled that:

There was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could properly find that Alyeska was acting out of ill will towards Aurora, rather than to protect a legitimate business interest.

Timmy and Tommy are two ten-year olds who found a can of black spray paint and were spraying paint on the wall of a commercial building. Shopper, a customer coming out of the building, came outside and saw the two boys spraying the paint on the side of the building. Timmy saw Shopper approaching and ran off. Before Tommy could run, Shopper was standing behind him. Tommy put the spray can down. Shopper lowered his voice and told Tommy, "You know that you shouldn't be doing this...come with me." Tommy dutifully followed Shopper and they both walked back toward the entrance of the commercial building. Just as they were approaching the entrance, Tommy turned and ran home. Tommy told his parents what happened and they brought a false imprisonment suit, on Tommy's behalf, against Shopper. If Shopper prevails, it will most likely be because

Tommy did not reasonably believe that force might be used if he tried to escape.

When an insurance company engages in a bad faith refusal to pay for the insured when the insured has suffered a loss and the insurer has a greater leverage over its claimant, which one of the following tort claims is the most likely to allow claimant to recover?

Tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Which of the following best describes a breach of duty?

When a defendant does not act as a reasonable person would in the same or similar circumstances.

When is something considered foreseeable for purposes of a breach of duty?

When a reasonable person would foresee the harm is likely to happen.

A violation of a criminal statute will be excused by most jurisdictions under which one of the following circumstances?

When compliance with the statute would have required greater danger than the violation.

When is an intervening force considered superseding?

When it is extraordinary.

When is a plaintiff's emotional distress considered severe emotional distress?

When no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.

Under which of the following circumstances is a defendant's intentional interference with contract or prospective economic relations most likely to be deemed justified and not actionable?

When the defendant acts in good faith to protect his own legally protected interest.

A is within striking range of B and strikes out at B, but B is confident that she can move to avoid A's contact. Is A liable for assault?

Yes, because B was aware of A's attempted contact.

Dale is taking a walk on a trail with his friends. They are way ahead of him and he decides to throw a rock and hit Mark so that his friends will realize that he is far behind. The rock hits Paula instead, but she is not seriously injured. Did Dale commit battery?

Yes, because Dale intended to hit Mark with the rock and that intent transfers to over to Paula.

Dale is taking a walk on a trail with his friends. They are way ahead of him and he decides to throw a rock and hit Mark so that his friends will realize that he is far behind. It is a very small rock and Dale does not intend to hurt Mark. He just wants to get his attention. The rock hits Mark in the head and causes serious injuries. Is Dale liable for these injuries?

Yes, because a defendant can be liable for harm that is worse than intended.

A defendant removes an unconscious patient from a respiratory machine and wheels her out of her room and into an elevator in an effort to leave the hospital. The elevator takes a few minutes to get to the bottom floor. During this time, the patient remains unconscious, goes into cardiac arrest and struggles to breathe. When they reach the bottom floor hospital workers discover the patient and are able to resuscitate her, put her back on a respiratory machine, and take her back to her room. The patient remains unconscious throughout all of it. Can the Defendant be held liable for false imprisonment?

Yes, because the patient went into cardiac arrest and had difficulty breathing.

Dilly is the town's "honorary mayor" and well-known practical joker. Dilly discovered that a major east coast bank was going to locate a branch office in town and was sending a bank vice-president, Prude, to meet the town's business leaders and become acquainted with the area. Dilly called Prude and told him to meet Dilly at a local restaurant where Dilly would introduce Prude to all the local business leaders and show him around the area. Prude arrived at the restaurant and sat at the restaurant counter to wait for Dilly to arrive. Dilly came into the restaurant and saw Prude sitting with his back turned at the counter. Dilly came up from behind and yelled "put your hands on the counter and spread 'em!" When Prude attempted to protest, Dilly yelled "be quiet, you are under arrest for bank robbery!" When Prude put his hands on the counter, Dilly frisked Prude and conducted a pat-down search of Prude's shirt and pants. At the end of the search, Dilly started to laugh and yelled, "Gotcha!" Everyone in the restaurant began to laugh. Prude then discovered that he had been the victim of a practical joke. Frightened, humiliated and embarrassed, Prude brought suit against Dilly seeking damages. Will Prude recover?

Yes, for false imprisonment and battery.

Sam was a regular at Mary's Bar. He and the other regulars had a joke routine they used whenever a likely stranger walked in. One patron would say "Officer, that's the one", and Sam would pretend to be the local sheriff and place the stranger under arrest for robbery. When newcomer Dave walked in, the gang began the routine and Sam, using his fake sheriff's badge, told Dave he was under arrest and made him raise his hands and clasp them behind his head. Dave seemed upset, but Sam refused to let him move, again repeating that he was the sheriff. As the other patrons crowded around, jeering and laughing, Dave, overcome, began to faint. As he started to fall, Sam caught him and lowered him to the ground. Dave soon recovered and the joke was explained. Even though the crowd offered to buy him a drink, he remained upset and sued Sam. Will Dave recover?

Yes, for false imprisonment.

Xenophobia is a small rural town in a remote area of State Green. Most of the residents of Xenophobia have lived in the town for their entire lives and they are not friendly to strangers or new residents. Stranger and his family moved to Xenophobia to protect them from a violent civil war that erupted in their homeland, Alienation. One week after moving into Xenophobia, Stranger received a signed letter from all the members of the Xenophobia Town Council which stated that "You have 3 days to pack up your things and go back where you came from...or else you and your family may experience a horrible accident." If Stranger brings suit against the members of the Xenophobia Town Council, will Stranger recover damages?

Yes, if Stranger suffered severe emotional distress.

If a product manufacturer complies with all the statutory and regulatory requirements, can they still be liable for negligent failure to warn about the risks of harm from the product?

Yes, it is possible to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements and still not meet the general standard of care in a negligence case.

A and B owned two adjacent lots. Both parties had begun construction of a house and garage on their lot. Unknown to either party, A's garage, when completed, would encroach onto B's land by three feet. After he had finished construction of the house and garage (which did in fact encroach onto B's land by three feet when completed), A sold the house, garage and lot to Davis. Two weeks later, B discovered that the garage on Davis' property encroached onto B's land. B brought a suit for trespass to land against A. Will B prevail?

Yes, regardless of whether A knew or had reason to know of the encroachment.

Joint and several liability permits which of the following results?

a) Plaintiff can enforce an entire judgment against any of the defendants individually. b) If one defendant pays more than his proportional share of liability, he can seek contribution for the excess from the remaining defendants.

Joint tortfeasors include which of the following groups?

a) Two or more individuals who act independently but cause a single, indivisible tortious injury to the plaintiff. b) Two or more individuals who act in concert to commit a tort which causes injury to the plaintiff. c) Two or more individuals who share legal responsibility for a tort under a theory of vicarious liability.

At the county fair, Ann dropped Larry's pie as she attempted to put the pie on display at the apple pie contest. The pie was ruined and could not be entered in the contest. Larry suspected that Ann's mishandling of the pie was no accident. Larry decided to pay Ann back by destroying Ann's pie by knocking her pie from her hands before the judging. Rushing up behind Ann in the crowd at the fair, Larry yelled her name. Ann spun around in time to see Larry swinging his fist at Ann who quickly ducked just in time to avoid Larry's fist. Larry's fist missed the pie and Ann, striking Vern - one of the pie contest judges who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Neither Ann nor her pie suffered any harm as a result of Larry's attack. In a suit brought by Ann and Vern seeking damages, Larry is liable for:

both the assault of Ann and battery of Vern.

A superseding intervening force

breaks the chain of causation.

A plaintiff may show the intent element of a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress by proving the defendant engaged in

either intentional or reckless conduct.

Alan and Bob worked for the ACME Company as sales associates and sat next to each other on the sales floor. After Bob left work one day, Alan decided to "play a joke" on Bob and loosened all the screws on Bob's desk chair so it would not support him when he returned to work the next day. When Bob came into work the next morning, he pulled out his chair and attempted to sit down. The chair collapsed and Bob fell to the floor. Alan and his co-workers stood up, applauded and began to laugh uncontrollably while pointing at Bob. Bob was humiliated, turned bright red and quickly left the building. Bob was unable to return to his employment with ACME because of recurrent flashbacks and emotional trauma. Bob began treatment with a psychologist who causally connected his fragile emotional state to his employment incident at ACME. Bob subsequently files a lawsuit against Alan and asserts a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bob's claim will most likely

fail, if Alan's conduct was not "extreme and outrageous."

Hus and Wif are married and suffering from marital difficulties. Wif sought counseling from Therapist, a licensed family counselor. After several weeks of counseling in which Wif told Therapist about the intimate details of her marital problems with Hus, Wif and Therapist began a consensual sexual relationship. After several months, Hus discovered that Wif and Therapist were having an affair and instituted a divorce action against Wif. Wif broke off the relationship with Therapist and had to seek a psychiatrist to treat her for depression and other mental trauma. After the divorce decree is entered, Wif brought an action against Therapist. The best theory for Wif to assert in order to recover damages from Therapist would be

intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Paul was invited to attend a party hosted by Serena. Unknown to Paul, Serena had also invited Darlene. Darlene and Paul were enemies who had vowed to kill each other on sight. Paul arrived at Serena's party first and was standing in the kitchen when he saw Darlene enter the front door. Paul went out the back door to retrieve his pistol from the car, intending to come back into the party and shoot Darlene. Paul brought the pistol into the house and attempted to move close enough to Darlene to fire a shot at her while Darlene could see who was shooting her. Before Paul could pull the trigger, a police officer grabbed Paul, quietly disarmed him and removed Paul from the party. An inspection of the pistol at the police station determined that it was not loaded. The following day, Darlene called to thank Serena for inviting her to the party. Darlene then learned for the first time that Paul had attended the party and had been disarmed while trying to get into position to shoot Darlene. Shocked at how close she came to death, Darlene suffered a heart attack and was rushed to the hospital. If Darlene brings an action for assault against Paul, Darlene will:

not recover, because Darlene was not aware of Paul's conduct at the time of the threat to her life.

Dribble loved to play basketball. He would often wait around the basketball court near his home for hours, hoping to get involved in a game with other visitors to the court. One day, Dribble was asked to play basketball with three other boys his same age. He gladly accepted, and the four played for hours. However, the more the four boys played, the more physical the contact became under the basket as each boy pushed and shoved the others to gain the best position. The boys finally agreed that they would play one more game and then quit for the day. Dribble was determined that he and his teammate would prevail in the final game. The game was a close, hard-fought battle, and the two teams were tied with the next team to sink a basket winning the game. Dribble's teammate shot the basketball but missed. Dribble was determined that he would get the rebound on the missed shot but Potter, who played for the opposing team, had superior position under the basket. As the ball was falling off of the rim of the basket, Dribble elbowed Potter in the back, causing Potter to fall on the pavement and severely scrape his knee and elbow. Dribble got the rebound and made a basket, winning the game for his team. If Potter brings an action against Dribble for battery, Potter will

not recover, unless Dribble intentionally tried to push Potter using force in excess of that which Potter and the other players consented to by participating in the game.

D was driving home when a violent thunderstorm began. D considered pulling over and waiting for the storm to pass, but since he was only one-half mile from home, D decided to continue driving. Just as D turned onto his street, a bolt of lightning struck a tree causing it to fall in front of D's car. In order to miss hitting the tree, D swerved and ran his car up onto P's yard. In so doing, D's car destroyed several of P's prize-winning rose bushes. If P sues D for the damage caused to P's rose bushes, P will

recover, D entered the land of P for his own private benefit even though it was necessary to avoid a greater evil.

While observing a television broadcast one evening in his living room, Civic watched intently as the picture of an escaped prisoner was displayed. The prisoner was described as armed and dangerous. The following day, Civic was at the shopping mall when he spotted a man, Felon, who matched the description of the escaped prisoner. Civic casually walked near Felon to get a closer look. When Felon saw Civic approach, he turned and walked quickly toward the shopping mall exit to the parking lot. Civic ran after Felon and reached into his jacket and pulled out a gun and yelled at Felon to "stop or I'll shoot!" When Felon appeared to reach into his jacket and turn to face Civic, Civic shot at Felon. The bullet missed and struck Stewart, another shopper who was entering the mall through the same doorway that Felon was attempting to use to exit the mall. The police arrived and it was determined that Civic was mistaken because Felon was not an escaped felon and he was not armed -- although Felon did bear a strong resemblance to the escaped felon whose picture was broadcast on the television program Civic had seen the night before. If Felon brings an action for assault against Civic, he will

recover, if Felon reasonably suspected that he was about to be shot.