Torts Multiple Choice Exam

What did Judge Cardozo mean when he wrote that "danger invites rescue"?

"Danger invites rescue" was a famous phrase from Judge Cardozo's decision in Wagner v. International Railway Co. He was talking about the rescue doctrine, and how rescues should be treated as foreseeable, because dangerous situations create the need for rescues.

Which of the following is a true statement about the "firefighters rule" in most states? A. it applies to police officers as well as firefighters B. it applies to situations where a person recklessly or intentionally starts a fire that causes harm to a firefighter, as well as situations where the person negligently started the fire C. it applies to injuries suffered by a firefighter who was off duty at the time the injury occurred, but not to injuries suffered while the firefighter was on duty D. it applies to claims brought by state or local governments on behalf of fire departments, but not claims brought by individual firefighters

A. Firefighters rule applies to police officers as well as firefighters

Dr. Davis negligently fails to diagnose and treat a disease in two different patients, Morris and Lester, both of whom die from the disease. If Morris had been properly diagnosed and treated, he would have had an 85% chance of surviving the disease. Lester's illness was more advanced when he went to the doctor, and he would have had only a 25% chance of surviving if he had been properly diagnosed and treated. Neither patient was negligent in any way. If Dr. Davis practices medicine in a state that allows recovery based on a "lost chance" theory, which of the following is he most likely to be liable for?

85% of the damages for Morris's death, and 25% of the damages for Lester's death. Under a lost chance theory, there is a proportional recovery, even if the odds of causation are below 50 percent.

Which one of the following statements would a court be most likely to agree with? A, If you intentionally make your neighbor angry by burning leaves in order to create smoke that drifts into his yard and irritates his throat, you may be liable for battery. B. if you intentionally make your neighbor angry by shining a bright light at his house in order to annoy him during the night, you may be liable for trespass to land C. if you intentionally make your neighbor angry by spying on him with a telescope in your living room, you may be liable for assault D. if you intentionally make your neighbor angry by doing things in your yard to make foul odor's that spread into his house, you may be liable for trespass to land

A, the strongest claim here would be that the smoke from the burning leaves could be a battery. At least some courts would say that inhaling the smoke is a form of contact. And if it was intended to be harmful or offensive, that could create a valid battery claim.

Which of the following is required for every false imprisonment claim? A. The defendant did an act that caused the plaintiff to be confined. B. the D had a purpose or desire to confine the P within a limited area C. the P was physically restrained in a way that made it impossible for the P to leave D. the P was harmed by the confinement

A. A false imprisonment claim always requires that the defendant did an act that resulted in the plaintiff being confined.

A customer at a bar liked to annoy the bar's other patrons by cheering against the local sports teams during games being shown on televisions in the bar. One evening during an important playoff game involving the local baseball team, the customer became intoxicated and was particularly obnoxious to the fans of the local team. The bartender and several of the patrons at the bar who were watching the game decided to get back at the obnoxious drunk customer by pushing him into a closet and locking the door. For about ten minutes, the obnoxious drunk customer pounded on the closet door and yelled that he wanted to be let out. When he stopped making noise, the bartender opened the closet door to check on the customer and found that he had passed out. One of the people at the bar said that he would give the obnoxious drunk a ride home, so several people helped to carry the obnoxious drunk outside and put him in the back of a car so he could be driven home. The next day, the obnoxious customer had a bad hangover from drinking too much, but he did not remember anything that happened the previous night. A few days later, the obnoxious customer visited the bar again and several people told him abo

A. A false imprisonment claim requires proof that the defendant did an act that had the intent and result of confining the plaintiff within a limited area. The plaintiff must show that he was either aware of the confinement or harmed by it. Here, the obnoxious drunk customer was aware of the confinement at the time it occurred. The fact that he had no memory of it later does not invalidate his claim.

A restaurant was located next to a motel. The owner of the restaurant had a disagreement with the owner of the motel. The restaurant owner erected a large fence between the restaurant and the motel. The fence was ninety feet long and twenty feet high. The fence was on the restaurant owner's property, but it was just one foot from the property line that separated the restaurant property and the motel property. The fence blocked a substantial amount of light and air from the rooms of the motel, and the evidence established that the restaurant owner had no reason for erecting the fence other than his ill feelings toward the motel owner. If the motel owner brings a private nuisance action against the restaurant owner, who will prevail? A. The motel owner, because the fence was built for the sole purpose of annoying a neighbor. B. the motel owner, because the motel owner is entitled to have the views from his property remain unimpeded C. the restaurant owner, because a property owner has a right to use his property as he chooses D. the restaurant owner, because the fence is causing now harm other than being aesthetically unpleasant

A. A private nuisance exists where the defendant does something that substantially and unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of land possessed by the plaintiff. This question involves what courts have called a "spite fence," meaning a structure that is built on one's property for no reason except hostility to a neighbor. In the 19th century, most American courts followed the English rule and held in favor of people who built spite fences, reasoning that people have a right to use their property for any purpose they desire. Most American courts today reach the opposite conclusion and find that a spite fence is a private nuisance because it substantially and unreasonably interferes with a neighbor's use of property for no legitimate purpose.

Which of the following is a correct statement about the "duplicative causation" rule? A. It covers situations in which there are multiple things that combined to cause the plaintiff's injury, and each of them was sufficient to cause the injury. B. It covers situations in which there were multiple things that combined to cause the P's injury, and each of them was necessary to cause the injury C. it covers situations in which there were multiple things that could have caused the P's injury, and it is unclear which of them actually caused the injury D. it covers situations in which there were multiple things that could have caused the P's injury, and they were all under the D's control

A. Duplicative causation is where there are multiple sufficient causes.

In a negligence case, which of the following characteristics of a D are generally not taken into account in the standard of care applied to the D's conduct? A. Mental problems and voluntary intoxication B. physical problems and mental advantages C. Physical advantages and mental problems D. Physical problems and involuntary intoxication

A. Mental problems and voluntary intoxication are the things not taken into account in the standard of care (duty element)

What effect does res ipsa loquitur have in most states? A. Res ipsa loquitur creates a permissible inference of negligence, which gives the jury the option of ruling in the P's favor B. Res ipsa loquitur creates a prima facie case for the P, giving the D the burden of coming forward with some evidence to counter the prima facie showing C. Res ipsa loquitur creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, shifting to the D the burden of proof on the issue D. Res ipsa loquitur creates an irrebuttable presumption of negligence, requiring the jury to find that the D's conduct was negligent

A. Res ipsa loquitur creates an inference of negligence in most states

Which of the following is a true statement about the "but for" test? A. The "but for" test looks at whether the plaintiff's injury would have been avoided if the defendant had exercised reasonable care. B. the "but for" test looks at whether the D would have acted with reasonable care if the d had average mental and physical abilities C. the but for test looks at whether the P's injury would have been reasonably foreseeable to a person in the D's situation D. the but for test looks at whether the D would have owed a duty to the P if there was a special relationship between the P and the D

A. The "but for" test is about whether the plaintiff's injury would have happened but for the defendant's negligence. In other words, it is about whether the injury would have been avoided if the defendant had exercised reasonable care.

Which of the following issues in a torts case would traditionally and ordinarily be decided by the judge, rather than by the jury? A. Whether the plaintiff was a trespasser, a licensee, or an invitee on the defendant's property at the time the plaintiff was injured. B. whether the D is liable through res ipsa loquitur even though there is no proof about exactly what the D did that was negligent C. whether the P's injury would have been avoided or reduced in severity if the D had acted with reasonable care D. whether the D's negligence was a proximate cause of the harm suffered by the P

A. duty is generally a legal issue, so the traditional rule would be that it's up to the judge to decide if someone was a trespasser, a licensee, or an invitee

A traveler had a few minutes to wait in an airport before the boarding of her flight began, so she decided to find a place to plug in her cell phone and charge its battery. She saw a counter that had a row of electrical outlets. Several other people were using the outlets to charge their phones and other devices but there was an outlet that was not being used so the traveler plugged in her phone. She sat nearby and read a book while she waited. When she heard the announcement for the boarding of her flight, she stood up and walked over to retrieve her phone. She put it in her pocket without looking carefully at it, and she went to get on the airplane. When she arrived at her destination a few hours later, she took out the phone and turned it on so that she could make a call. At that point, she realized that it was not her phone. She remembered that there were many similar phones plugged in at the counter where she had charged her phone at the airport, and she realized that she must have picked up the wrong phone in her hurry to go get in line to get on the airplane. She went to the airline's customer service counter and she told them what had happened. She turned in the phone that she ha

A. The owner of the phone would be able to prevail on an intentional tort claim against the traveler, although it is hard to say whether the most appropriate claim would be conversion or trespass to chattel. A conversion claim requires proof that the defendant intentionally exercised dominion or control over the plaintiff's chattel. The plaintiff merely needs to prove that the defendant's actions with respect to the chattel were intentional, not that the defendant knew the chattel belonged to someone else. In other words, if the defendant intentionally took a chattel, and it turns out that the item belongs to someone else, that makes the defendant liable for conversion. It does not matter whether the defendant knew the item belonged to someone else and intended to steal it. Likewise, a trespass to chattel claim requires proof that the defendant intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's chattel. Again, it does not matter whether the defendant realized that the chattel belonged to someone else. If you take someone's chattel for a short period of time, that is a trespass to chattel. If you take it for a longer time, that would become a conversion as well. It is therefore difficult to say whether the traveler here had the plaintiff's phone long enough to make it a conversion, but it would be a trespass to chattel in any event.

A grocery store buys its zucchini from two large farms, Zucchini Acres and Zucchini Fields. Both farms spray their zucchini crops with a dangerous, illegal pesticide. Phyllis buys zucchini at the market, eats it, and dies because of the pesticide. Which of the following facts would make this an "alternative liability" case? A. Both farms grow green and yellow zucchini, Phyllis ate just one zucchini, and it was green. B. Zucchini Acres grows only green zucchini. Zucchini Fields only grows yellow zucchini. Phyllis ate one green zucchini and one yellow, and the pesticide in either was enough to kill her C. Zucchini Acres grows only green zucchini, Zucchini Fields grows only yellow zucchini, Phyllis ate one green and one yellow, and it took the pesticide in two zucchini to kill Phyllis

A. This scenario involves alternative liability because there is only one squash that caused the harm, but it could have come from either farm, and we can't be sure which it came from. So it is like the two shots fired by the hunters in Summers v. Tice, and we aren't sure who fired the shot that hit the plaintiff.

A plaintiff has sued a defendant for injuries that occurred while the plaintiff was trespassing on the defendant's land. Which one of the following is the most accurate statement about the traditional, general rules of tort law? A. the landowner could be held liable for conduct that was an intentional tort, but not for negligence B. the landowner could be held liable for conduct that was negligent, but not for an intentional tort C. the landowner could be held liable for an intentional tort or negligence D. the landowner could not be held liable for negligence or an intentional tort

A. We know from cases like Katko v. Briney that property owners generally can be held liable for intentional torts against trespassers. In other words, you cannot just kill any trespasser who is on your property. And we also learned that under negligence, property owners generally do not have a duty to trespassers. There are exceptions, but this question asks about the general rules. The answer is therefore that landowners generally can be liable for intentional torts to trespassers, but not for negligence. When the question specifies what rule it is asking you about, by using terms like "traditional" and "general" you have to take that seriously and answer accordingly

Which of the following is most likely to be considered an invitee? A. a person who goes into a shopping mall to take a walk for exercise, but has no money and no intention of purchasing anything B. a person who is invited to come over to a friends house and watch tv C. a person who briefly enters a neighbor's yard to retrieve a dollar bill that was accidentally blown out of the person's hand by the wind and landed a few feet inside the neighbor's yard D. a person who gets lost while hiking and accidentally wanders onto someone else's land without realizing it is private property

A. an invitee is someone who enters property for a reason that is potentially a financial benefit to the property owner. Such as a customer who goes into a business. But remember that a person is also an invitee if the person enters property that is held open to the public. So anyone in a shopping mall is an invitee, even if they have no intention or ability to purchase anything.

A plaintiff seeks to hold a corporation liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for a battery committed by one of the corporation's employees. Which of the following is true? A. the P must show that the corporation authorized the employee's action B. the P must show that the corporation desired for the battery to occur or had knowledge of a substantial certainty that it would occur C. The P must show that the employee was acting within the scope of employment D. The P must show that the battery was the result of the company's failure to properly train and supervise the employee

C. The employer can be liable under respondeat superior for intentional torts by employees that were within the scope of employment.

Which of the following is the best statement of the rule that the Third Restatement recommends as a replacement for the traditional approaches to proximate cause? A. a D's conduct is a legal cause of the P's alleged harm if the harm would not have occurred but for the negligent character of the D's conduct B. A D's liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the D's conduct tortious C. a negligent act has a reasonable connection to a P's injury if the act was a substantial factor that contributed to the occurrence of the harm D. a P must show that there was a natural and continuous causal connection between the P's injuries and the D's negligence

B. The Third Restatement would replace proximate cause with the approach that asks if what happened was within the scope of the risks that made us say the defendant's conduct was negligent.

Which of the following has traditionally been regarded as a "special relationship" under tort law that gives one person a duty to help or protect another person? A. the relationship between two people who are married to one another B. the relationship between a parent and a young child C. The relationship between an attorney and client D. the relationship between two people who are co-workers

B

in which of the following situations would a court be most likely to hold that the defendant had a duty to use reasonable care to prevent the plaintiff from being injured by a criminal attack by a third person? A. the D was a tenant in a residential apartment building, and the P was another tenant of the building who was attacked by a criminal in the hallway right outside the door to the D's apartment B. The D is a railroad, and the P was a passenger who was attacked by a criminal while riding on one of the D's trains C. The D sold land to the P, and the P was attacked by a criminal while visiting the property several weeks after purchasing it D. the D hosted a party at his house, and the P was a party guest who was attacked by a criminal when he stepped outside to smoke a cig

B. A common carrier has a special relationship with passengers

Which of the following things may be treated as being foreseeable, for purposes of proximate cause, even when it actually was not foreseeable? A. a criminal attack B. A rescue attempt. C. a false statement D. a memory lapse

B. A rescue attempt is something that may be treated as being foreseeable, even if it is really not. That is the "rescue doctrine."

A high school student got into trouble frequently at school. As a result, he strongly disliked the school's principal, and the principal disliked him as well. The student and the principal lived in the same neighborhood. While going to visit his friends, the student often would walk on the sidewalk past the front of the principal's house. On one occasion, the student cut across the principal's yard, and the principal came out and told the student to stay away from his property. One afternoon a few weeks later, the student was passing by the principal's house. He saw that the principal was outside playing with his son. The principal and his son went inside. The student noticed that the principal had left a soccer ball sitting in the grass in the principal's yard, just about ten feet from the sidewalk. Just because he wanted to defy the principal's instructions to stay away from his property, the student took a few steps off the sidewalk on to the lawn of the principal's home, approached the soccer ball, and kicked it. The ball rolled forward for about twenty feet and came to a stop near the front door to the principal's home. The student then stepped back onto the sidewalk and continued o

B. A trespass to land claim requires proof that the defendant acted with the intent and result of causing someone or something to enter or remain on the defendant's land. A trespass to land can occur even if no harm is done to the land and even if the interference with the landowner's property interests is not substantial. Taking a few steps on someone else's land therefore technically could be a trespass to land, although the claim might be relatively trivial and the damages that could be recovered might be very small. A trespass to chattel claim requires proof that the defendant intentionally and substantially interfered with the plaintiff's chattel. Trespass to chattel does not occur where the interference with the chattel is insubstantial, so a trivial act like just briefly touching or moving someone else's chattel is not actionable. Tort law thus affords a greater degree of protection to real property than personal property. The student technically committed a trespass to land by walking a few steps on the principal's property, even though the damages for that trespass may be nominal. Merely kicking the soccer ball from one spot in the yard to another did not interfere with the ball in a substantial way, so the student would not be liable for trespass to chattel.

Which of the following is an essential part of every valid claim for battery? A. The D's body made contact with the P's body B. The plaintiff was harmed or offended by what occurred. C. The D intended to cause physical or emotional harm to the P D. The P was aware of the harmful or offensive contact at the time it occurred

B. Every battery claim involves harmful or offensive contact. So it is essential that the plaintiff was harmed or offended by what occurred.

Dexter said that he was going to kill his neighbor Patrick. Which of the following facts, if true, would be most likely to prevent Patrick from holding Dexter liable for assault? A. Patrick is a professional firefighter who has rigorously trained himself to the point where he can face any risk of physical injury without feeling any fear B. The threat occurred when Dexter saw Patrick in Dexter's back yard, Dexter pulled out a gun and pointed it at Patrick, and Dexter said "Get out of my yard or I'll kill you." C. Dexter only meant to scare Patrick and never intended to actually carry out the threat D. Dexter left the area less than thirty seconds after making the threat, so Patrick's fear lasted only a short amount of time

B. If Dexter made a conditional threat, and the condition is something that Dexter is entitled to require Patrick to do (like telling Patrick to leave Dexter's property), then Dexter is not liable for assault.

a city ordinance forbids washing vehicles parked on city streets. John washed his car while it was parked on the street in front of his home. The water formed a puddle in the street, which froze during the night. Early the next morning, Derek was driving his car down the street. Derek's car slid on the ice and crashed into a tree. Derek suffered a neck injury in the crash. If Derek sues John and asserts that John was negligent per se, what additional fact would help John the most? A. John was not aware of the ordinance B. The city council enacted the ordinance after several incidents occurred in which people were hit by passing vehicles while they were washing their cars parked on city streets C. The ordinance states that a person who violates the ordinance must pay a small fine to the city, but does not mention anything about tort liability D. Derek is not a resident of the city

B. Negligence per se works only if you've got the type of risk the legislature had in mind when they enacted the statute. If the ordinance was passed after several people got hit by cars while they were washing their cars, that would suggest that the legislature was worried about people getting hit while standing in the street washing their cars. And if so, then perhaps cars sliding on ice and crashing into trees isn't the type of harm that the legislature had in mind.

The driver of a car negligently hit a pedestrian who was crossing a street. Which of the following would automatically be regarded as a foreseeable result of the driver's negligence? A. the fact that the pedestrian became severely depressed after the accident, and the pedestrian eventually died by suicide B. The fact that the pedestrian had to be rushed to a hospital by helicopter, the helicopter crashed, and the pedestrian died in the crash. C. the fact that the pedestrian was carrying a box of dynamite, which exploded while the pedestrian was hit by the driver's car D. the fact that a bystander suffered severe emotional distress because of seeing the car hit the pedestrian

B. Subsequent accidents are deemed to be foreseeable, even if they really were not

A mechanic at Dave's Tire Shop negligently over-inflates the new tires he installs on Phil's car. While Phil is driving to work the next day, one of the tires blows out. Phil loses control of the car, hits a guard rail by the side of the road, and suffers a broken leg. If Phil sues Dave's Tire Shop for negligence, which of the following is the minimum that Phil must prove to establish the "actual causation" element of his claim? A. if the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressure, Phil definitely would not have had the tire blow out B. If the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressure, Phil probably would not have had the tire blow out. C. if the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressures, there is a reasonable chance that Phil would not have had the tire blow out D. if the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressure, there is a material possibility that Phil would not have had the tire blow out

B. The standard level of proof required in civil cases (including torts cases) is that the plaintiff must prove things by a preponderance of the evidence, which means it is more probable than not. The term "probably" may sound informal and therefore less likely to be the right answer, but "more probable than not" is the legal standard, so saying that something "probably" would have occurred comes closest, out of these choices, to stating the correct legal standard.

In which of the following situations is a court least likely to find liability for battery? A. The D had a gun and tried to shoot Person A, but missed and accidentally shot person B. The D was not aware that Person B was even there B. The defendant tried to shoot his neighbor, but the gun jammed and did not fire when the defendant pulled the trigger. The neighbor was terrified by this, but relieved when he realized the defendant's gun had jammed. C. The D had a mental illness that caused him to believe that other people are vampires. He fired a gun into a dense crowd of people in a subway station, because he sincerely believed they were vampires. The bullet struck one of the people in the crowd D. The D fired a gun across a busy highway. He thought it was highly likely the bullet would hit one of the cars, but very unlikely it would hit or otherwise hurt any person. The bullet hit and cracked the windshield of a car, which caused the driver of that car to swerve and crash into a guard rail next to the highway. The driver suffered a broken leg in the crash.

B. There is no liability for battery here, because no one experiences any harmful or offensive contact. There might be liability for assault, but not battery.

A grocery store buys its squash from two large farms, Squash Acres and Squash Fields. Both farms spray their squash crops with a dangerous, illegal pesticide. Phillip buys squash at the grocery store, eats it, and dies because of the pesticide. If Phillip's estate sues both farms for negligence, which of the following facts would make this a "duplicative causes" (or "multiple sufficient causes") case? A. both farms grow green and yellow squash, Phillip ate just one squash, and it was green B. Squash Acres grows only green squash, Squash Fields grows only yellow squash, Phillip ate one green squash and one yellow squash, and the pesticide in either squash was enough to kill Phillip. C. Squash Acres grows only green squash. Squash Fields grows only yellow squash. Phillip ate one green squash and one yellow squash, and it took the pesticide in two squashes to kill Phillip

B. This scenario involves duplicative causation because it involves two causes, each of which would be sufficient to cause the entire harm. It is like the two fires coming together, and either would be sufficient to burn the property.

Which of the following is an example of duress of goods? A. a person purchases a new fishing boat. He leaves it parked in his yard on a trailer. The back of the boat extends a few feet across the property line into his neighbor's yard. The neighbor complains, but the person does not move the boat. The neighbor pushes the trailer and boat, to get them off his property. In the process of doing so, the neighbor damages the boat. B. A person wears an expensive necklace to a party. Someone at the party asks to try on the necklace to see how it looks, but then refuses to give it back. The owner of the necklace wants to leave the party, but is afraid to leave without getting back the necklace first. C. a person attends an event at a museum. There is a coat check where those attending the event can leave their coats during the event. When the person is leaving the event, the coat check attendant mistakenly gives the person the wrong coat. It looks similar to the person's coat, so the person does not notice the difference and leaves the coat that does not belong to him. D. a person is a guest at a wedding reception, held at a country club, where a buffet dinner is being served. The person is ho

B. This would be an example of duress of goods. Although the person is able to leave the party, the person is nevertheless confined in some sense, because the person is afraid of losing the necklace. This is a form of confinement that can be used for a false imprisonment claim.

One night during the winter, there was a storm. The streets were icy and slick. Visibility was limited because of falling snow and sleet. A family lived on a street that had a long row of houses. All of the houses had the same basic design so they looked very similar to one another, especially at night in a blizzard. The family was sitting around in their living room playing a game. Suddenly the front door opened, and a person walked in. He was bundled up in a big coat and he was wearing a ski mask that covered his face. The family was frightened and froze in place as the intruder removed his coat. When he pulled off his ski mask, they recognized him as a person who lived in a house on their street, two doors down. The man looked up and saw the family and looked very surprised to see them. At that moment, there was a large crashing sound out in front of the home. The family looked out the window and saw that a large truck was in their front yard. The driver of the truck got out and apologized, explaining that as she was driving down the street past the family's house, the street was so icy that the truck slid off the street and into the yard of the family's house. The man who had entered

B. To recover for trespass to land, the plaintiff must show that the defendant did an act that had the intent and result of causing someone or something to enter or remain on the plaintiff's land. The plaintiff merely needs to prove that the defendant operty intentionally, not that the defendant knew it was someone else's property and intended to trespass on it. The neighbor intended to enter the house. He mistakenly thought it was his house, but he nevertheless intended to enter it. That would make him liable for trespass to land. The truck driver unintentionally slid off the street because of the ice, and did not intend to leave the street and enter the yard. The truck driver therefore did not have intent to enter the property and would not be liable for trespass to land, provided that she did not remain on the property for an unreasonably long time when it was possible to leave.

Priscilla goes to a doctor to have surgery on her knee. The doctor fails to sterilize the scalpel before doing the surgery, and Priscilla gets a severe infection as a result. If Priscilla sues the doctor for negligence, and the doctor argues that he cannot be held liable for nonfeasance, how is the court likely to rule? A. this was misfeasance because the harm suffered was foreseeable B. This was misfeasance because the doctor did a negligent act, rather than merely failing to help the plaintiff C. this was nonfeasance, because the negligence is the doctor's failure to sterilize the scalpel D. this was nonfeasance, because the doctor did not have a duty to perform the operation unless it was an emergency

B. the doctor performed surgery without properly sterilizing the scalpel. That is not merely nonfeasance. The doctor did not merely fail to help the patient; he affirmatively did something that made her worse off. That rules out the third and fourth answers, which wrongly suggest this was mere nonfeasance. The first answer is a plausible answer, because it is true that the harm was foreseeable. But that is not the best explanation of what distinguishes nonfeasance and misfeasance, because harm can be a foreseeable result of nonfeasance or misfeasance. For example, if you see someone about to fall off a cliff and you don't say anything to warn them, that is nonfeasance but the harm is highly foreseeable. The second choice contains a better statement of what makes something misfeasance rather than nonfeasance.

A taxi driver picked up a passenger who asked to be driven to an address on the other side of town. The taxi driver started driving to the requested destination, but the taxi driver started to get nervous because he thought the passenger was acting suspiciously. Distracted by his worries about the passenger, the taxi driver made a wrong turn. Realizing his mistake, the taxi driver pulled into the short driveway of a home in order to turn around. The taxi driver expected to be in the driveway for only a moment, just long enough to put the taxi into reverse, back out into the street, and head off in the correct direction. But just when the taxi driver pulled into the driveway and applied the brakes, the passenger lunged at the taxi driver, grabbed him around the neck, and said "Give me your money." The taxi driver struggled with the passenger, and in doing so the taxi driver took his foot off the brake and the taxi rolled forward a few feet and struck a wall of the house at the end of the driveway. The taxi scraped the paint on the wall of the house but did not otherwise damage it. The passenger jumped out of the taxi and ran away. The owner of the house has sued the taxi driver for trespa

C. A person who intentionally enters property that belongs to someone else may be liable for trespass to land, but not if the person has consent to enter the property. Consent to enter property may be given explicitly, such as when an acquaintance invites you to visit her home. Consent also may be implied by conduct. For example, we assume that a restaurant that is open for business is implicitly authorizing costumers to enter. And consent also may be implied by social customs. For example, we assume that in the absence of notice to the contrary, the owner of a house consents to allowing others to enter the property for the purpose of approaching the house's front door. A person thus can go up and knock on someone's door without being liable for trespassing. Likewise, it is common for motorists to use driveways to turn around, and consent to use property for this purpose is implied by social custom. The taxi driver therefore did not become liable for trespass to land by entering the driveway. The taxi driver did not have consent to hit the house with his taxi, of course, but the taxi driver did not act intentionally in doing so.

Which of the following is the best statement of the reasoning underlying the court's decision to invent the doctrine of "alternative liability" in Summers v. Tice (Cal. 1948)? A. where there is uncertainty about whether the harm suffered by the P was reasonably foreseeable, the court should consider alternative bases for imposing liability B. if the negligence of several D's combine to cause harm to the P, the liability for the harm should be fairly allocated among the D's C. When it is unclear which of several wrongdoers caused the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff should not be deprived of a remedy for the injury. D. the traditional all-or-nothing approach to tort recovery unfairly prevents Ps from recovering in situations where the D was probably negligent but the precise nature of that negligence is unknown

C. Alternative liability is for situations where the plaintiff cannot determine which of several wrongdoers was the actual cause of the harm. The language in this answer comes from the Summers v. Tice opinion.

After graduating from college, a man wanted to write a novel, so he decided to spend a year traveling around the country on a motorcycle and looking for new and interesting experiences that would be good inspiration for writing. He roamed from town to town, intermittently working on writing a novel and doing odd jobs to make a little money here and there. In one town, the writer was hired to help out with work on a farm. He wound up having a romantic relationship with the farmer's daughter, a sixteen year old high school student. The farmer discovered this and was very upset by it. The farmer told several of his friends about what happened and they agreed to help him confront the writer and threaten him. Early the next morning, the farmer and his friends went to the motel where the man was staying and knocked on the door of the man's room. The farmer's friends were wearing ski masks that covered their faces and they were carrying baseball bats. When the man opened the door, the farmer and his friends barged into the motel room and surrounded the man. The farmer said, "Pack up your stuff and leave town. If you're not gone by sundown tonight, I will kill you." The man was terrified by this

C. An assault claim requires proof that the plaintiff was put in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Imminent means that the harmful or offensive contact will happen very soon, almost immediately, without any significant delay. The farmer threatened to kill the writer if the writer was not gone by sundown. This occurred in the morning, so the threat was not going to be carried out for hours. The farmer therefore was not making a threat of imminent harm.

A young woman got a job working as a receptionist at a law firm. One of the lawyers employed at the firm had a bad temper and he frequently yelled at members of the law firm's staff, sometimes using profanity. Most of the firm's employees had gotten used to the lawyer's behavior and were not particularly bothered by it. The receptionist was unusually sensitive and so having someone yell at her and use profanity was far more disturbing to her than it would be to most people. She was afraid to complain about the lawyer's behavior because she feared that she might get fired if she said something about it, and she had a strong financial need to keep her job. She became increasingly upset about the situation, but suffered through it for several months. Finally, she could not take it anymore. She sought psychiatric treatment. Her therapist diagnosed her as suffering from severe anxiety caused by the traumatic stress of the situation at the law firm. If the receptionist sues the law firm for intentional infliction of emotional distress, what is the most likely result of the lawsuit? A. the receptionist wins, because she was genuinely outraged by the lawyer's behavior B. the receptionist wins, b

C. An intentional infliction of emotional distress claim requires proof that the defendant did an extreme and outrageous act that was either intended to cause severe emotional distress or that was reckless in creating a risk of severe emotional distress. The defendant's conduct must be truly extreme and outrageous, meaning that ordinary reasonable people would find it shocking and utterly intolerable. Here, the lawyer's conduct was rude, but it did not rise to the level of being extreme and outrageous. For example, most of the other employees at the firm were not particularly bothered by it.

what does the algebraic variable B represent in the formula that Judge Learned Hand proposed using for negligence claims? A. B stands for the breach element of a negligence claim B. B represents the severity of the burden that would be imposed on the D if it is held liable and required to pay damages to the P C. B is a measure of how much it would cost the D to implement the additional safety precautions that the P claims the D should have taken D. B represents the balancing aspect of the formula, which requires the decision maker in a negligence case to balance the risks and benefits of the D's actions

C. B is the burden or cost of implementing the additional safety precautions that the P claims it was negligent for the D not to take.

John recently acquired a small grocery store. He is considering replacing the floor tile in the entrance area at the front of the store, since he is concerned about customers slipping and falling because the tile gets very slick when it rains and customers track water into the store. Currently, an average of 10 customers suffer injuries from slips and falls in this part of the store every year. Rite-Floor is the safest floor covering that John could buy, but it would cost $150,000. Trusty‑Floor is an alternative floor covering that would cost only half as much. John can accurately predict that installing Rite-Floor would reduce the number of injuries by 70% and that installing Trusty-Floor would reduce the number of injuries by 40%. The Rite-Floor and Trusty‑Floor products both have to be replaced every 10 years. John's current floor is very durable and it would last for another 10 years if he leaves it in place. The average cost of each injury, on any floor, is $2,000. John asks himself, "What would Learned Hand do?" According to the Learned Hand formula, what is the reasonable thing for John to do? A. keep the current floor B. have a Rite-Floor installed C. Have a Trusty Floor installe

C. Consider whether a reasonable person would switch to the Rite floor. It would reduce expected accident costs by $140,000 (because instead of having 100 accidents that cost $2,000 each, you'd expect to have just 30 accidents at $2,000 per accident, for a reduction in accident costs of $200,000 minus $60,000), but the Rite floor costs $150,000. A reasonable person would not spend $150,000 to avoid $140,000 in accident costs. On the other hand, the Trusty floor will reduce accident costs by $80,000 ($200,000 minus $120,000), and it costs only $75,000. A reasonable person would spend $75,000 to avoid $80,000 in accident costs.

Which of the following is the best statement of what the court decided in the Bryne v. Boadle case? A. the court decided that speculation cannot serve as a substitute for strict proof when it sought to fix a D with serious liability B. the court decided that there are certain situations in which one may say "respondeat superior" C. the court decided that in some instances, the mere fact of the accident having occurred is evidence of negligence D. the court decided that a P is not entitled to have a case decided by the jury unless the P provides at least some affirmative, specific evidence on the part of the D

C. In Byrne v. Boadle, the court decided that in some instances, one can infer that there must have been some kind of negligence, even if one does not know specifically what the negligence was.

Susan was shopping at a grocery store when she fell and broke her hip. She fell when she tripped over a wooden pallet. (A pallet is a flat structure used to support goods while being lifted and transported by machines such as forklifts or pallet jacks.) The pallet was being used as part of a display of watermelons in the produce section of the store. The display consisted of a large cardboard box of watermelons that was resting on the wooden pallet. The pallet extended out about eight inches beyond the area of the cardboard box. Susan was walking by the display and did not notice the pallet. She tripped on the pallet and fell. Susan brought a negligence claim against the grocery store. The store seeks to present evidence that wooden pallets are commonly used in this way in grocery store displays. Which of the following is most likely to be true? A. Susan's claim will be dismissed before trial, because the D's evidence establishes that the use of pallets in grocery store displays is a widespread and commonly accepted practice B. The D will be allowed to present the evidence about pallets often being used in displays, but the D will have the burden of showing that the specific way it used

C. Evidence about what people customarily do is relevant in a negligence case, but it is not dispositive. What people usually do is relevant in deciding if the D acted with the care of a reasonable person under the circumstances, but it is possible that something is negligent even though it is a common practice

Which of the following is an example of the doctrine of extended liability? A. the D has a mental illness. The D got into a fight with a friend. The D wound up grabbing a knife and stabbing his friend with it. The D was held liable for battery B. The D wanted to kill his enemy so he put a bomb in the enemy's car. The enemy let someone else use the car, and the bomb went off and killed the person who used the car. The D was held liable for battery C. The defendant was playing in a softball game. He got mad and threw a handful of sand in the face of the umpire. The sand got in the umpire's eye and badly scratched the cornea, causing a serious impairment of the umpire's vision. The defendant was held liable for battery. D. the D gave a box of powerful fireworks to a child. The D did not want the child to get hurt, but the D knew it was almost certain that the child would not use the fireworks safely and would get injured by them. The child was injured while using the fireworks. The D was held liable for battery

C. Extended liability is where the defendant intended to cause harm, but the harm that occurs is worse than what the defendant intended or could have expected.

Which of the following intentional torts has been recognized by courts for less than a century? A. conversion B. false imprisonment C. Intentional infliction of emotional distress. D. trespass to chattels

C. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a relatively recent invention. Courts did not begin to recognize it as a valid claim until the mid 20th century.

Tom was having dinner at a restaurant with friends. He went to use the restroom, which was at the end of a short hallway at the back of the restaurant. He did not realize that the floor in the hallway had just been mopped and was slippery. A restaurant employee had mopped the floor because some food had been spilled there. The employee had briefly left the hallway to get a "caution - wet floor" sign from a supply closet that he could put in the hallway. Tom suffered an injury to his knee when he fell. The restaurant has a policy of marking the floor with a warning sign whenever it is mopped, but there is no statute or regulation that requires this. If Tom brings a negligence lawsuit, which of the following is true? A. Tom would prevail because he can rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur B. Tom may prevail if he sues the employee, but not if he brings his lawsuit only against the restaurant C. Tom might prevail if the jury in his case believes that a reasonable worker in a restaurant would not have left the slippery floor unattended and unmarked even for a brief amount of time. D. Tom will lose, because there is no law requiring a warning sign to be posted when the floor is mopped

C. Negligence cases usually come down to a decision by the jury, about whether the plaintiff's injury was caused by the defendant failing to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. That is likely to be true here. It would just come down to whether the jury decides that the restaurant employee was negligent.

In a negligence case, the plaintiff proved that the defendant violated a statute. Which of the following must be true in order for negligence per se to apply? A. the statute was a federal law, not merely a state or local law B. the D was aware of the existence of the statute that was violated C. The P was a member of the class of persons meant to be protected by the statute D. the legislature that enacted the statute indicated that they wanted the statute to be a basis for tort liability

C. Negligence per se applies only if the P was a member of of the class of persons meant to be protected by the statute, and the injury was the kind the statute was designed to prevent

For a negligence claim, which of the following things generally would be taken into account in setting the standard or level of care that a defendant was expected to exercise? A. the fact that the D had a serious mental illness B. the fact that the D voluntarily consumed a large quantity of alc and was very intoxicated C. the fact that the D had very poor eyesight D. the fact that the D's intelligence was significantly below average

C. Poor eyesight is a physical problem that is taken into account in the standard of care (mental problems and intoxication are not taken into account when analyzing standard of care/ duty to act as reasonable person under the circumstances)

Lisa worked at a small airport outside a large city. A skydiving company operated at the airport, using it as the location for airplanes to take off and land when taking people up for skydiving. Lisa was interested in skydiving, but she knew little about it and was nervous about the idea of doing a jump from an airplane. She had access to a storage area where sky diving equipment was kept. Without authorization, she took a skydiving container (which is the pack, worn by a skydiver, that contains the parachute). She went to the roof of the tallest building in the city, put on the skydiving container and jumped off the building. She pulled the ripcord, but the parachute had not been properly packed into the container, so it did not open properly, and Lisa plummeted to her death. A lawsuit was brought against the skydiving company, by Lisa's family, alleging that the improper packing of the parachute was negligent. Experts on both sides of the case agree that if the parachute had been packed correctly, it would have opened properly. They further agree that even if the parachute had opened properly, Lisa probably would have died anyway, because that type of parachute is safe and effective on

C. The plaintiff in this case would have a real problem with the actual cause element here. Experts on both sides of the case agree that even if the parachute had worked properly, Lisa would have died anyway. So but for the negligence, the result would have been the same.

A college student met a person who was interested in having a romantic relationship with the student, but the student was not interested. The student occasionally would run into the person on campus, and when that happened, the person would sometimes follow the student for a while. For example, if the student went to the library, the person would sometimes follow her into the library and sit near her while the student was studying, or if she went to a coffee shop the person would follow her in and hang around while she was there. The student lived in a dormitory with a security system that required the use of a security keycard to enter the building, so the person did not follow the student into the dormitory or bother her there. The student felt that she was being stalked, and someone suggested to the student that she bring a tort claim against the person for being a nuisance. If the student brings a nuisance action against the person who has been following her, who will prevail? A. the student, because a reasonable person would consider it highly annoying to be followed B. the student, because the person has interfered with the students ability to use places like libraries and coffee

C. There are two types of nuisance claims. A public nuisance involves a substantial and unreasonable interference with a right of the general public, such as the right to health and safety or the right to use public roads or waterways. The person who is following the student is bothering the student, but is not posing a problem for anyone else, so there is no interference with the public's rights. Private nuisance is the other type of nuisance claim, and a private nuisance exists where the defendant does something that substantially and unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of land possessed by the plaintiff. Private nuisance therefore essentially protects interests in enjoying and using one's land, such as when a neighbor creates pollution that spreads into one's property. This question says that the student is being followed in public places like libraries and coffee shops, but those are not places in which the student has a possessory interest. The person has not interfered with the student's use or enjoyment of her room at the dormitory where she resides. The student therefore does not have a claim for public nuisance or private nuisance, although she might be able to succeed on other legal theories such as under anti-stalking statutes or even with a tort claim such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or assault if the situation became sufficiently threatening.

Mary always had a very hard time learning in school because she is significantly below average in intelligence, but she is so graceful that she became a professional ballet dance. One morning, Mary is rushing to her mother's house to deliver medicine that her mother needs right away. Mary collides with another pedestrian on the sidewalk. She knocks him down and he injures his knee. He sues her for negligence. Which of the following will be taken into account in determining whether Mary was negligent? A. the fact that she had an unusually low level of intelligence and the fact that she had an unusually high level of agility and coordination B. the fact that she had an unusually low level of intelligence and the fact that she was rushing to deliver medicine to her sick mother C. the fact that she has an unusually high level of agility and coordination and the fact that she was rushing to deliver medicine to her sick mother D. the fact that she has an unusually low level of intelligence, the fact that she has an unusually high level of agility, and the fact that she was rushing to deliver medicine to her sick mother

C. This is about the duty element of a negligence claim, and particularly the specification of the standard of care that applies. You have a duty to exercise the care of a reasonable person under the circumstances, but who is the reasonable person? What characteristics does the reasonable person have? Low intelligence is a mental problem that is not taken into account in the standard of care, but physical agility and coordination is a physical characteristic that is taken into account. And the reason why the woman was rushing is part of the circumstances taken into account, because we must decide if she exercised reasonable care under the circumstances.

Which of the following is a true statement about intentional torts? A. every time a battery occurs, there is an assault as well B. a person can prevail on a false imprisonment claim only if the person was aware of the confinement at the time it occurred C. if something is a trespass to chattel, it is also conversion D. A trespass to land can occur above the ground or under the ground.

D. A trespass can occur underground, on the surface of the land, or in the air above the land (at least to the extent the thing is low enough to interfere with use and enjoyment of the land.

. A person who enjoyed hunting repeatedly asked a farmer for permission to hunt deer on the farmer's property. The farmer hated the sound of gunfire and always refused to give his permission, so the hunter never stepped on the farmer's land. But all other landowners in the area allowed the hunter to use their property, so the hunter was frequently out hunting in the areas adjoining the farmer's land. One afternoon, the farmer was working in his field. The hunter was a few hundred feet away, crouched down and hidden in a small grove of trees, just outside the western border of the farmer's property. The hunter decided to fire a shot with his rifle, because he knew the sound would annoy the farmer. The hunter was an excellent marksman and he aimed carefully to make sure the shot he fired would not go anywhere close to the farmer or any other person. The hunter aimed the shot at the base of a large tree located across the farmer's field and just outside the eastern edge of the farmer's land. The hunter pulled the trigger, the rifle fired, and the bullet flew across the field and hit the tree just as the hunter intended. The farmer heard the sound of the gun firing. He assumed that the gunsh

D. A trespass to land claim requires proof that the defendant did an act with the intent and result of causing someone or something to enter or remain on land possessed by the plaintiff. A trespass may occur on the surface of the land, but it also may occur below or above the surface of the land. The landowner's rights cover only the airspace above the property that could reasonably be used by the landowner. For example, an airplane flying over the property at approved altitudes would not be a trespass. But a trespass can occur when an object like a bullet flies across the property at a height low enough for the entry of the object to interfere with the landowner's interest in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the land. The hunter intentionally fired a bullet that crossed over the surface of the farmer's land. The bullet presumably travelled at a low height above the ground, because the hunter was crouched down and he was firing at the base of a tree on the other side of the property. The farmer therefore would have a strong claim against the hunter for trespass to land.

A mischievous boy liked to annoy the elderly man and woman who lived next door to him. One day, the boy received a BB gun (an air-powered weapon that fires small metal pellets) as a birthday gift. That afternoon, the boy was in his bedroom and he looked out the window and into his neighbors' yard. The boy saw that the elderly man and woman were in their yard. The man was down on his hands and knees pulling weeds from the lawn. The woman was standing near him, holding a hose and watering some bushes. The boy opened his bedroom window a few inches and then crouched down and prepared to fire the BB gun. He took aim at the elderly man's rear end. At that moment, the elderly woman looked up, saw the boy with the BB gun, realized he was aiming it at the man, and felt horrified as she realized the boy was going to shoot at the man. Before she had time to do anything to warn the man, the boy squeezed the trigger and fired one shot that hit the man in the rear end, giving him a painful and shocking surprise and a bruise that lasted several days but causing no substantial injury beyond that. The man and woman have filed a lawsuit against the boy, and their complaint includes claims for assault. Wh

D. An assault claim requires proof that the defendant did an act with the intent and result of putting the plaintiff in apprehension of suffering imminent harmful or offensive contact. Apprehension means that you expect something to happen, so if you are struck by something but did not realize in advance that it was going to happen, you do not have a valid claim for assault. And the apprehension you feel must be about a contact that is going to happen to you, not a contact that you think is going to happen to another person. In other words, if you are put in apprehension that defendant is going to shoot someone else, not you, you do not have a valid claim for assault. Here, the man was never put in apprehension of anything. He was hit by the BB pellet, but he was surprised by it and did not see it coming. The woman was put in apprehension that someone would be shot, but it was apprehension of the man being shot, not herself being shot.

. A student who was a senior in high school decided that after graduating from high school, she would attend a college that was very far away from her hometown. Although she had a boyfriend in high school, she broke up with him shortly after the high school's graduation, deciding that it was better not to try to maintain a long-distance relationship. Her boyfriend was very upset by the break-up, but the student figured that he would get over it eventually. When she arrived at the college, the student enjoyed the first week of classes and had a good time meeting new people. A week after arriving at the college, her parents called to tell her that something terrible had happened. The student's ex-boyfriend had obtained a gun and used it to murder several strangers in a shooting spree at a shopping mall. Police captured the ex‑boyfriend and charged him with the murders. The ex-boyfriend told police that he shot the people at the mall because he believed they were assassins who were conspiring to kill him. As a result of hearing what her ex-boyfriend had done, the student became severely depressed. She worried that the stress of the break-up had somehow caused her ex-boyfriend to have a ment

D. An intentional infliction of emotional distress claim requires proof that the defendant did an extreme and outrageous act that was either intended to cause severe emotional distress or that was reckless in creating a risk of severe emotional distress. A claim generally can be brought only by the person who was the target of the extreme and outrageous act. For example, section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts provides that a plaintiff can recover for an extreme and outrageous act directed at a third party only if either (1) the plaintiff was present when the defendant did an extreme and outrageous act directed at the plaintiff's immediate family member or (2) the plaintiff was present when the defendant did an extreme and outrageous act directed at another person and the plaintiff's distress from witnessing this was so severe that it resulted in the plaintiff suffering bodily harm. In this question, the ex-boyfriend's extreme and outrageous act was shooting the people at the shopping mall. That conduct was directed at the people at the shopping mall, not at the college student. The exceptions that would allow a plaintiff to recover for extreme and outrageous acts directed at another person do not apply because the student was not present at the time of the acts, the shooting victims were not her family members, and she did not suffer bodily harm.

The used car lot at an auto dealership, in a remote area away from town, was enclosed by a tall fence. It was a security fence designed to prevent people from being able to climb over it. A salesperson, who was an employee of the dealership, was with a customer in the used car lot looking at cars. A security guard locked the gate of the used car lot at 1:30 p.m. because it was Saturday and the lot was supposed to be closed from 1:30 p.m. Saturday until Monday morning. At 1:45 p.m., the customer and the salesperson discovered they were locked in. There was no traffic in the vicinity and no way in which help could be summoned. After two hours, the customer began to panic at the prospect of remaining undiscovered and without food and water until Monday morning. The sales person decided to wait inside one of the cars until help came. The customer tried to climb over the fence and, in doing so, fell and was injured. The customer asserted a claim against the car dealership for damages for his injuries. If the customer's claim is based on false imprisonment, will the customer prevail? A. yes, because he was confined against his will B. yes, because he was harmed as a result of his confinement C

D. False imprisonment is an intentional tort claim, so it requires intent, and so the claim would not be successful unless the guard knew people were there and intentionally locked them in

Adam sold a firearm to Bob, despite having good reasons to know that Bob is a highly irresponsible and dangerous person who could not be trusted to safely own and use the gun. Bob carelessly used the gun. In doing so, Bob accidentally shot himself and a neighbor named Cathy. Which of the following is true? A. a negligent entrustment claim against Adam will fail because Adam sold the firearm to Bob rather than merely lending it to him temporarily, and therefore Adam lacked any way to control Bob's use of the gun B. Cathy might prevail on a negligent entrustment claim against Adam, but Bob would not be able to recover because a negligent entrustment claim cannot be brought by the person who was entrusted C. To prevail on a negligent entrustment claim against Adam, the P would have to prove that Adam knew what Bob planned to do with the gun D. A negligent entrustment claim against Adam might be successful even if Adam's sale of the gun to Bob did not violate any statutes or regulations

D. Negligent entrustment may occur even if the situation does not involve anything that is otherwise illegal.

One evening, Bob decided to drive to the store to purchase milk, because his wife Mary forgot to buy milk on her way home from work. Bob had been drinking some liquor and was very intoxicated. Although it was getting dark, he forgot to turn on his car's headlights. He also did not have a valid driver's license, because his license had expired recently and he had not renewed it. On the way to the store, Bob stopped at a stop sign at an intersection. There were no other cars on the road in the area. As he waited for a pedestrian who was crossing the street in the crosswalk in front of him, a sudden gust of intense wind caused a large limb to fall off a tree. The limb fell and hit the windshield of Bob's car. Jagged pieces of the broken glass went flying in all directions, and some struck and cut the face of the pedestrian. Which of the following factors is an "actual cause" of the pedestrian's injury? A. the fact that Bob was intoxicated rather than sober B. the fact that Bob's driver's license was expired rather than valid C. the fact that Bob had forgotten to turn on his car's headlights D. The fact that Mary had forgotten to buy milk.

D. Remember that actual causation is another way of asking what are the "but for" causes of the harm. But for Bob's intoxication, what happens? Does anything change? No, nothing changes. The pedestrian would still get hit by the glass, whether Bob is intoxicated or sober. Now, some may say, "well, if this guy had stayed home instead of driving drunk, then that would have prevented the injury." That's true. So if there was an answer choice that said "Bob's drunk driving" or "Bob's decision to drive while intoxicated," those might be good answers, because but for Bob's driving, the harm would not have occurred. But Bob's intoxication, by itself, is not the but for cause of this harm. Same for Bob's lack of a driver's license. What would have happened to this plaintiff if Bob had a valid driver's license in his wallet? That would not have made any difference. And it's even more clear that it makes no difference if his headlights are on or not. But what happens but for Mary forgetting to buy milk? The guy would have stayed home, and he would not have been driving there, and the plaintiff would not have been hit by the glass. This question is tricky, but it's a reminder that you just have to answer the question that is asked. Obviously, Mary is not going to be liable for this for forgetting to buy milk. There is no proximate cause, and no breach of a duty to exercise reasonable care. But the question only asks about actual cause. And you have to answer the question that is asked, even if it does not address all possible issues that would determine liability.

Which of the following is a true statement about the "firefighter's rule" and "rescue doctrine"? A. firefighters rule protects professional rescuers from being held liable for negligence, while the rescue doctrine extends similar protection to amateur or nonprofessional rescuers B. the majority of states have abandoned the firefighter's rule and replaced it with the rescue doctrine C. the firefighters rule is relevant only to intentional tort claims, while the rescue doctrine applies only to negligence claims D. The "firefighter's rule" provides that a person generally does not have a duty to prevent harm to a professional rescuer, while the "rescue doctrine" provides that it is reasonably foreseeable that someone will attempt a rescue when a danger exists.

D. The firefighter's rule means you do not have a duty to prevent harm to professional rescuers, and the rescue doctrine means that rescues are treated as being foreseeable.

which of the following situations involves one of the traditional "special relationships" giving rise to a duty to aid or protect another person? A. the D is a worker in a factory, and the P is also a worker in that factory B. the D is a homeowner, and the P is a guest who attends a dinner party at the D's home C. The D is a manufacturer of goods, and the P is a consumer who purchased an item manufactured by the D D. the D is a hotel and the P is one of the hotel's guests

D. The relationship between an innkeeper and a guest is one of the traditional "special relationships"

Which of the following is a true statement about the extent to which circumstantial evidence can be used in a negligence case? A. negligence claims must be proven by trustworthy evidence. so circumstantial evidence is not a valid way to prove a negligence claim. B. circumstantial evidence can be used to prove a negligence claim only if the requirements for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are satisfied C. circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the breach element, but not the other elements of a negligence claim D. The evidence used to prove a tort claim can be direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two.

D. When people think of circumstantial evidence being used in a negligence case, they often think of res ipsa loquitur. But res ipsa loquitur is just one particular type of situation where circumstantial evidence might come into play. It applies in situations where circumstantial evidence suggests the defendant was probably negligent, but the plaintiff does not know what happened that was negligent. While res ipsa loquitur is one situation where circumstantial evidence is used, it is not the exclusive avenue for the use of circumstantial evidence in negligence cases. Circumstantial evidence, direct evidence, or a combination of the two might be used to prove various things in a negligence case, just as in any other sort of case.

Shortly after Patrick locks up his tavern for the night, a fire burns the tavern to the ground. The fire investigators determine that the blaze was started by a cigarette left on a couch located against the tavern's back wall, behind the pool tables. All witnesses agree that three people were sitting on the couch at closing time, and that two of them were smoking. It is legal to smoke in bars, but investigators determine that all three of these people were under age and used fake IDs to get into the bar. If Patrick sues the two people who sat on the couch and were smoking, which legal rule is most likely to apply to his case? A. negligence per se B. duplicative causation C. alternative liability D. Res ipsa loquitur.

D. res ipsa loquitur is the best answer, but none of the answers are clearly or completely correct. Negligence per se would not apply because fires are not a risk meant to be prevented by the law against minors drinking in bars. Duplicative causation does not apply, because there's no reason to believe more than one cigarette started the fire. And alternative liability doesn't apply, because Patrick cannot prove that each one of the three people did something negligent (because it was apparently only one them who negligently left the cigarette that started the fire). That leaves just one option. It's not clear that res ipsa loquitur would apply (or that you'd need it), but it's at least possible. This would be sort of like the situation where you have surgery and something happens while you're unconscious, and there were multiple doctors and nurses involved and you're not sure who was negligent. It's a situation where it seems like someone must have been negligent, but it's hard to say who it probably was. And you might have res ipsa loquitur in that situation. Again, courts would be most likely to allow res ipsa loquitur in a situation involving joint control (like the surgery), and some courts would permit in situations involving consecutive control, so if you could convince the court that this was a situation analogous to the surgery scenario, then res ipsa loquitur could apply.

Which of the following is a true statement about negligence per se? A. If you violate a state or local law, that is negligence per se, but the doctrine of negligence per se does not apply to federal statutes, because tort law is a matter of state law B. If you were not aware of the existence of the law that your conduct violated, you have a reasonable excuse for violating the law and you will not be deemed negligent per se C. A child who violates a statute is negligent per se if a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence, maturity, and experience would have complied with the statute D. To determine if the violation of a statute was negligent per se, on must attempt to determine why the legislature enacted the statute

D. to find negligence per se, you have to decide that the situation involves the type of person and type of injury that the legislature had in mind.

Doug is an electrician. While doing electrical work on a movie set, he leaves a wire exposed that will shock anyone who steps on it. The voltage is enough to knock down and slightly burn an average person. An actor steps on the wire and receives a shock, which is fatal because the actor happens to have a metal plate in his head from an old war injury. Doug did not know the actor or know about the plate in his head. If the actor's estate and family sue Doug, what is the most likely result?

Doug must pay damages for the actor's death. The defendant would be liable even if the harm was worse than one would have expected or foreseen. If it is an intentional tort, we'd invoke the "extended liability" concept. For negligence, we might call this the "thin skull" or "eggshell skull" rule. Either way, the defendant would be liable for the full amount of damages even though the person who suffered harm may have been unusually vulnerable to injury.

A law student was looking for a quiet place in the law school building to sit and read a textbook between classes. The student decided to go to a hallway in a part of the building that was seldom used. As the student arrived at this hallway, the student saw that a custodian had just finished waxing a portion of the hallway's floor and was leaving. The student saw a chair about halfway down the hallway and walked toward it. The student realized that the floor was extremely slippery and almost fell down, but the student made it safely to the chair and sat down to read. A few minutes later, the student heard someone about to come around the corner and enter the hallway. The student thought that it would be a good idea to warn this person about the slippery floor, but as the person rounded the corner and came into view, the student realized that the person entering the hallway was a professor whom the student despised. The student hoped that the professor would get hurt so she decided not to warn the professor about the slippery floor and went back to reading her textbook. As soon as the professor stepped on the portion of the floor that had been waxed, the professor slipped and fell and suf

Liability for battery requires proof that the defendant acted with the intent and result of causing a harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff. This means that battery requires an affirmative act of some sort, not merely an omission or failure to act. A person therefore might be liable for some other torts, such as negligence, for failing to act, but not for battery. Here, the student would not be liable for battery, because the student merely failed to warn the professor and did not do any other sort of act that caused the professor to fall.

Preston has a large field in which he grows corn. He hires a crop duster to spray the field, but the crop duster mistakenly sprays a strong herbicide, rather than a pesticide, and kills all the corn plants in Preston's field. Several days later, a construction company building a house near Preston's field negligently hits a gas line and starts a fire that burns everything in the area, including the worthless remnants of dead corn left in Preston's field. If Preston brings negligence claims against the crop duster and the construction company in order to recover damages for the destruction of his corn crop, what is the most likely result?

Only the crop duster is liable, because its negligence destroyed the corn crop before the construction company's negligence occurred. This is the doctrine of preemptive causation, under which something is not an actual cause if it never takes effect or takes effect only after the harm is complete.

Buckingham owns an old, run-down building in a town that occasionally has minor earthquakes. The building's walls are unstable and beginning to buckle. Buckingham knows about the building's poor condition, but he does not want to spend the money to repair it. Tom drives a gasoline tanker truck, delivering gasoline to filling stations. Deciding to stop and check one of his tires, Tom parks the truck in the nearest empty space, which happens to be next to Buckingham's building. Although there are parking meters along the street where Tom parks the truck, he decides not to put any money into the meters, because he figures that he can just move the truck if a parking enforcement officer comes by and starts to write him a ticket for illegal parking. While Tom is checking his truck's tire, there is a minor earthquake. It is not strong enough to damage structurally sound buildings, but it makes the walls of Buckingham's building collapse. The building falls on top of Tom's truck, ripping a large hole in the tank. Gasoline spills out and streams down the street and into a storm drain. Floating on top of water in the underground drainage tunnel, the gasoline moves quickly until some of it reaches

Paul's estate loses, because Paul's drowning was not a reasonably foreseeable result of Buckingham's carelessness. This is a fairly drastic example of a situation in which proximate cause would not exist. If you heard that a building collapsed because of the owner's negligence, you would not foresee that someone fishing on a lake on the other side of town was going to drown.

Which of the following is another name for the tort of conversion?

Trover