Torts II Resource Quizzes

(Module 7) (Question 1) Which of the following is not a category used under the common law status approach to determine a landowner's duty of care to people that come onto their property? a) A special relationship. b) Trespasser. c) Licensee. d) Invitee.

A. A special relationship is relevant for the duty to control, or the duty to protect in other contexts, but it is not relevant in the context of a landowner's duty to those that come onto their property. Answers b, c, and d are incorrect because they are the different categories used in the status approach.

(Module 13) (Question 4) When is something a nuisance per se? a) When it is intrinsically dangerous or unreasonable, or generally known to be injurious to health, or to cause damage to property, regardless of how it may be carried on. b) When a reasonable person would view the actions as nuisance all of the time. c) When it is a substantial and unreasonable interference. d) When it involves both trespass and nuisance.

A. Answer b and d are not part of the analysis for nuisance per se. Answer c is part of the requirements for nuisance, but not a factor in what distinguishes a nuisance from a nuisance per se.

(Module 5) (Question 5) Dan is out driving home late at night. He hits a deer with his car. He gets out, assesses the damage to his car, and sees the deer lying dead in the middle of the road. He notices that the deer is very large and he is grateful that his car did not have more damage. He then leaves to go home because he is tired. Peter comes by about 30 minutes later. He does not see the dead deer in the road in time to stop, and crashes into it. Which of the following is true? a) Dan created a peril. He had a duty to remove the deer, or call for help. b) Dan did not create a peril. He had no duty to remove the deer or call for help. c) Dan getting out of his car to see the deer is an attempted rescue, and created a duty to act reasonably which Dan satisfied by not making the deer worse off than when he found it. d) Dan created a peril by hitting the deer, but he met his duty to act by getting out of the car and seeing that the deer was dead and too large to move.

A. Answer b is incorrect because Dan did create a peril by hitting the deer and leaving it out in the road. Dan should know that his conduct will likely result in harm to another, and he has a duty to render assistance to prevent further harm. Answer c is incorrect because the attempted rescue doctrine would not apply to efforts to rescue the deer and Dan did not find the deer dead in the middle of the road. Rather, he caused the deer to be dead in the middle of the road. Answer d is not correct because Dan has an obligation is to act reasonably to prevent further harm, and leaving the deer out in the middle of the road does not meet that obligation. There are steps that Dan could take if the deer was too big to move including marking the area for other motorists to see, or calling the authorities.

(Module 2) (Question 3) In In re Barran, the court ruled that a pledge to a fraternity assumed the risk of harm from being hazed because: a) He voluntarily pledged to the fraternity, continued to return to the fraternity to participate in the hazing incidents, and rejected help from his parents and the school. b) He signed a waiver form releasing the fraternity from liability. c) His injuries were not significant. d) All of the above.

A. Answer b is incorrect because a release form was not mentioned in the case. Similarly, the extent of the plaintiff's injuries was not an issue in the case, so answer c is incorrect. Answer d is incorrect because answers b and c are incorrect.

(Module 4) (Question 4) Which of the following is used to establish the standard of care in professional negligence? a) Customary or accepted practices used by professionals. b) Expert testimony about what the expert would do in a given situation. c) Evidence about what a reasonable person would do. d) All of the above.

A. Answer b is incorrect because expert testimony about what an expert would do does not establish the standard of care. Rather, the expert must testify to the customary or accepted practices to establish what a minimally competent physician would do. Answer c is incorrect because the reasonable person standard does not apply in professional negligence cases. Answer d is incorrect because answers b and c are incorrect answers.

(Module 10) (Question 1) Dan owns goats. He spent a lot of time and money on building a fence to keep them from getting out. One of the goats gets out and goes over to the neighbor's property. The neighbor has never seen a real goat before and does not know anything about them. He thinks the goat is cute and tries to pet it. The goat rams into the neighbor's knee and causes torn ligaments. Is Dan strictly liable for the harm? a) Yes, if that type of behavior is characteristic of goats, or if Dan knew or had reason to know that the goat engaged in that kind of behavior. b) Yes, because harm is presumed. c) No, because Dan exercised due care d) No, because the neighbor assumed the risk.

A. Answer b is incorrect because harm is not presumed for harm to people, just property. Answer c is correct because whether or not Dan exercised due care is irrelevant for this strict liability analysis. Answer d is incorrect because assumption of the risk requires actual knowledge of the risk. Here, the facts state that the neighbor did not know anything about goats, so the neighbor would not have been able to assume the risk of harm from a goat. Unlike wild animals, there is not a presumption that livestock are dangerous.

(Module 12) (Question 4) Peter lives next door to a golf course. One of the windows in the back of his house is frequently broken by golf balls that go off course and hit the window. The glass then shatters into the house and is difficult to clean up. One time, the glass injured Peter's daughter. Peter goes online and searches for a shatterproof glass window to replace it with. He finds one that says "Can sustain any impact and will not shatter under the worst of conditions." Peter buys the glass and has it installed. The next time a golf ball hits the window, the glass breaks and shatters. Which of the following claims is the most likely to be successful? a) Express warranty. b) Implied warranty of merchantability. c) Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. d) All of the above.

A. Answer b is incorrect because it is not the best answer. While an implied warranty of merchantability is a possibility, it is not the most likely to be successful because the standard there is reasonableness and it may be that all shatterproof glass has a point of impact where it does shatter. The implicit warranty is met when the product conforms to ordinary standards for the product, is reasonably safe, and is of average grade, quality, and value compared to similar products sold in commerce. By contrast, the express warranty claim would be based off of the statement that it can sustain any impact and would not shatter under the worst of conditions. Answer c is incorrect because it requires knowledge on the part of the seller that the buyer is relying on the seller's expertise and that is not met in the fact pattern. Answer d is incorrect because answers b and c are incorrect.

(Module 11) (Question 4) Which of the following is true about the consumer expectations test? a) It looks at whether the danger of a product is beyond what a reasonable consumer with ordinary knowledge about the product would expect. b) It looks at whether the danger of a product outweighs the usefulness of the product. c) It looks at whether the danger of a product is beyond what an experienced consumer with specialized knowledge about the product would expect. d) It looks at whether the danger of a product is beyond what a reasonable child consumer with ordinary knowledge about the product would expect.

A. Answer b is incorrect because that type of balancing test is part of the risk/utility test. Answer c is incorrect because a consumer's actual knowledge or experience is not considered. Rather, it is what a reasonable consumer with ordinary knowledge would expect. Answer d is incorrect because it is an adult standard. If the plaintiff is a child, an adult standard is still used.

(Module 8) (Question 2) Under the zone of danger approach, which of the following is true? a) The plaintiff must have physical manifestations from the emotional distress. b) The plaintiff must have physical harm from the incident, plus physical manifestations from the emotional distress. c) The plaintiff must have a physical impact from the incident, plus physical manifestations from the emotional distress. d) The plaintiff must witness harm occur to someone close to them.

A. Answers b and c are incorrect because if the plaintiff has physical harm, or a physical impact, then showing physical manifestations from the distress is not required. Answer d is incorrect as that would apply to a bystander claim under the witness the harm theory.

(Module 5) (Question 1) Which of the following accurately describes the difference between misfeasance and nonfeasance? a) Misfeasance is active misconduct and nonfeasance is passive inaction. b) Misfeasance is passive inaction and nonfeasance is active misconduct. c) Misfeasance is acting with due care and nonfeasance is acting without due care. d) Misfeasance is acting without due care and nonfeasance is acting with due care.

A. Answers b, c, and d all misstate the descriptions. Answer b has the definitions flipped. Answer c is incorrect because misfeasance is not acting with due care. Answer d is incorrect because nonfeasance is not acting with due care.

(Module 3) (Question 1) Which one of the following statements is correct about immunity for charitable organizations? a) Most states have eliminated charitable immunity because the reasons that justified it no longer exist. b) Most states have maintained charitable immunity to protect nonprofit organizations from lawsuits. c) States have eliminated charitable immunity because people no longer need services from nonprofit organizations. d) Most states have maintained charitable immunity to encourage the formation of nonprofit organizations.

A. Answers b, c, and d are inaccurate and incorrect. Contrary to answer b, most states have not maintained charitable immunity. Contrary to answer c, the reasons states have eliminated charitable immunity is not because people no longer need services from nonprofits. Rather, it is because nonprofits now have insurance and are generally well funded. Answer d incorrectly states that most states have maintained immunity when they have not.

(Module 1) (Question 2) Which of the following statements is correct regarding the mitigation of damages rule? a) The mitigation of damages rule traditionally required the plaintiff to minimize damages by reasonable efforts and expenses. b) The mitigation of damages rule is a rule of comparative fault. c) The mitigation of damages rule does not follow any statutory law. Incorrect Response d) The mitigation of damages rule does not include "reasonableness" as a factor.

A. Because it correctly explains mitigation of damages. Answers b, c, and d do not. Mitigation of damages is not a rule of comparative fault as suggested in answer b. Contrary to answer c, mitigation of damages does sometimes follow statutory laws that further define its requirements. Answer d is incorrect because mitigation of damages does include a reasonableness factor.

(Module 13) (Question 1) Which of the following is an example of something that could be a private nuisance claim, but not a trespass claim? a) Dan lives next door to Peter. He operates loud machinery late at night. b) Dan lives next door to Peter. He operates a factory that produces smog and particles that land on Peter's property. c) Dan lives next door to Peter. He goes onto Peter's land and starts a brush fire to clear out some land. d) All of the above.

A. Because it involves sound, which is intangible and does not include the physical invasion of property that is necessary for trespass. Answer b is incorrect because the particles landing on Peter's property are tangible and can create a physical invasion for trespass depending on their frequency and duration. Answer c is incorrect because Dan came onto Peter's land which would be a physical invasion. Answer d is incorrect because answers b and c are incorrect.

(Module 9) (Question 3) Which of the following is not a compensable harm in a wrongful birth case? a) Living life with health issues or a birth defect. b) Lost opportunity to terminate the pregnancy. c) Pain and suffering from pregnancy if the parents can prove they would have terminated pregnancy. d) Extraordinary costs of raising the child with the illness or defect.

A. It is compensable harm in a wrongful life claim. Answers b, c, and d are all incorrect as those are compensable harms in a wrongful birth case.

(Module 10) (Question 5) Dan owns a pet tiger. The tiger has been with him since it was a cub. It has never exhibited aggressive behavior. One day, Dan lets his neighbor into the tiger's pen with him to play with the tiger. The tiger attacks the neighbor. Which of the following is true? a) Dan is strictly liable because tigers are wild animals. b) Dan is strictly liable because the neighbor was an invitee. c) Dan is not strictly liable because he was not aware that the tiger had dangerous propensities. d) Dan is not strictly liable because the attack was not foreseeable.

A. Owners of wild animals are presumed to know that wild animals are dangerous and are held strictly liable for harm that is characteristic of that particular class of wild animals, all of which would apply here. Answer b is incorrect because the neighbor's status as an invitee would not be determinative of whether or not Dan was subject to strict liability. Answer c and d are incorrect because of the presumed knowledge of danger with wild animals.

(Module 14) (Question 8) Dan tells his friend David that Peter stole $20 from Dan's car when Dan hired Peter to clean the car. The statement is false, but Dan believes it is true. Which of the following claims could Peter successfully bring against Dan? a) Defamation. b) False light. c) Public disclosure of private facts. d) All the above.

A. Peter could bring a defamation claim. Peter would not have to establish falsity since he is a private person and it is a private matter. Dan could attempt to prove the statement is true as a defense. Answer b and c are incorrect because those claims require public disclosure, or disclosure to a substantial group of people. Here, Dan only told one person. That will suffice for defamation, but not for false light or public disclosure of private facts. Answer d is incorrect because answers b and c are incorrect.

(Module 6) (Question 4) In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, the court said that: a) The psychologist had a duty to protect a third person whom her patient had threatened to harm even though the psychologist had no relationship with the third person. b) The psychologist had no duty to protect a third person whom her patient had threatened to harm. c) The psychologist had a duty to protect a third person whom her patient had threatened to harm because the psychologist had a special relationship with the third person. d) The psychologist had no duty to protect a third person whom her patient had threatened to harm because the psychologist did not have a special relationship with the third person.

A. The court said that the psychologist had a duty to protect a third person because the special relationship between the doctor and the patient supported affirmative duties for the benefit of third persons, even though the psychologist had no relationship to that third person. Answer b is incorrect because the psychologist did have a duty to protect. Answers c and d are incorrect because they both reference a special relationship between the psychologist and the third person and that did not exist in this case. Rather, it was the relationship between the psychologist and the patient and the knowledge of a serious risk of harm to the third person that was obtained through that relationship that created the duty to protect. Answer d is also incorrect because it says there was no duty to protect and the court said that there was a duty.

(Module 4) (Question 2) Which of the following is not a difference between ordinary negligence and professional negligence? a) The required elements. b) The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. c) The use of experts. d) The standard of care.

A. The required elements for both ordinary negligence and professional negligence are the same. Both require a duty, a breach of duty, causation, and damages. Answers b, c, and d are not correct because they are all differences between ordinary and professional negligence. Professional negligence requires a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant to establish the duty of care, but ordinary negligence does not. The use of experts is required in professional negligence for the standard of care, but it is not required for the standard of care in ordinary negligence. Finally, the standard of care is different for professional negligence as it incorporates the standards of the profession at issue and does not use the reasonable person standard.

(Module 7) (Question 6) Which of the following is not an example of an invitee? a) A door-to-door salesperson that goes on to the property to sell the landowner a product. b) A person who goes to a museum. c) A person who goes to an airport. d) A door-to-door salesperson that goes on to the property to deliver an item purchased by the landowner.

A. The salesperson would be a licensee. Answers b, c, and d are incorrect because they are examples of invitees. Answer d is different than answer a because the landowner purchased a product and the salesperson was delivering it to the landowner. As a result, the salesperson is a business invitee who is on the property for the benefit of the landowner.

(Module 2) (Question 6) Paul and Dan are in a car accident when Dan runs a red light and hits Paul's car crossing the intersection. Paul was not wearing his seatbelt and expert testimony at trial was that Paul's injuries are 30 percent worse than they would have been if he had been wearing his seatbelt. Which of the following is true? a) Under comparative negligence, a jury may reduce Paul's damages by 30 percent. b) Under comparative negligence, a jury may not reduce Paul's damages by 30 percent because his failure to wear a seatbelt is not the actual or proximate cause of his harm. c) Under contributory negligence, a jury may reduce Paul's damages by 30 percent. d) Under contributory negligence, Paul does not recover anything.

A. Under comparative negligence principles, a jury may find that Paul's injuries are 30 percent worse given his failure to wear a seatbelt and that failure is the actual and proximate cause of his injuries being 30 percent worse. As a result, it may apportion blame for the additional 30 percent to Paul and reduce the award he receives by 30 percent. Answer b is incorrect because a jury could find that the failure to wear the seatbelt was the actual and proximate cause of the additional harm. Under the shared blame approach of comparative negligence, the jury can apportion the damages based on Paul's share of the blame for his injuries. Answer c is incorrect because contributory negligence is an all or nothing approach, so they jury cannot reduce the award by a percentage. It either awards Paul 100 percent, or nothing. Answer d is incorrect because Paul's failure to wear his seatbelt was not the actual and proximate cause of all his injuries, it simply made his injuries worse. As a result, Paul would not be barred from recovery under contributory negligence. A court would likely use the concept of the duty to mitigate damages to reduce Paul's recovery based on his failure to wear the seatbelt which caused his injuries to be 30 percent worse.

(Module 14) (Question 6) Which of the following accurately explains a difference or similarity between false light claims, public disclosure of private fact claims, and defamation claims? a) Actual malice applies differently to each claim. b) The information must be false for all three claims. c) Publication requirements are not different for these claims. d) All of the above.

A. Actual malice applies to both public and private defendants in false light claims, when the subject matter of the claims is of public concern. Actual malice applies only to public officials and to public figures for defamation claims. Actual malice does not apply at all to claims for public disclosure of private facts. Answer b is incorrect because the information does not have to be false for public disclosure of private fact claims. Answer c is incorrect because the publication requirements are different. Defamation only requires publication to one person other than the plaintiff. False light and public disclosure of private facts requires disclosure to the public at large or a substantial group of people.

(Module 5) (Question 7) What is the difference between a Good Samaritan law and a Bad Samaritan law? a) A Good Samaritan law punishes those that do not help people in grave physical harm, or in emergency situations, and a Bad Samaritan law provides protection from liability for those that do help. b) A Good Samaritan law provides protection from liability for those that help people in grave physical harm, or in emergency situations, and a Bad Samaritan law provides protection, but also created a duty to act and punish those that do not act. c) Good Samaritan law identifies good Samaritans for inclusion in local newspapers to publicize their good deeds. Bad Samaritan statutes identify bad Samaritans for inclusion in local newspapers to publicize their bad deeds. d) Good Samaritan laws protect against gross negligence and willful and wanton conduct. Bad Samaritan laws protect against negligence.

B. Answer a has the definitions reversed. Answer c does not accurately define Good or Bad Samaritan laws. Answer d is incorrect because both Good and Bad Samaritan laws generally provide protection for potential negligence, but do not protect against gross negligence, or willful or wanton conduct.

(Module 11) (Question 1) What is the difference between negligence claims for product defects, and strict liability claims? a) Negligence claims focus on the condition of the product. Strict liability claims focus on the conduct the defendant. b) Negligence claims focus on the conduct the defendant. Strict liability claims focus on the condition of the product. c) Negligence claims require actual and proximate causation. Strict liability claims do not. d) Negligence claims have defenses of comparative negligence and assumption of the risk. Strict liability claims do not.

B. Answer a has the information reversed and stated incorrectly. Answer c is incorrect as strict liability claims also require actual and proximate cause. Similarly, answer d is incorrect because strict liability claims also have defenses of comparative negligence and assumption of the risk.

(Module 5) (Question 3) Which of the following correctly states the legal rule for the creation of the peril exception that leads to a duty to act? a) Everyone has an obligation to not create perils. b) If a person knows or should know that their conduct has caused harm to another, then the person has a duty to render assistance to that person to prevent further harm. c) If a person knows or should know that their conduct has caused harm to another, then the person has no duty to render assistance to that person to prevent further harm. d) A defendant does not have a duty to act unless they acted negligently in creating a peril.

B. Answer a is incorrect as it is more of a statement of the duty to not harm under the general duty of care for misfeasance. Answer c is incorrect because it says that the person has no duty. Answer d is incorrect because a person can have a duty to act even if their creation of the peril is not negligent.

(Module 7) (Question 2) A landowner owes an ordinary trespasser: a) A duty to use reasonable care when the landowner conducts activities on the property. b) A duty to avoid willful and wanton misconduct. c) A duty to warn about natural conditions that may harm the trespasser. d) No duty at all.

B. Answer a is incorrect as that would only apply to a known or frequent trespasser, not an ordinary trespasser. In that situation, a landowner does owe a duty to use reasonable care with activities that are in the location where the property owner knows the trespasser may be located, but that same duty does not apply to a regular trespasser because the landowner does not know the trespasser is on the property. Answer c is incorrect because the duty to warn for trespassers is just for traps that the landowner is aware of, and that may cause serious bodily harm, or death. Answer d is incorrect, because a landowner does owe the limited duty to avoid willful and wanton misconduct that may harm the trespasser.

(Module 11) (Question 2) Paul is harmed when he places some food in a Pyrex bowl in the microwave and the bowl explodes. What would Paul have to prove to be successful in a strict liability manufacturing defect claim? a) He would have to prove that the bowl was designed incorrectly. b) He would have to prove that the bowl was manufactured in a way that departed from its intended design. c) He would have to prove that the manufacture knew of the risks of the bowl exploding in the microwave. d) He would have to prove that the defendant failed to use due care in making the bowl.

B. Answer a is incorrect because incorrect design would need to be established in a design defect claim, not a manufacturing defect. Answer c is incorrect because knowledge of the risk would be relevant to a warning claim, not a manufacturing defect claim. Answer d is incorrect because a lack of due care is not required for strict liability claims.

(Module 14) (Question 3) Which of the following statements is accurate? a) If the plaintiff is a private person and the statement involves a private matter, then the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice when making the defamatory statement. b) If the plaintiff is a public official or a public figure, then the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice when making the defamatory statement. c) If the plaintiff is a private person and the statement involves a matter of public concern, then the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice when making the defamatory statement. d) If the plaintiff is a public official or a public figure, then the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice when making the defamatory statement only if they seek punitive damages.

B. Answer a is incorrect because the common law requirements would still apply to a private person with a matter of private concern. Answer c is incorrect because some level of fault is required when it is a private person and a matter of public concern, such as negligence, but actual malice is not required for this category. Answer d is incorrect because actual malice does not only apply when the plaintiff seeks punitive damages, and is not itself sufficient for punitive damages. The plaintiff must also establish common law malice for punitive damages.

(Module 11) (Question 6) When does a manufacturer have to warn about risks from a product they manufacture? a) When the risk is obvious. b) When the manufacturer knows or should know of the risk and the risk is not obvious to a reasonable consumer. c) When a plaintiff is harmed by a product the manufacturer. d) All the above.

B. Answer a is incorrect because there is no duty to warn about obvious risks of harm. Answer c is incorrect because there is not an obligation to warn every time a consumer is injured by a product. Rather, the obligation is when the manufacturer knows or should know of the risk and the risk is not obvious to a reasonable consumer. Answer d is incorrect because answers a and c are incorrect.

(Module 8) (Question 5) How is the witness the harm approach different than the zone of danger approach? a) The plaintiff must have a close relationship with the victim. b) The plaintiff is not in the zone of danger, but is at the scene of an incident and is aware of the harm caused to the victim. c) The plaintiff has emotional distress because a victim was harmed. d) All of the above.

B. Answers a and c are wrong because in those respects, the witness the harm approach is the same as the zone of danger. Answer d is incorrect because answers an and c are incorrect.

(Module 12) (Question 2) Which one of the following UCC warranties is the most like a tort to the extent it injects a "reasonably safe" standard into the analysis? a) Express warranty. b) Implied warranty of merchantability. c) Implied warranty of professional grade merchandise. d) Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

B. Answers a and d are incorrect because they do not incorporate a reasonableness standard. Answer c is not a real warranty.

(Module 4) (Question 3) In professional negligence cases, experts are: a) Not required. b) Not required if the issues in the case are within the common knowledge of the jury. c) Always required. d) Always required in medical malpractice cases only.

B. Experts are generally required in professional negligence cases unless the common knowledge exception applies. Answers an and c are incorrect because they are too broad. It is not accurate to say that experts are always required or are never required. Answer d is incorrect because the common knowledge exception applies to medical malpractice cases as well.

(Module 6) (Question 5) Jeff goes to a party at Dan's house. Dan serves alcohol. Jeff drinks too much and drives himself home. Pam, who is also intoxicated, goes home with Jeff. On the way home, Jeff runs off the road and Pam is seriously injured. Pam sues Jeff and Dan arguing that Dan had a duty to control Jeff. Most courts would: a) Find that Dan has a duty to control Jeff because he served Jeff the alcohol. b) Find that Dan does not have a duty to control Jeff. c) Find that Dan has a duty to control Jeff, but only if Jeff's intoxication was blatantly obvious. d) Find that Dan has a duty to control Jeff by taking his car keys and calling a taxi for him.

B. Most courts have ruled that there is not a common law duty to control in this situation. As your Understanding Torts book notes, many states have state statues that govern this area and there may be some statutory duties, or liabilities, but those are not the same as a common law duty to control and they often limit or prohibit civil liability. Since there is no duty to control, answers a, c, and d are incorrect.

(Module 11) (Question 7) Peter buys a space heater to heat his bedroom during the winter. It catches on fire one night when Peter's shirt fell in front of it. Peter tended to throw his clothes on top of the space heater to keep them warm at night. The space heater has an open front with exposed burner elements. It has a warning on the top and side that says "WARNING, BURNING ELEMENT IS HOT. DO NOT TOUCH OR PLACE FLAMMABLE MATERIAL NEAR ELEMENT. It burns down his house. Peter also suffer burns. He sues the space heater manufacturer. Which of the following are true: a) The manufacturer's warning was inadequate. b) The product was defectively designed if there was a reasonable alternative design that would have prevented the space heating from catching on fire, and the current design was more dangerous than an average consumer would expect. c) The product was defectively manufactured. d) All of the above.

B. Of the choices, answer b is the best option since it uses the correct legal standards and says "if" those standards are met, then the product is defectively designed. Answer a is incorrect because a warning must inform a reasonably prudent user of the nature and extent of the danger with direct and understandable language. A number of different factors can be considered here as discussed in the presentation and assigned reading. Here, the manufacturer did have a warning on the top and the front of the heater and it did warn not to place flammable objects near the heating element, which Peter did. Answer c is incorrect because there is no evidence in the fact pattern that the product was made incorrectly or differed from its intended design. Answer d is incorrect because answers a and c are incorrect.

(Module 13) (Question 5) Which of the following is an example of a public nuisance? a) Dan uses pesticides on his grass. The rain causes the pesticides to run off onto Peter's property and gets into his well water which makes the water undrinkable. b) Dan uses pesticides on his grass. The rain causes the pesticides to run off into a pond used for the city water drinking supply which makes the water undrinkable. c) Dan likes to have his rock band come over to practice in his garage. His neighbor finds the noise created by the band to be annoying. d) All of the above.

B. Public nuisance occurs where there is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public such as public health or safety, or property rights of the general public. Answer b is an example of that because it impacted the community's drinking water. Answers an and c involve potential interference to individuals use and enjoyment of their property, so they might qualify for private nuisance, but not for public nuisance as the interference does not impact the public at large.

(Module 2) (Question 1) What are the two required elements required for assumption of the risk? a) Voluntary and negligence. b) Knowledge and voluntary. c) Assumption and risk. d) Knowledge and negligence.

B. The defendant must know of and appreciate the specific risk of danger that they are assuming and voluntarily assume that risk. In answers a, c, and d, one or both of the terms are not required elements of assumption of the risk.

(Module 6) (Question 1) The public duty doctrine: a) Requires public officials to protect the public. b) Creates a no duty to protect rule under common law for public officials. c) Creates a duty to protect under common law. d) Has no exceptions.

B. The public duty doctrine creates a no duty rule for public officials, like police officers. This means that they do not have a common law duty to protect unless some exception applies that creates a duty. As a result, answers an and c are incorrect. Answer d is incorrect because the rule does have exceptions and they are situations where the public official did act and the plaintiff relied to their detriment on the protection, or where the public official enlisted the help of the plaintiff, or did something that increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff.

(Module 9) (Question 6) Who cannot bring a claim for wrongful death? a) Parents b) Close friends and co-workers c) Spouses d) Close relatives

B. The scope of who can bring a claim in wrongful death is broader than loss of consortium claims, and generally includes parents, spouses and close relatives. It does not include close friends or co-workers. As a result, answers a, c, and d are incorrect because they could bring a claim for wrongful death.

(Module 3) (Question 6) Spousal immunity: a) Still exists in most states. b) Has been eliminated in the majority of states and limited in those states that still have it. c) Only protects spouses that have liability insurance. d) Only protects spouses from property or economic torts.

B. Answer a incorrectly states that spousal immunity still exists in most states. Answer c is incorrect because liability insurance is not a requirement for spousal immunity. Rather, part of the justification for having spousal immunity in the past was that spouses would collude to sue each other and recover from their liability insurance policies. Answer d is incorrect because spousal immunity is not limited to property or economic torts. Rather, states that still have spousal immunity no longer apply it to property or economic torts.

(Module 13) (Question 3) How do courts determine if the interference with the use or enjoyment of the property is unreasonable? a) By determining if it is something that is offensive, annoying, or inconvenient. b) By weighing the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff against the utility of the conduct of the defendant. c) By assessing whether a reasonable person would consider the interference to be unreasonable. d) By assessing whether or not the defendant used due care.

B. Answer a is incorrect as those are part of the criteria for determining if the interference is substantial. Answers c and d are incorrect because the reasonable person standard and due care are not used in determining if the interference is unreasonable. The balancing test in answer b is used.

(Module 14) (Question 1) What is always required for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of defamation under common law? a) A defamatory statement, about the plaintiff, that is published with actual malice. b) A defamatory statement, about the plaintiff, that is published to one or more people. c) A defamatory statement (that is false), about the plaintiff, that is published to one or more people. d) A defamatory statement, about the plaintiff, that is published to one or more people, and special damages.

B. Answer a is incorrect because actual malice is not required under common law. Answer c is incorrect because the plaintiff does not have to establish the falsity of the statement under common law. Rather, the defendant can assert truth as a defense. Answer d is incorrect because special damages are not always required. They are only required if it is slander, and not slander per se, or libel.

(Module 6) (Question 6) Patricia claims that her high school gym teacher sexually abused her. She sues the school for failing to protect her. Which of the following is true? a) The school is subject to liability, but only if the abuse happened on school grounds. b) The school is subject to liability, but only if employees who have supervisory responsibility over students have actual knowledge of the abuse. c) The school is subject to liability if employees who have supervisory responsibility over students have actual knowledge of the abuse, or learn of facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the student is being abused, and do not take reasonable steps to protect the student. d) The school is not subject to liability.

C. Answer "c" is correct under Marquay v. Eno. Answer a is incorrect because the liability can extend to incidents that occur off school grounds. It is limited to the times that the school and school employees assume control over the student and parent protection is compromised. This could occur during a variety of school related events that are not on school grounds. Answer b is incorrect because actual knowledge is not required. Rather, it is a "know or should know" standard that looks at whether the facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to conclude that a student is being abused. Answer d is incorrect because the school can be subject to liability under the standard noted in answer c.

(Module 10) (Question 2) When is a dog owner strictly liable for her dog biting a person? a) Any time it happens. b) Only if the owner fails to use due care. c) When the owner knows, or has reason to know, that the dog has a tendency to bite. d) Only if the dog has bitten someone before.

C. Answer a is incorrect as it is too broad. Answer c is incorrect because whether or not the owner exercised due care is irrelevant for this strict liability analysis. Answer d is incorrect because it is too narrow. The dog does not have to actually bite someone else first. Attempting to bite someone, or exhibiting aggressive behavior short of biting that gives the owner reason to know that the dog presents a danger of biting, is sufficient.

(Module 8) (Question 1) Which of the following accurately states all of the requirements for a direct claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress under the majority approach? a) Physical harm and emotional distress. b) Emotional distress and physical manifestations from that distress. c) Physical harm, or physical impact without harm. Absent physical harm or impact, the plaintiff must have been in the "zone of danger," and have physical manifestations from the distress. d) Physical harm or physical impact without harm. Absent physical harm or impact, the plaintiff must have been in the "zone of danger," the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous, and the plaintiff must have physical manifestations from the distress.

C. Answer a is incorrect because it does not include all of the requirements that apply. There are ways to establish negligent infliction of emotional distress even if physical harm is not present. Answer b is incorrect because the majority approach requires harm, impact, or the zone of danger. The minority approach allows recovery without those requirements being met if there is sufficient emotional distress with physical manifestations. Answer d is incorrect because it includes extreme and outrageous conduct, which is not required.

(Module 14) (Question 4) Paul is a famous professional football player. He is accused by name by a sports show of failing a drug test. What does Paul need to establish for a successful defamation claim? a) He must prove that the statement is defamatory, about him, published, and slander per se. b) He must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice when making the defamatory statement, that it was made about him, and that it was published. c) He must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice when making the defamatory statement, that the statement is false, was made about him, and that it was published. d) Paul must plead colloquium and prove that the statement is defamatory, about him, published, and libel per se.

C. Answer a is incorrect because it notes common law standards and Peter is a public figure, so the common law standards do not apply--plus, slander per se is one way of establishing defamation, but it is not required. Answer b is incorrect because it does not include that Peter has to prove the falsity of the statement. Answer d is incorrect because it includes colloquium which only applies when the plaintiff is not referenced by name in the defamatory statement.

(Module 7) (Question 5) Which of the following is a difference between the duty owed by a landowner to a known trespasser and a licensee? a) The duty owed to a known trespasser is to avoid willful and wanton misconduct, whereas the duty owed to a licenses is reasonable care. b) The duty owed to a known trespasser is reasonable care, whereas the duty owed to a licensee is to maintain the premise in a safe condition. c) The duty owed to a known trespasser is to warn about known, artificial conditions that could cause serious bodily harm or death, whereas the duty owed to a licensee is to warn of both artificial and natural conditions that are known, and the duty is not limited to conditions that could cause serious bodily harm, or death. d) The duty owed to a known trespasser is limited to warning about traps set by the landowner, whereas the duty owed to a licensee is to warn about all known dangerous conditions.

C. Answer a is incorrect because the duty owed to a known trespasser for activities is reasonable care. The limited duty to avoid willful and wanton misconduct applies to trespassers, not known trespassers. Answer b is incorrect because there is not a duty to maintain the premises for licensees. That duty applies to invitees. Answer d is incorrect because the limited duty to warn about traps applies to trespassers, not to known trespassers.

(Module 7) (Question 4) The duty owed to licensees includes: a) The duty to warn about all dangerous conditions on the property. b) The duty to inspect and warn about all discovered dangers on the property. c) The duty to warn about known, hidden, natural, or artificial dangerous conditions on the property. d) The duty to warn only about known natural and artificial conditions that are hidden on the property and that may cause serious bodily harm, or death.

C. Answer a is incorrect because the duty to warn is not regarding all dangerous conditions, just those that are hidden and known to the property owner. Answer b is incorrect for the same reason as answer a, plus there is no duty to inspect. Answer d is incorrect because the duty is not limited to conditions that may cause serious bodily harm, or death.

(Module 6) (Question 3) The duty to protect is limited by: a) The resources available to the defendant. b) The closeness of the relationship between the defendant and the person harming the plaintiff. c) The foreseeability of the risks. d) All of the above.

C. Answer a is incorrect because the resources available is not a factor that is considered with the duty to protect. Answer b is incorrect because the closeness of the relationship is also not a factor with the duty to protect. Rather, it is more the custodial nature of the relationship that matters. Also, the relationship generally is between the plaintiff who is being harmed and the defendant. Though, there are some exceptions to that such as the Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California case. Answer d is incorrect because answers an and b are incorrect.

(Module 5) (Question 4) Donna is out jogging and she sees another jogger lying down on the ground screaming in pain. There is no one else around to help. Which of the following accurately describes Donna's duty to act? a) She must go over to ask the person if they need help. b) She does not have any duty to go over to help, but if she does go over to help, she has to ensure that no one else tries to give the jogger any help. c) She does not have any duty to go over to help, but if she does go over to help, she must act reasonably and she may not leave the jogger in a worse position than the jogger was in originally. d) She should not go over to help because she will be liable if she is not able to help.

C. Answer a is not correct because there is no duty to act unless an exception applies and the relevant exception here would be the attempted rescue or care exception that would only apply if Donna did go over to try to help. Answer b is incorrect because the duty here would include not preventing others from helping. Answer d is incorrect because Donna would only be liable for negligence if she acted unreasonably or left the person in a worse position. Additionally, she would likely be protected from negligence liability under a state Good Samaritan statute.

(Module 11) (Question 5) Which of the following is used as a factor in the risk/utility test in a strict liability claim? a) Whether the defendant used due care in making the product. b) Whether the defendant used due care in designing the product. c) Whether there are reasonable alternative designs. d) All of the above.

C. Answers a and b are incorrect because due care is not part of the analysis in a strict liability claim. Answer d is incorrect because answers a and b are incorrect.

(Module 3) (Question 5) Which of the following is true regarding discretionary and ministerial acts? a) Discretionary acts involve public officials and ministerial acts involve elected officials. b) Discretionary acts involve implementation and a lack of discretion. Ministerial acts involve public policy decisions. c) Discretionary acts involved public policy and the exercise of discretion. Ministerial acts involve implementation and a lack of discretion. d) Discretionary acts are not protected by immunity. Ministerial acts are protected by immunity.

C. Answers a, b, and d all inaccurately describe discretionary and ministerial acts. Answer a is incorrect because the terms do not make distinctions between public and elected officials. Answer b has the explanations backwards. Discretionary acts involve public policy decisions and ministerial acts involve implementation. Answer d also has the explanations backwards. Discretionary acts are protected by immunity and ministerial acts are not.

(Module 9) (Question 2) Why did the court reject a claim for wrongful life in Smith v. Cote? a) Because courts and juries should not be asked to determine when a fetus is injured. b) Because courts and juries should not be asked to determine the monetary value of human life. c) Because courts and juries should not be asked to determine if it would it have been best for the fetus to have not been born. d) Because courts and juries should not be asked to determine if a child can sue their health care provider.

C. Answers a, b, and d are incorrect because they do not reflect what the court said in the case, and because courts and juries make those kinds of determinations on a regular basis.

(Module 8) (Question 3) Which of the following is likely to be a special circumstance that justifies a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress? a) Paul watches his neighbor kick his dog when it goes to the bathroom on his neighbor's lawn. b) Paul discovers his mother-in-law ripping up his wedding photos. c) Paul's father dies and the funeral home places the wrong person in a casket for his father's funeral service. d) Paul's favorite shirt is lost when the airline loses his luggage.

C. Courts are reluctant to allow special circumstances for harm to property, so answers a, b, and d are incorrect.

(Module 1) (Question 5) Paul and Dan are in a car accident. The accident is 75 percent Dan's fault, and 25 percent Paul's fault. Paul has $100,000 in damages. Which of the following is true? a) Under comparative negligence, Dan will still have to pay the full $100,000 if he had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. b) Under comparative negligence, Paul does not recover anything. c) Under contributory negligence, Dan will still have to pay the full $100,000 if he had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. d) Under contributory negligence, Dan still has to pay 75 percent of any jury award to Paul.

C. If Dan had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, Paul is not barred from recovery under contributory negligence. Answer a is incorrect because courts do not use the last clear chance doctrine under comparative negligence. Answer b is incorrect because comparative negligence is a shared blame approach and Paul would be able to recover 75 percent of the damages. Answer d is incorrect because contributory negligence is an all or nothing approach, so Dan would not pay a percentage. He would either pay the full amount, or nothing. If he had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, he would pay the full amount. If he did not, he would pay nothing.

(Module 14) (Question 2) Dan posts on his Facebook account that he "just got robbed by Peter the plumber's high rates." The statement is a) Libel. b) Slander per se. c) Neither libel nor slander because it is an insult or an opinion. d) Neither libel nor slander because it does not meet the publication with actual malice requirement.

C. In order to be libel or slander, the statement has to be a defamatory statement. Insults and opinions are not defamatory statements. Here. Dan's statement is an insult or an opinion, and not a defamatory statement. For that reason, answers an and b are incorrect. Answer d is incorrect because the statement does meet the publication requirement, and actual malice is not required.

(Module 1) (Question 1) Which of the following statements is correct according to the Restatement view of contributory negligence? a) The standard is subjective. b) It makes allowances for a mentally deficient or insane plaintiff. c) The failure of a plaintiff to take reasonable precautions to protect himself in the event of an accident must be distinguished from contributory negligence. d) Victims have no responsibility to mitigate their injury.

C. It correctly explains how the Restatement defines contributory negligence. Answers a, b, and d do not accurately describe the Restatement view. Contrary to answer a, the Restatement uses an objective approach. Answer b incorrectly states that the Restatement makes allowances for the mentally deficient. It does not, but some courts have under common law. Answer d incorrectly brings in concepts of mitigation of damages, which is not part of contributory negligence; contrary to the statement in answer d, plaintiffs do have a responsibility to mitigate their injury.

(Module 3) (Question 2) Which one of the following statements is correct regarding governmental immunity? a) Ministerial acts are protected by immunity. b) The military does not have immunity. c) The federal government has retained immunity for some intentional torts. d) Municipal governments are protected by immunity for proprietary functions.

C. Ministerial acts are not protected by immunity, so answer a is not correct. Similarly, answer b is inaccurate because the military, as a division within the government, does have immunity. Answer d is incorrect because proprietary decisions by municipal governments are not protected by immunity.

(Module 4) (Question 1) Paula and Dana are in a car accident because Dana ran a red light and hit Paula. There is no relationship between them. Paula sues Dana for negligence and Dana moves to dismiss the case, arguing that she does not owe Paula a duty of care because there is not a relationship between Paula and Dana. A judge should: a) Grant the motion to dismiss because a relationship is required for Dana to owe Paula and duty of care. b) Grant the motion because Dana is not negligent. c) Deny the motion because a relationship is not required to establish a duty of care to not injure another person. d) Deny the motion because Dana is negligent.

C. Relationships are only required to establish a duty of care in professional negligence cases, not in ordinary negligence where the duty at issue is the duty to not harm another under the reasonable person standard. Answer a is incorrect because it states that a relationship is required when it is not required. Answers b and d are incorrect, because the facts do not give you enough information to establish whether or not Dana is negligent since all we know is Dan ran a red light and hit Paula. Other elements such as causation and damages are not established in the fact pattern.

(Module 12) (Question 5) Peter lives next door to a golf course. One of the windows in the back of his house is frequently broken by golf balls that go off course and hit the window. The glass then shatters into the house and is difficult to clean up. One time, the glass injured Peter's daughter. Peter goes to a home improvement store and tells the salesperson about his problem and says he needs some help picking a window that will not shatter when it is hit by a golf ball. The salesman picks one out for him and has it installed. The next time a golf ball hits the window, the glass breaks and shatters. Which of the following claims is the most likely to be successful? a) Express warranty. b) Implied warranty of merchantability. c) Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. d) All of the above.

C. The implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose applies when a product is used for a particular purpose, and two conditions are met. First, the buyer must rely on the skill or judgment of the seller to select or furnish suitable goods. Second, at the time of the sale, the seller must have reason to know of the buyer's purpose, and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment. Answer a is incorrect because there was no express warranty provided for the window withstanding the golf ball. Answer b is incorrect because, while an implied warranty of merchantability is a possibility, it is not the most likely to be successful because the standard there is reasonableness and it may be that all shatterproof glass has a point of impact where it does shatter. The implicit warranty is met when the product conforms to ordinary standards for the product, is reasonably safe, and is of average grade, quality, and value compared to similar products sold in commerce. Answer d is incorrect because answers a and b are incorrect.

(Module 5) (Question 6) Larry the landlord is walking down the stairs of his building and he sees Terry the tenant lying face down at the bottom of the stairs. a) Larry has no obligation to help Terry. b) Larry has no obligation to help Terry, but if he does help, he must act reasonably and not leave Terry worse off than he found him. c) Larry has an obligation to help Terry because he is the landlord. d) Larry has an obligation to help Terry because he created the peril that led to Terry falling down the stairs.

C. The landlord-tenant relationship is considered a special relationship and creates a duty for Larry to act even though Larry was not the cause of Terry's harm. Answer a is not correct because Larry does have an obligation to act. Answer b is not correct because Larry does have an obligation even if he does not try to help. The obligation is created by the special relationship and not because of an attempted rescue. Answer d is incorrect because the facts do not say that Terry fell down the stairs. They say that Larry sees Terry lying face down at the bottom of the stairs. There could be any number of reasons why Terry is lying face down at the bottom of the stairs.

(Module 2) (Question 4) Peter is outside doing yard work when he hears his neighbor screaming for help. He runs over to find his neighbor's house on fire and his neighbor is badly burned. His neighbor begs Peter to go inside the house to save a dog that is trapped. Peter does so and suffers mild burns and some temporary harm from smoke inhalation. Peter's health insurance company sues Peter's neighbor to recover the costs of the medical treatment for the burns and smoke inhalation. Which of the following is the most likely result? a) The company's claims will be unsuccessful because Peter assumed the risk of harm. b) The company's claims will be unsuccessful because Peter's injuries are minor. c) The company's claims will be successful because the rescue doctrine applies. d) The company's claims will be successful because Peter did not sign a release form.

C. The rescue doctrine applies when a person acts in situations involving imminent peril to save life or property. Here, Peter did that by saving his neighbor's dog. Answer a is incorrect because the rescue doctrine is an exception to the defense of assumption of the risk. Answer b is incorrect because the extent of Peter's injuries would not be a factor in whether the company's claims were successful or not. Answer d is incorrect because the facts do not mention a release form and a release form would not be required to assert the defense of assumption of the risk. Peter's actions could establish implied assumption of the risk, but here the rescue doctrine provides for an exception to the defense of assumption of the risk.

(Module 2) (Question 2) Knowledge for assumption of the risk is measured by: a) An objective, reasonable person standard. b) Only what the plaintiff admits they knew. c) A subjective, actual knowledge standard. d) What the plaintiff knew or should have known.

C. Unlike other defenses like contributory or comparative negligence, a subjective standard is used to determine what the plaintiff actually knew for assumption of the risk. Answer a is incorrect because an objective, reasonable person standard used negligence and defenses like contributory or comparative negligence, but not for assumption of the risk. Answer "b" is incorrect because knowledge for assumption of the risk is not limited to what a plaintiff admits they knew. Other facts and circumstances can be used to show the plaintiff's knowledge. Answer d is incorrect because knew or should have known is part of the objective reasonable person standard that is not used for assumption of the risk.

(Module 2) (Question 5) Padma is playing soccer on an outdoor field as part of a summer adult soccer league. The league required Padma to sign a waiver form that released the league and its employees from liability for any injuries Padma suffered while playing. Before one of the games, the grounds crew for the league was doing some maintenance on the field. One of the groundskeepers left some equipment of the field. The equipment was hard to see in the turf of the field. During the game, Padma did not see the equipment, tripped over it while running, and fell hard to the ground, breaking her arm and bruising her ribs. With respect to the defense of assumption of the risk, Padma is likely: a) Barred from recovery for her injuries because she signed a waiver form releasing the league from liability. b) Barred from recovery for her injuries because she should have seen the equipment. c) Not barred from recovery because the injuries did were not a known, reasonable, or inherent risk in playing soccer. d) Not barred from recovery because the injuries were caused by a groundskeeper and not the league.

C. As discussed in the Moore v. Hartley case, waivers that release others from liability are generally limited to known, reasonable, or inherent risks. Here, the injury was caused by a groundskeeper leaving equipment on the field and that goes beyond the scope of the release. Answer a is incorrect because the waiver would likely not extend to Padma's injury from a groundskeeper leaving equipment on the field since that is not a known, reasonable, or inherent risk from playing soccer. Answer b is not correct because the facts note that the equipment was hard to see and Padma did not see it. Additionally, whether Padma should have seen the equipment or not would be more relevant to a contributory or comparative negligence argument, since it would be difficult to argue that Padma knew the equipment was there and voluntarily assumed the risk of tripping over it based on the facts. Answer d is incorrect because the release included the league and its employees, so the fact that a groundskeeper left the equipment on the field, as opposed to the league itself, would not preclude the release from applying. Rather, the release likely does not bar recovery because the field keeper's actions are not a known, reasonable, or inherent risk from playing soccer. As the court noted in the Moore case, if something can be eliminated or mitigated through the exercise of reasonable care, it is not a reasonable danger and is not an inherent risk of the sport. Here, the risk to Padma could have been avoided through the exercise of reasonable care in making sure no equipment was left on the field. Note that this question is different than the question about Padma playing soccer in the Learning Activity, because here the danger was not obvious like it was with the light pole on the softball field.

(Module 12) (Question 6) Peter lives next door to a golf course. One of the windows in the back of his house is frequently broken by golf balls that go off course and hit the window. The glass then shatters into the house and is difficult to clean up. One time, the glass injured Peter's daughter. Peter goes to a home improvement store and tells the salesperson about his problem and says he needs some help picking a window that will not shatter when it is hit by a golf ball. The salesman points to a window and says "This is the best window on the market. It wouldn't shatter if your house fell on it." Peter buys it and has it installed. The next time a golf ball hits the window, the glass breaks and shatters. Will Peter be successful in a misrepresentation claim? a) Yes because the window shattered when the salesperson said it would not. b) Yes, because the salesperson failed to use due care when making the statement about the window. c) No, because the statement is puffery. d) No, because the salesperson did not commit fraud when making the statement.

C. Puffery is when a seller exaggerates about the product, or describes something in a way that makes it seem better than it really is, but it is done in a way that is not really measurable, so it is not considered to be something that a reasonable person would rely upon because it is not capable of objective verification. The statement here fits into that category. As a result, answer a is not correct. Answer b is not correct because failure to use due care is not required. Similarly, answer d is not correct because a showing of fraud is not required.

(Module 14) (Question 5) Debbie is a radio announcer. While on the air, she announces that her co-worker Pam had a child and put it up for adoption when she was a teenager. Pam is now in her 30s and married. The statement is true. Pam is furious that Debbie made the announcement as she told her that in confidence, and Pam's husband and family did not know about the child. What possible clams does Pam have against Debbie? a) Intrusion upon seclusion. b) False light. c) Public disclosure of private facts. d) Intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts.

C. The elements of public disclosure of private facts are met. Public disclosure of private facts occurs when there is publication of private facts that are highly offensive to a reasonable person, and not of legitimate public interest. Publication must be to the public at large and even truthful information can be subject to this claim. These criteria are also met. Pam told Debbie the information in private and it is not information that is otherwise available to the public. Debbie publicized it to the public at large on the radio. The disclosure of this private information would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and there is not a legitimate public interest in the information. The disclosure is still actionable even though it is true. Answers an and d are incorrect because the information in question was revealed to Debbie by Pam. There was no intrusion into Pam's seclusion to obtain the information. Answer b is incorrect because false light applies when the information disclosed is false, and here it is true.

(Module 10) (Question 4) Which of the following is true with regard to abnormally dangerous activities? a) The location of the activity matters. b) The magnitude of the harm matters. c) Whether the risk of harm can be eliminated with due care matters. d) All of the above.

D. All of these answers are factors that courts consider when determining if an activity is abnormally dangerous.

(Module 13) (Question 2) Which of the following accurately states the requirements for private nuisance? a) Private nuisance is something that is offensive, annoying, or inconvenient. b) Private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's possessory interest in property. c) Private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use of property in which they have a possessory interest. d) Private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use or enjoyment of property in which they have a possessory interest.

D. Answer a is incorrect because it only addresses the "substantial" component of private nuisance. Answer b is incorrect because it states that the interference is with the possessory interest and that is not accurate. The interference is with the use and enjoyment of the property. Answer c is incorrect because it does not include the substantial requirement, or the use and enjoyment requirement.

(Module 8) (Question 6) In the Thing v. La Chusa case, why did the court deny the plaintiff recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress? a) Because her emotional distress was not severe enough. b) Because she did not have a close relationship with her son. c) Because the conduct by the defendant was not extreme and outrageous. d) Because she was not at the scene when her son was hit by the car.

D. Answers a and b are not correct. The court denied recovery because the plaintiff was not at the scene when the harm occurred. It did not address the severity of her distress, or the close relationship requirement, though that requirement would have been met since it was her son. Answer c is wrong because extreme and outrageous conduct is not required for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

(Module 3) (Question 3) The persistence of parent-child immunity can be explained in part by: a) A recent increase in child-versus-parent lawsuits. b) Difficulty in obtaining and admitting evidence. c) Judicial bias against children. d) A reluctance to have judicial review over what constitutes acceptable parenting.

D. Answers a, b, and c are all fabricated answers. Your assigned materials do not mention any increase in lawsuits, difficulty in admitting evidence, or judicial bias in the discussion of parent-child immunity.

(Module 10) (Question 6) Which of the following would not be subject to a strict liability claim? a) Peter is attacked by his neighbor's dog. b) Peter's well is harmed when a nearby neighbor does some blasting. c) Peter's yard is ruined when his neighbor's sheep get loose and come onto Peter's property. d) Peter is harmed when Dan runs a red light and runs over Peter.

D. Answers a, b, and c involve areas where strict liability can apply: animals harming people, abnormally dangerous activities, and animals harming property.

(Module 8) (Question 4) Which of the following is required for the zone of danger approach for bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress? a) The plaintiff must be in the zone of danger and fear for their own safety. b) The plaintiff has emotional distress because a third person was harmed. c) The plaintiff has a close relationship with the victim. d) All of the above.

D. Answers a, b, and c, all list requirements the zone of danger approach for bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress?

(Module 7) (Question 7) Peter goes to visit his friend Dan who is having a party. At the party, Peter drinks too much, falls down, and breaks a number of Dan's household items, and some furniture. Dan gets angry and tells Peter that he is no longer welcome on the property and must leave immediately. Another friend offers to drive Peter home. On the way out, Peter steps into a small dip in Dan's yard that is part of the natural condition of the yard. He trips and falls and his face hits a nearby rock. He suffers some pretty severe damage including a broken jaw and some broken teeth. He sues Dan. Which of the following is true? a) Dan was required to warn Peter about the dip in the yard because Peter was a licensee as a social guest. b) Dan was required to discover and fix the dip in the yard because Peter was an invitee as an invited social guest. c) Dan was required to warn Peter about the dip in the yard, if he was aware of it, because Peter was a licensee as a social guest. d) Dan was not required to warn Peter about the dip in the yard, because Peter was a known trespasser as he left the property.

D. As a known trespasser, Dan only has to warn about artificial conditions. Answer a is incorrect because Peter was told to leave, so he was no longer a licensee as he left the property. Answer b is incorrect because Peter was never an invitee. He was a licensee until he was told to leave, and then he became a known trespasser. Answer c is incorrect because Peter was a known trespasser on the way out. Answer c would be correct if Peter was harmed on the way in because it correctly notes to duty to warn of known, hidden dangers for licensees, which Peter was until he was told to leave.

(Module 12) (Question 3) Which of the UCC warranties can generally be disclaimed if the seller follows the disclosure and conspicuousness requirements in UCC 2-316(2)? a) Implied warranty of merchantability. b) Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. c) Express warranty. d) Both the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

D. Both of the implied warranties can be disclaimed if certain conditions are met such as the disclaimer being conspicuous. Express warranties cannot be disclaimed, so answer c is not correct.

(Module 11) (Question 3) Which test do courts use to for strict liability design defect claims? a) Consumer expectations. b) Risk/utility. c) Hybrid or dual standard that includes both consumer expectations and risk/utility. d) All of the above.

D. Different courts use different tests and all of these tests are used by courts to determine strict liability design defect claims.

(Module 12) (Question 1) Courts have held which of the following statements to constitute an express warranty? a) Statements by a sales clerk that she had used the hair dye on her own hair and it had come out "very nice" and "very natural." b) A seller's comment that her product was "as good or better" than a competitor's product. c) A statement that a diamond ring was worth twice the purchase price. d) A tire manufacturer's advertisement that "if it saves your life once, it's a bargain."

D. It differs from the other statements in answers a, b, and c in that it is about the safety of the product and courts are open to express warranty claims when the seller makes assurances of safety about the product and the buyer is harmed in a way that negates the statement. In the example in answer d, the buyer was harmed when the tire blew out. Answers a, b, and c, and incorrect because those statements were not found to constitute an express warranty.

(Module 1) (Question 4) Paul and Dan are in a car accident. The accident is 75 percent Dan's fault, and 25 percent Paul's fault. Paul has $100,000 in damages. Which of the following is true? a) Under comparative negligence, Dan will pay 25 percent of any jury award to Paul. b) Under comparative negligence, Paul still can recover the full 100 percent of any jury award to Paul. c) Under contributory negligence, Dan still has to pay the full 100 percent of any jury award to Paul. d) Under contributory negligence, Paul does not recover anything.

D. Negligence is an all or nothing approach, so if Paul is found to be 25 percent to blame, he would not recover anything. Answer a is incorrect because under comparative fault, Dan would pay 25 percent less as opposed to 25 percent of the award. If the award was for $100,000, he would pay $75,000, not $25,000, as answer a suggests. Answer b is incorrect because comparative negligence is a shared blame approach and Paul would not be able to recover the percentage that is attributed to him. In this case that would be $25,000, so he would recover $75,000, not the full $100,000. Answer c is incorrect because contributory negligence is an all or nothing approach and when the plaintiff is found to be partially to blame, they recover nothing. That is the case here with Paul being 25 percent to blame for the accident, he does not recover anything, so Paul does not have to pay the full 100 percent.

(Module 9) (Question 5) Which of the following is not a compensable harm in a loss of consortium claim? a) Loss of spousal support and services. b) Loss of spousal companionship and affection. c) Expenses for paying someone to perform tasks that the spouse can no longer perform. d) Pain and suffering.

D. Pain and suffering is not a compensable harm in a loss of consortium claim. Answers a, b, and c are incorrect because they are all compensable harm in a loss of consortium claim.

(Module 13) (Question 6) Dan operates a manufacturing plant that causes pollution that is in violation of various state and federal laws. Peter lives nearby the plant and the pollution has harmed his property and caused his young daughter to develop asthma. He is aware of similar problems with his neighbors. He is tired of waiting for state or federal officials to do something about the plant. Can he sue Dan for public nuisance? a) No, because he is not a public official. b) No, because the pollution is not a nuisance per se. c) Yes, but only for equitable relief. d) Yes, if he can establish that he has an injury that is different in kind from the injury suffered by other members of the public.

D. Peter can sue for public nuisance as an individual if he meets the special injury rule. Answer a is incorrect because both private individuals and public officials can bring claims for public nuisance. Answer b is incorrect because it does not have to be a nuisance per se to be a public nuisance. Answer c is incorrect because Peter is not limited to equitable relief. Monetary relief can also be available.

(Module 7) (Question 3) The Donalds have a small pond on their property where they like to fish and swim. It is full of wildlife. New neighbors move in next door and the Donalds invite them over for a cookout by the pond. The neighbors have a 6-year-old son who is fascinated by the fish and frogs in the pond. A few days later, Mr. Donald goes out and sees the boy floating in the pond. Which of the following is true? a) The Donalds owe a duty to use reasonable care under the attractive nuisance doctrine. b) The Donalds owe a duty to protect under the attractive nuisance doctrine. c) The attractive nuisance doctrine applies because the Donalds invited the neighbors onto their property. d) The attractive nuisance doctrine requirements are not met because the pond is a natural condition on the property.

D. The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to artificial conditions, not natural ones. Answer a is incorrect because the pond is a natural condition, and because the facts do not provide enough information to establish that the other requirements of the attractive nuisance doctrine are met. Answer b is incorrect for the same reasons as answer a. Answer c is incorrect because inviting the neighbors over would not in and of itself result in the attractive nuisance doctrine applying. It may be evidence that the child is likely to trespass, given that he was fascinated by the pond, but that is reading a bit much into the facts, and more information about the location of the pond, and the child's access to it, would be required to meet that criteria. In addition, that is only one of the criteria, and all of the criteria need to be met for the attractive nuisance doctrine to apply.

(Module 6) (Question 2) A key feature of the duty to control is: a) A special relationship between the defendant and the person who needs to be controlled. b) The ability of the defendant to control the person who needs to be controlled. c) Knowledge of the need to control. d) All of the above.

D. The information in answers a, b, and c are key features for the duty to protect.

(Module 4) (Question 6) What factors did the court use in Lewis v. Rodriquez to determine if professional negligence or ordinary negligence applied to a polygraph examiner? a) Reasonableness, training, the exercise of judgment. b) Experience, training, the exercise of judgment. c) Reasonableness, the exercise of discretion, licensure. d) Training, the exercise of judgment and discretion, licensure.

D. The other answers are incorrect because they include factors that the court did not use in its opinion.

(Module 5) (Question 2) Which of the following is not an exception to the general rule that there is not a duty to rescue or care for another? a) Creation of the peril. b) Special relationship. c) Attempted rescue or care for the plaintiff. d) Gratuitous promise to help.

D. While an agreement or a contract obligating a defendant to rescue or care for another can create a duty to do so, a gratuitous promise does not create such a duty, at least without any detrimental reliance by the plaintiff. Answers a, b, and c are all exceptions to the general rule and do create a duty to act.

(Module 9) (Question 4) Pam and Peter go to see Doctor Davis because they are concerned that if they have a child, it will have a genetic birth defect because of Pam's family history. Doctor Davis does some examinations and tests and determines that there is little to no risk off that occurring. Pam and Peter have a child, and it is born with a birth defect. Dr. Jones delivered the baby and tells them that the defect is likely the result of harm done to the fetus during the testing and examination that Doctor Davis performed. Which tort claims apply? a) Wrongful conception b) Wrongful birth c) Wrongful life d) Medical malpractice

D. Wrongful conception, birth and life claims involve a health care provider's failure to discover a genetic condition or illness that will cause harm to the child. They do not involve the health care provider causing harm to the child through their negligence. As a result, answers a, b, and c are incorrect.

(Module 10) (Question 3) In Edwards v. Post Transp. Co., the court ruled that a) Strict liability applied because the defendant failed to act with due care. b) Strict liability did not apply because the defendants failed to act with due care. c) Strict liability applied because the risk of harm could have been eliminated with the exercise of due care. d) Strict liability did not apply because the risk of harm could have been eliminated with the exercise of due care.

D. a, b, and c all misstate what the court said. Answers an and b are not correct because the issue was not if the defendant actually acted with due care or not. Rather, it is whether the risk could have been eliminated if the defendant had acted with due care.

(Module 9) (Question 1) Which of the following is a difference between wrongful conception, wrongful birth, and wrongful life? a) With wrongful conception, the parents can never recover the costs of raising the child. In wrongful birth and wrongful life, the parents can recover the costs of raising the child. b) With wrongful conception, the child brings the claim. With wrongful birth and wrongful life, the parents bring the claim. c) With wrongful conception and wrongful birth, the claim is brought against a health care provider. With wrongful life, claim is brought by the child against the parents. d) With wrongful conception, the parents did not want to have a child. With wrongful birth and wrongful life, the parents did want to have a child.

D. Answer a is incorrect because some courts allow the costs of raising a child as damages in wrongful conception cases, if the parents can establish that they were trying to avoid having children due to financial reasons. Also, the parents do not recover the costs of raising a child in wrongful birth cases. Rather, they recover the extraordinary or additional costs of raising a child with a health issue, or birth defect. Further, the parents don't recover anything in a wrongful life claim, because it is brought by the child. Answer b is incorrect because the parents bring the claim in wrongful conception and in wrongful birth claims. The child brings the claim in wrongful life claims. Answer c is incorrect because all three claims are brought against the health care provider.