aa_torts_20230208184416 Flashcards

Question

What is not considered a reasonable way out

Answer 1

Dangerous
Disgusting
Humiliating
Hidden

Answer 2

actual, not necessary to show
nominal, when cant get actual
punitive, malice

Answer 3

Act by D amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct - only a tort if the conduct is extremely outrageous
Intent - D intentionally (purposeful or knowledgeable) or recklessly (reckless disregard of the risk causing P the IIED) causes P severe emotional distress
Causation
Damages - severe emotional distress

Answer 4

“exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society”

Answer 5

Continuous in nature
Committed by a certain type of D (ie common carriers, innkeepers may be liable even for mere gross insults
Directed towards a certain type of P (kids, elderly, pregnant, supersensitive adults )
1. have to know person is pregnant
2. doesnt matter if D knows person is supersensitive

Answer 6

reckless is enough

Answer 7

actual damages are required

physical injury NOT required severe emotional distress is enough

Answer 8

meet PFC for IIED -OR-
present when injury occurred
distress resulted in bodily harm to bystander OR P is close relative of bystander; and
D knew these facts

Answer 9

a felony has been committed and he reasonably believes that the person confined is the felon.

Answer 10

No, because the father did not intend to commit a battery against the umpire.

Answer 11

Only if a felony has in fact been committed and the citizen has reasonable grounds for believing that the person arrested has committed it.

Answer 12

C- An indirect threat of force against the plaintiff’s property

Answer 13

proof of extreme and outrageous conduct.

Answer 14

An apparent ability to act will satisfy the element of apprehension in a prima facie case of assault. To establish a prima facie case of assault, the plaintiff must prove there was an act by the defendant that created a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact

Answer 15

If the actor’s goal is to bring about certain consequences or the actor knows with substantial certainty that certain consequences will result

Answer 16

Awareness of the force set in motion by the defendant’s act

Answer 17

a volitional act

Answer 18

The plaintiff consented due to a mistake induced by the defendant.

Answer 19

C No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact.

The golfer will not be liable because she did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact. The prima facie case for battery has the following elements: (i) an act by the defendant that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person; (ii) intent on the part of the defendant to bring about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person; and (iii) causation. Here, the golfer did not have the intent to cause harmful or offensive contact.

(A) is incorrect because even though the golfer had the intent to swing the club, she did not have the intent required for battery-to cause harmful or offensive contact to another.

Answer 20

when D sets in motion the action which brings about the subsequent damage/harm they can be liable for the intentional tort

for ex: D can be liable for battery even if initial intent was assault if D sets in motion the force to bring about the assault which then rises to a battery

i.e. motorcyclist saw his classmate walking and wanted to scare her by driving the motorcycle towards her and then swerve away. As motorcyclist attempts to swerve, his tire blows and he ends up falling with his motorcycle on the classmate. Classmates sues for battery. Is the suit valid?

Yes because the motorcyclists intended to scare the classmate (assault). So here, the intent to assault transfers and becomes a battery for which the classmate can sue

Answer 21

yes!

humiliation is an actual damage that P can recover for

Answer 22

ACT of physical invasion by a person or object of P's real property by D
intent to enter … dont need to know land belonged to another
causation

Answer 23

a deliberate act

Answer 24

NO. but it could be a case for nuisance

Answer 25

right to possess the property

Answer 26

D only need to intend to enter do not need to know that land belong to another

Answer 27

P can recover without showing actual injury to land

Answer 28

ACT by D that interferes with P's right of possession in a chattel
INTENT Intentional act that interferes with P's personal property
Causation
Damages

Answer 29

D directly damaging P's chattel -OR-
D deprives P of their lawful right to possession of chattel

THEREFORE, A plaintiff can recover for loss of use of the chattel without proof of actual harm (eg, damage to the chatte

Answer 30

Intent to do act that brings the interference

NOTE: a mistake of law or fact, that he/she was privileged to act is no defense to a trespass-to-chattels action even if the mistake was reasonable.

Answer 31

A plaintiff can recover for loss of use of the chattel without proof of actual harm (eg, damage to the chatte

Answer 32

Act by D that interferes SO seriously with P's right of possession that D has to pay P full chattel's value
Intent to do act that brings about interference w P's right of possession
Causation
Damages

Answer 33

Perform the act that interferes with P's right of possession.

iow: the intent involved refers to the physical act that results in the conversion, not to the defendant's desires regarding the ultimate disposition of the property.

NOTE: good-faith is irrelevant in a conversion action (i.e. D took a boardgame that he, in good-faith, believed was his)

Answer 34

chattels - smaller because 8 letter

conversion - bigger because 10 letters

Answer 35

D $700 in damages.

Here, the student interfered with the roommate's right of possession in the computer by taking it without permission, and it sustained damages of over 70% of its value while in the student's possession. Hence, the student has committed a conversion.

Value of computer - $700 (half of that is $350)

Value of repair - $500 (which is greater than the 50% value of the computer, which is $350)

Answer 36

fair market value at time of conversion

Answer 37

cost of repair

Answer 38

Enter the land and reclaim chattel at a

reasonable time and
peaceful manner
when landowner has been given notice of the presence of the chattel and refuses to return it

Answer 39

Enter the land and reclaim chattel at a

reasonable time and
in a reasonable manner
usually need to demand return of the chattel from the wrongdoer before entering land

Answer 40

has NO privilege to enter upon the land and can only recover chattel through legal process

Answer 41

YES, the owner will be liable for actual damages that are caused by entry onto the innocent party's land when the owner enters the land to reclaim his respective chattel

Answer 42

No, it is not a defense as long as the D intended to enter upon that piece of land.

REMEMBER: the intent sufficient enough to find a claim for trespass is intent to enter

Example: Farmer relies on boundary markers placed by a reputable land surveyor. Farmer clears land for cultivation which he believes is his. In fact, he is mistaken, and he clears land that belongs to his neighbor. Farmer is liable to Neighbor for trespass

Answer 43

The seriousness of the interference with the plaintiff’s possession.

Answer 44

Directly damages a plaintiff’s chattel

Answer 45

When faced with a civil action involving a tort, a D may assert various defenses to escape liability.

Answer 46

Consent
Privileges
Necessity

Answer 47

express/actual consent
implied consent

Answer 48

the person affected by the tort (P) gave consent to the tortfeasor (D) to engage in the otherwise wrongful conduct

Answer 49

was there valid consent
did D stay within boundaries of consent

Answer 50

P expressly consents to D's conduct

Answer 51

mistake
fraud
duress

Answer 52

P expressly consents by mistake to D's conduct

UNLESS

D caused mistake or knows of mistake and takes advantage, then defense won't apply

Answer 53

Defense applies - expressly given consent induced by fraud as to a collateral matter
Defense does not apply - expressly given consent induced by fraud as to an essential matter

Answer 54

Consent obtained by duress invalid unless duress is for a:

future action
future economic deprivation, in which case it does not constitute legal duress sufficient enough to invalidate express consent

Answer 55

apparent consent
consent implied by law

Answer 56

Consent which a reasonable person would infer from the P's conduct

example: reasonable body language consent, P extends hand and says “nice to meet you”

Answer 57

Example: tackling someone in football is implied consent

BUT NOTE: that such consent cannot exceed what is customary. So, in a football game, there is implied consent for tackling but no implied consent for violence clearly outside the scope of the game even if it is during the game. One player shooting another player during the football game would be outside the implied consent for violence in a football game and so, implied consent would not be a defense for such an action

Answer 58

Arises when action necessary to save person's life or property interest

Example: firefighters enter your land to extinguish fire without consent but not trespassing on to your land because entering to save your house

Answer 59

Individuals without capacity cannot consent
1. incompetents, infancy, inebriation (I³)
  1. NOTE: being part of the I³is NOT a defense to committing a tort
Individuals with limited capacity can consent but only to things within their capacity
Criminal acts
1. Majority - cannot consent, so no defense
2. Minority + Restatement - defense valid
  1. consent to an act that is a breach of the peace is not effective, meaning that the defendant cannot avoid liability.
  2. acts that are not a breach of the peace, consent is effective, meaning the defendant could avoid liablity

Answer 60

D is liable

Answer 61

Did D have proper timing?
1. was threat imminent, in progress, or about to happen?
Does D have a reasonable belief that threat from P is genuine?
Did D use the proper amount of force?

Answer 62

person reasonably believes that they are being attacked OR about to be attacked

Answer 63

Reasonable belief of attack
Retaliation not allowed when there is no longer threat of injury
Retreat not necessary
Not available to initial aggressor unless other party uses deadly force

Answer 64

Majority rule: no duty
Modern trend: duty to retreat before using deadly force if retreat can be done safely UNLESS actor is in their home

Answer 65

If the other party uses deadly force against initial aggressor who had only used nondeadly force, then initial aggressor CAN defend himself with deadly force against the other party's deadly force.

Remember: Usually, the initial aggressor may not defend himself against the other party’s reasonable use of force in self-defense.

Answer 66

only amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent harm.

cannot use deadly force unless reasonable belief of danger of serious bodily injury

Answer 67

yes, defense applicable if injury was accidental.

if injury to bystander was deliberate then defense likely won't apply

Answer 68

yes - reasonable mistake as to the existence of the danger

Answer 69

B That a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have believed that the woman was about to shoot.

If the man prevails, it will be because the jury determined that he acted reasonably under the circumstances.

One may act in self-defense not only where there is real danger but also where there is a reasonable appearance of danger.

An honest but mistaken belief that the woman was about to shoot would justify the use of deadly force by the man if a reasonable person would have acted similarly under those circumstances.

The test is an objective one-an honest belief alone is not sufficient.

Answer 70

Has a reasonable belief that the person being aided has the right of self-defense

Answer 71

Yes, The defender may be able to use deadly force

Answer 72

yes is reasonable mistake

meaning that even if the person the D aides did not have the right of force/self-defense (i.e. they were the initial aggressor), D will not be liable as long as he reasonably believed, EVEN MISTAKENLY, that the other person could have used force to defend themselves

Answer 73

to prevent commission of tort to ones property…should try to desist or leave first unless futile or dangerous

Answer 74

when tort has been committed* unless in hot pursuit

*remember - defense of property is only to prevent the commission of a tort

Answer 75

Reasonable belief that theft has been committed
Detention committed in a reasonable manner
Only nondeadly force can be used
Detention only for a reasonable period of time
Detention only for purpose of making an investigation

Answer 76

A person can be/use/interfere with another person's property when necessary to avoid injury from natural force or other forces

Answer 77

private necessity
public necessity

Answer 78

D acts to protect the public

ex: D sees a fire, breaks into a Acme Fire Extinguisher Co → Acme sues for trespass → D can use defense

Answer 79

When used to prevent serious harm to them, a limited group of ppl, or property from serious harm

Answer 80

Type of private necessity

ex #1: D enters house b/c snowstorm outside. If P kicks out D, D could sue for frostbite. P has to let D stay to prevent serious harm

ex #2: D ties up boat to P' s dock during storm. If P kicks out D, P pays damages to D. However, D could be liable pay damages if boat ruins P's dock even though it was a necessity to tie it up.

Answer 81

regaining possession of land

Answer 82

C Force may never be used to regain possession

Answer 83

B That a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have believed that the woman was about to shoot.

If the man prevails, it will be because the jury determined that he acted reasonably under the circumstances.

One may act in self-defense not only where there is real danger but also where there is a reasonable appearance of danger.

An honest but mistaken belief that the woman was about to shoot would justify the use of deadly force by the man if a reasonable person would have acted similarly under those circumstances.

The test is an objective one-an honest belief alone is not sufficient.

Answer 84

a legal obligation to take risk-reducing precautions in ones activities to avoid injuring other ppl and the duty to use such reasonable care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs

Answer 85

under 5: no standard

ages 5-18: subjective standard (which is pro defendant)

children engaging in adult like behavior held to an adult standard (usually operating a motorized vehicle even farm craft, boats, RVs, jet skis etc)

Answer 86

required to possess the knowledge and skill of an average member of that profession

Answer 87

Land possessor must warn or make safe any conditions that are:

Artificial - constructed by people (no duty owed to natural conditions i.e. ice on front steps)
Highly dangerous involving risk of death or serious bodily harm
Concealed - AND -
Known - last known condition

Answer 88

Duty to warn or make safe conditions that are:

Concealed
1. Condition does NOT have to be likely to cause death or serious bodily injury
Known to land possessor in advance

Answer 89

Duty to inspect and warn or make safe conditions that are:

Concealed
Known to land possessor in advance OR could have been discovered through inspection

Answer 90

Repair
Replace
Remove

Answer 91

Duty imposed on landowners to eliminate reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to children

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a child trespasser who is injured by a dangerous artificial condition need not have been attracted onto the property by the condition.

Answer 92

dangerous condition on land that owner is or should be aware of
owner knows or should know that kids might trespass on land
condition likely to cause injury
expense of remedy slight in comparison to magnitude of risk

Answer 93

P is within protected class
Statute designed to prevent they type of harm suffered by P

Answer 94

negligence in it of itself

Answer 95

Compliance with statutes is more dangerous
Compliance is impossible

Answer 96

B A five-year-old trespasser who fell into a mineshaft from which the owner had removed all warning signs, but the plaintiff was not attracted onto the owner's land because of the mineshaft.

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a child trespasser who is injured by a dangerous artificial condition need not have been attracted onto the property by the condition.

(A) is wrong because generally there is no obligation for a landowner to warn trespassers, whether they are children or adults, of dangerous natural conditions.

(C) is wrong for the same reason.

(D) is wrong because, as a licensee, the plaintiff need only be warned of dangerous natural conditions of which the landowner is in fact aware and which are unknown to the licensee or unlikely to be discovered by her, and here the landowner did not know of the hole.

Answer 97

Near miss
Bystander
Special relationship btwn P and D (ie business/commercial relationship)

Answer 98

P is within zone of danger
P must suffer physical symptoms from the distress (ie heart attack after almost being run over)

Answer 99

P and person injured are closely related (spouse, parent, child)
P present at scene and personally saw or perceived event

Answer 100

P has a business or commercial relationship with the D that creates a high risk of emotional distress if D acts negligently

Answer 101

C The daughter, because she personally observed the injury to her mother.

Answer 102

custom or usage
NPS: violation of statute
Res ipsa loquitur

Answer 103

the thing that speaks for itself

Answer 104

Accident would not normally occur unless someone was negligent
Negligence is probably attributable to D

Answer 105

directed verdcit

Answer 106

always deny except where P has established NPS through statute violation AND no issues of proximate cause aka chain not broken

Answer 107

actual + proximate

Answer 108

but for test
substantial factor test - aka cause in fact test
unknown cause test

Answer 109

P's injury would NOT have occurred but for the D's act or omission

Answer 110

“even if”

P would have still been injured “even if” D's act or omission did not occur

Answer 111

If D's negligent conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm, its deemed an actual cause of the harm

Answer 112

Two or more defendants who's actions combine to harm the P but each D's individual action alone could have caused the P's injury

Answer 113

BOP on the defendants to prove that they were not the cause for the P's injuries

and if cannot prove then both are jointly and severally liable

Answer 114

an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury

Answer 115

P has to prove that it is fair to hold the D liable because such injuries were a foreseeable consequence of the breach;

There is a causal connection btwn D's initial negligent act and P's ultimate injury such that the act set of a chain of events that end in P's injury.

Answer 116

foreseeability test

Answer 117

jury finds this was a foreseeable risk of … "

Answer 118

D Yes, because the freight line's violation of the braking statute was not the cause in fact of the accident.

The court should grant the motion because the driver did not establish the cause-in-fact element of his prima facie case against the freight line.

The primary test for cause in fact (actual cause) is the "but for" test: An act is the cause in fact of an injury when the injury would not have occurred but for the act.

Even though the freight line had a duty created by the statute to be able to stop its train within 200 yards of first braking, and breached that duty (establishing the first two elements of the driver's prima facie case), it must still be shown that the collision would not have occurred in the absence of the breach. Because the car was only 150 yards from the point of braking, even a train in compliance with the statute would have struck it. Since no other evidence of negligence has been presented, the motion should be granted.

(C) is not correct because the court will not reach the issue of the plaintiff's contributory negligence in this case because the prima facie case for the defendant's negligence has not been established.

Furthermore, establishing the plaintiff's contributory negligence by violation of a statute uses the same rules that govern whether a statute can establish the defendant's negligence.

Hence, the driver's violation of the crossing statute may be excused if the trier of fact determines that compliance was beyond his control because his car stalled.

Answer 119

D takes P as they are meaning that D is liable for all damages including aggravation of an existing condition even if unforeseeable

Answer 120

When P has established all other element of the claim (duty, breach, causation)

and P can also use ESP rule for other torts outside of negligence like battery, assault etc., just need to establish the elements of those torts first and then use ESP rule

Answer 121

Economic
Noneconomic
1. Include emotional distress
Damages to property
1. But no recovery for emotional distress

NOTES:

If D is liable to P, then D liable for full extent of P's harm
Punitive damages - generally cannot recover in negligence cases
1. Punitive damages are awarded to P to punish D
2. Can only recover if D's conduct was "wanton and willful", “reckless", or malicious
3. Can only recover under intentional torts (BAFL² iied)

Answer 122

Affirmative defense
Contributory Negligence
Comparative Negligence

Answer 123

D isn't challenging whether P can meet duty, breach, causation, or damages but rather introducing NEW evidence that if believed by fact-finder either absolve D of liability OR mitigate damages

Answer 124

When P fails to use relevant standards of care to protect self against foreseeable risks of harm

Answer 125

CL barred P's right to recovery

Answer 126

Court will compare the amount of negligence from each side to determine damages

Answer 127

Partial comparative negligence
Pure comparative negligence

Answer 128

P cant recover if at MORE fault than D (and D can recover)
P can recover if at LESS fault than D
1. Recovery is reduced by percentage of fault

Answer 129

P can recover against D no matter percentage of fault (even if 99% responsible) BUT recovery will be reduced by percentage of fault (so 99% reduction in recovery)

Answer 130

P knew of a risk of injury and voluntarily assumed it

Answer 131

No duty to protect - D does not owe duty to protect P because P assumed risk
Contributory negligence - P unreasonably encountered a known risk, which reduces or bars damages P can get

Answer 132

The doctrine considers which party had the last opportunity to avoid the accident that caused the harm.

Therefore, a negligent plaintiff may recover damages if they can show that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident…but P's negligence regarding intentional torts is NOT a defense D can use to limit his liability

Answer 133

Contributory negligence

Answer 134

Implied AOR
Pure comp neg
Partial comp neg

Answer 135

a plaintiff to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages.

In personal injury cases this means seeking appropriate treatment to effect a cure or healing and to prevent aggravation

Answer 136

A Yes, because the worker knew that the patron was drunk.

The worker impliedly assumed the risk of injury when he voluntarily allowed the patron to drive him home knowing that the patron was drunk. In jurisdictions applying pure comparative negligence, implied assumption of risk is usually treated as a variant of contributory negligence.

If the plaintiff unreasonably assumed the risk of injury, as the facts indicate here, he will be considered contributorily negligent and his damages will be reduced.

(C) is incorrect. While the patron and the other driver were both proximate causes of the accident, the worker's fault in accepting a ride from an intoxicated driver also contributed to the injuries he suffered, and the jury will reduce his recovery accordingly.

Answer 137

Owner has knowledge of animal's dangerous propensities that are NOT common to the species (ie a golden retriever being a dog that likes eating humans)

Answer 138

When owner's animals trespass onto another's property and trespass and damage were reasonably foreseeable

Answer 139

licensees and invitees

Answer 140

NO unless trespassers proves owner's negligence

Answer 141

activity creates foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors to eliminate risk
the activity is NOT one of common usage in the community (common usage =common activity that is used by the community to achieve a goal)

common examples: blasting, manufacturing explosives, storing or transporting dangerous or biological chemicals, anything involving radiation or nuclear energy

Answer 142

foreseeable Plaintiffs

Answer 143

harm resulted from danger that was anticipated from the activity or animal includes harm cause by fleeing from perceived danger

Answer 144

NO! will still be strictly liable

Answer 145

Intent
Negligence
IWM - implied warranty of merchantability
IWF - implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose
Representation theories - misrepresentation of fact and express warranty
Strict Liability

Answer 146

Strict liability

Answer 147

D is a merchant
Product is defective
Product was not substantially altered since leaving D's control, and
P was making foreseeable use of product at time of injury

Answer 148

commercial lessors
commercial suppliers in the distribution chain

Answer 149

casual sellers
service providers

Answer 150

NO!!

and a yes answer (yes K relationship required) is a fav wrong answer

Answer 151

Manufacturing defects
Design defects
Information defects

Answer 152

product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect

USE: “products departs from its intended design”

Answer 153

dif. design would have made it safer
dif. design would have been practical
dif. design would have been economically feasible

Answer 154

lack of adequate warnings for user or “learned intermediaries” (ie prescribing physician)

Answer 155

foreseeable

Answer 156

P fails to realize danger or guard against it - NO CN DEFENSE for D to use
P knew of danger and unreasonable conduct was cause of harm - CN DEFENSE APPLIES for D to use

Answer 157

D is a commercial supplier
D produced or sold a product that was defective when it left the D's control
product actually and proximately caused damage to the P's person or property.

Answer 158

D Wild animals, domestic animals, and trespassing animals

Answer 159

D is a dog with known dangerous propensities.

The owner of a dog or other family pet with known dangerous propensities will be held strictly liable for damage caused by the animal. Normally, the owner of a domestic animal is not strictly liable for injuries it causes. Strict liability will attach, however, if the owner knows of the domestic animal's dangerous propensities, i.e., propensities more dangerous than normal for that species. This rule applies even if the animal has never injured anyone.

If an animal commits an unforeseeable trespass, the owner of the animal will not be held strictly liable for damage caused by the animal. The owner is strictly liable for damage caused by the trespass of her animal only if it was reasonably foreseeable.

Answer 160

damages
injunctive relief
self-help available for private nuisance

Answer 161

the defendant substantially and unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s real property.

NOTE: the P must own or rent the property in order to pursue a private nuisance claim

Answer 162

the severity of the inflicted injury must outweigh the utility of the defendant’s conduct

Answer 163

an interference with the right of the community at large

Answer 164

Active TF - party whose affirmative conduct caused the harm
Passive TF - party held vicariously liable based on relationship to active TF

Answer 165

another way of saying that employer will be held liable for tortious actions of employee who's tort occurs during scope of employment

Answer 166

FROLIC - MAJOR deviation

detour - minor deviation;

Answer 167

Employee furthering business of employer
Force authorized - ie a bouncer
Friction part of employment - ie a bill collector

Answer 168

engaged in a distinct business of their own;
controls the manner and method by which they perform their tasks;
is hired to do a particular job;
supplies own tools and materials;
is paid a given amount for the job; and
is hired to do a short-term, specific job.

Answer 169

The independent contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activities; -OR-
The principal has a duty that is nondelegable on public policy grounds (e.g., a land occupier’s duty to keep his land safe for business invitees).

NOTE: a principal can be held liable for his own negligence in selecting an incompetent independent contractor.

Answer 170

D - A defendant may be both vicariously liable and directly liable in the same action

Answer 171

D May be liable for an intentional tortious act committed by an employee

Answer 172

C if the independent contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activities

Answer 173

D The employee was negligently supervised by the employer.

Answer 174

B Yes, because the landlord was aware of the manager's habitual drunkenness and propensity for violence.

Answer 175

C She will prevail, because the maid's failure to lock the door created the risk that someone might enter and take the homeowner's valuables.

Answer 176

A Yes, because the contractor's employee left the level in the aisle.

(B) is wrong. As part of the duty owed to customers, the store employees have a duty to make reasonable inspections of their premises to discover unsafe conditions (such as if a customer had spilled something slippery in an aisle). However, regardless of whether they had a reasonable time to discover the level, the store is liable because it is responsible for the carpenter's conduct

Answer 177

D No, because the barber had no opportunity to oversee the contractor's actions.

The customer is not likely to prevail because the barber had no opportunity to oversee the contractor's work. A property owner owes a duty to those adjacent to the premises to take due precautions to protect them from dangerous conditions, and a business owes its customers a duty to make reasonable inspections to discover and make safe any dangerous conditions. Further, that duty cannot be delegated to an independent contractor; the owner remains vicariously liable. However, nothing in the facts establishes that the barber breached his duty to the customer. There was nothing wrong with the brackets evident from a reasonable inspection, and the awning collapsed without warning. Further, the barber was not involved in hiring or supervising the contractor and would not be responsible for the contractor's negligence. Hence, because no facts point to negligence by the barber, the customer is not likely to prevail.

(C) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. Had the barber hired the contractor, the fact that the contractor contractually assumed all of the risks of liability would not preclude the customer from recovering against the barber.

Answer 178

Defamatory statement the specifically identifies the P
Published to the 3^rd party
Damage to P's reputation
Falsity of defamatory language - true/false test
Fault of part of D

Answer 179

how aware was D (person who made statement) that statement was false

good-faith belief it was a true statement - NO fault

Answer 180

actual malice

Answer 181

Knowledge that statement was false -OR-
Reckless disregard as to whether statement was false

Answer 182

only negligence

Answer 183

C: commercial appropriation
L: false light
I: intrusion into ones seclusion or solitude
P: public disclosure of private facts

Answer 184

C Yes, because the actress had not given her permission to use the poster.

The proprietor has used the actress’s picture to promote the sale of hot dogs. The actress did not in any way consent to this use by the proprietor of her picture. Therefore, the “CLIP” elements that the actress needs to prove are present, and she will prevail.

(D) is wrong because there is no requirement that the defendant have actually profited from using the picture. The proprietor is liable for this tort simply because he used the actress’s picture without her permission to promote and advertise the hot dogs.

Answer 185

B No, because the bank representative made the statements for the wife’s benefit.

the bank representative’s statements were made under a qualified privilege. To prove defamation, the husband must show: (i) defamatory language by the defendant (ii) of or concerning the plaintiff (iii) published to a third person (iv) that causes damage to reputation, (v) falsity of the defamatory language, and (vi) fault on the defendant’s part.

Answer 186

C It may diminish the damages that the man would be entitled to recover.

The girlfriend is liable for defamation because she made a defamatory statement about the man to a third person. As long as it is understood in its defamatory sense, an accusation need not be believed to be actionable. Because the statement that he was stealing at his job constituted slander per se, damages are presumed, completing the prima facie case. Nevertheless, the stated fact will diminish the amount of damages that the man will recover because his reputation was not likely harmed in the eyes of his boss.

(D) is wrong because the fact that the new boss did not believe the statement does not prove lack of basis for the girlfriend to have made it.

Answer 187

B False light publicity.

To establish a prima facie case for invasion of privacy based on publication by defendant of facts placing plaintiff in a false light, the following elements must be proved:

publication of facts about plaintiff by defendant placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye; and
the "false light" must be something that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person under the circumstances.

The large picture of the salesman flanked by two bulky police officers could suggest that the salesman committed a crime because it looked like pictures that newspapers often print of alleged criminals being taken into custody. This "false light" would be highly offensive to a reasonable person under the circumstance

Answer 188

must be for the promotion or advertisement of a product or service

Answer 189

publication of facts about plaintiff by defendant placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye; and
the "false light" must be something that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person under the circumstances

Answer 190

an act of prying or intruding on the affairs or seclusion of plaintiff by defendant
the intrusion must be something that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
the thing to which there is an intrusion or prying must be "private."

Answer 191

publication or public disclosure of private information about the plaintiff, and
the matter made public is such that its disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Answer 192

1. the defendant is a **commercial** **supplier**, 2. the defendant produced or sold a product that was **defective** when it left the defendant's control,3. the defective product was an **actual and proximate cause** of the plaintiff's injury, and 4. the plaintiff suffered **damages** to person or property.

Answer 193

was *foreseeable*

Answer 194

C Require that suppliers have an opportunity to inspect.

Answer 195

C The failure of a retailer to take action after discovering a dangerous defectWhen the intermediary's conduct becomes something more than ordinary foreseeable negligence, it becomes a superseding cause. Hence, the conduct of a retailer who discovered a dangerous defect and then took no action *(such as alerting the manufacturer, warning the consumer, or removing the product from sale) *constitutes more than ordinary foreseeable negligence and may cut off the manufacturer's liability.

Answer 196

A The defendant cannot avoid liability by showing negligent failure of an intermediary to discover the defect.

Answer 197

C The retailer of the defendant manufacturer's product discovered the defect during the course of an inspection but failed to warn the buyer.

Answer 198

B Yes, because the car he was driving was dangerously defective.

Answer 199

C The man, because the steering failed due to a defect present when the boat left the manufacturer.

Answer 200

B Recover, because the consumer's failure to recognize the improper assembly does not cut off the store's liability.

Answer 201

A It has no legal effect on the manufacturer's liability.It has no legal effect on the manufacturer's liability.

Answer 202

C: commercial appropriation
L: false light
I: intrusion into ones seclusion or solitude
P: public disclosure of private facts

Answer 203

C The company's duty in respect to the movement of its soil on the highway was delegable.

The general rule is that a principal will not be liable for tortious acts of its agent if the agent is an independent contractor. However, a broad exception will impose liability on the principal if the duty is nondelegable because of public policy considerations. As long as the company was not subject to a nondelegable duty, it would not be liable for the negligence of the excavator's employee in the transportation of its soil.

(A) is not as good an answer as (C) because the fact that the accident was caused by the negligence of the independent contractor's employee does not necessarily excuse the company from liability.

(C) supplies the additional factor that enables the company to avoid liability.

(B) is incorrect because the possession of a license by the excavator would not excuse the company from liability.

(D) is incorrect because the fact that the transportation of soil was common to the area is relevant only for a strict liability action for abnormally dangerous activities, and the transport of soil by truck is not such an activity.

Answer 204

C The motorist was contributorily negligent.

Because the motorist was not driving attentively, the motorist was contributorily negligent. Under traditional rules, plaintiff’s contributory negligence is a complete defense to negligence; i.e., it completely bars plaintiff’s right to recover.

Here the motorist is contributorily negligent because he was not paying attention to his driving. If he had been paying attention, the facts indicate that he would have had adequate time to either stop his car or swerve to avoid the driver’s vehicle.

Answer 205

B Yes, because the driver’s negligent driving was a cause in fact of the collision.

The plaintiff will prevail because the driver’s negligence was a cause in fact of the plaintiff’s injuries. But for the driver’s negligent act of colliding with the plaintiff’s car, the plaintiff would not have been injured, regardless of the fact that the airbag was defective. Note that there can be more than one cause in fact of an injury. (A) is incorrect because the corporation’s negligence would not qualify as an intervening act, because it occurred earlier in time than the driver’s. An intervening force comes into motion after the time of the defendant’s negligent act and combines with it to cause injury to the plaintiff. (C) is incorrect because the fact that the defective airbag violated a statute may establish a breach of duty by the corporation, but it does not relieve the driver from liability for negligence. (D) is incorrect because the “but for” test is used to establish liability in concurrent cause cases, not limit another’s liability. As stated above, there may be more than one cause in fact of an injury.

Answer 206

C No, because the accusation is absolutely privileged.

The plaintiff cannot sue the defendant in a defamation action because the accusation is absolutely privileged. All statements made by the judge, jurors, counsel, witnesses, or parties in judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged. Absolute privileges are not affected by a showing of malice, abuse, or excessive publication, unlike qualified privileges. Because the defendant was testifying in court regarding the plaintiff’s conduct, the statement is absolutely privileged regardless of its truth or falsity. It also does not matter whether the defendant was lying or testifying out of malice towards the plaintiff

Answer 207

May be vicariously

Answer 208

Existence of a valid contractual relationship btwn P and a 3rd party or a valid business expectancy of plaintiff
D's knowledge of the relationship or expectancy
Intentional interference by defendant that induces a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and
Damage to plaintiff.

Answer 209

The trespasser was threatening only the property interest of the electric company, so the use of deadly force was not be privileged.

By leaving the power (after landowner had discontinued operations on the land) on to prevent theft, the electric company was using indirect deadly force to defend its property where such force could not lawfully be directly used. Hence, it will be liable to the trespasser for his injuries.

Answer 210

B Yes, because the other driver violated the speeding statute, and the motorist's damages will not be reduced despite his violation of the headlight statute.

No excuse for violating the speeding statute is present in the facts; thus, violation of the statute establishes negligence per se.

(A) is incorrect because, while an applicable statute may establish plaintiff's contributory negligence, the headlight statute does not apply here. Even though the statute was intended to protect drivers against cars being driven without headlights, it would be very difficult to show that it was designed to prevent rear-end collisions during the day, or that violation of the statute was a cause of the motorist's injury.

Answer 211

B The associate justice made the statements knowing they were false.

(C) is incorrect because, even if the associate justice hated the chief justice and wanted to harm him, he would not be liable for defamation if the statements were true, since a public official such as the chief justice must prove that the statement was false. Thus, it would not be enough merely to show that the associate justice had bad motives.

(D) is essentially the same answer as (C)

Answer 212

C Yes, because the bear is a wild animal.

An owner of a wild (i.e., nondomestic) animal, even one kept as a pet, will be strictly liable for the damage caused by the animal. A bear, even a very tame one, will be classified as a wild animal.

(B) is wrong because the injury the girl suffered was within the "normal dangerous propensity" of the animal. Strict liability for wild animals includes liability for the harm that results when a person is attempting to flee from what is perceived to be a dangerous animal

Answer 213

C The backpacker did not conduct himself as a reasonably prudent person in carrying out the rescue of the hiker.

(A) is an incorrect statement of the law - a rescuer is not strictly liable for a victim's injuries, but rather is liable only for negligent acts. (Here, the backpacker was negligent in his driving.)

(B) is an accurate statement of the law but does not take into account that the backpacker must be negligent to be liable at all.

Answer 214

B The patient, regardless of whether she establishes damages at trial.

The patient can establish a prima facie case for battery regardless of whether she establishes damages at trial.

Here, the surgeon's performing the operation would be offensive contact because it was unconsented to: The patient had selected her doctor to perform the operation and did not consent to the surgeon's participating in the procedure.

(A) is incorrect because damages is not an element of the prima facie case for battery. Even if the patient cannot establish damages, she can obtain a judgment in her favor and at least nominal damages.

This question differs from card 17 because here there was a lack of consent to the different physician performing the procedure whereas in the other question on card 17, there was consent of to the surgery and the use of local anesthetic

Answer 215

D No, because the child suffered no harm from use of the anesthetic.

One of the duties that doctors, dentists, and other health professionals owe their patients is the duty to provide a patient with enough information about the risks of a proposed course of treatment or surgical procedure to enable the patient to make an "informed consent" to the treatment.

If an undisclosed risk was serious enough that a reasonable person in the patient's position would have withheld consent to the treatment, the health care professional has breached this duty. However, breach of duty is only one element of a cause of action for negligence. The plaintiff must also establish actual and proximate cause and some damage to plaintiff's person or property. Damage means actual harm or injury

Here, the mother consented to the surgery and use of a local anesthetic, so battery is not applicable. Further, the child's dental work was completed without any problem and no other injury is apparent from the facts; the mother's possible distress at not being informed of the risk is not, standing alone, a compensable injury.

This Q is different from card 16 because here there was consent to the dentistry vs the app'y surgery where there was no consent for a different doctor. While both questions are the same in the fact that neither patient suffered actual harm, the difference is the lack of consent which creates a claim for battery. There was an offensive contact which was NOT consented to.

Answer 216

B The company did not sell or place into the stream of commerce the defective parachute.

To establish liability in a strict liability action based on a defective product, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is a commercial supplier of the product in question and that the product is expected to be supplied to the consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is supplied.

Here, the company produced the defective parachutes but did not place them into the stream of commerce and did not intend to do so. Thus, it is not liable to the member with regard to the defective parachutes.

(D) is incorrect. There is no indication that the member knew that the parachutes might be defective just because they were sold on the black market. Even in jurisdictions that apply their comparative negligence rules to strict products liability actions, the member's conduct, if considered negligent, would at most reduce the estate's recovery by a small amount.

(B) is a better choice because it totally negates the company's liability.

Answer 217

A The engineer knew of a better design that he could have used that would have prevented the failure.

(C) is incorrect. An activity is characterized as abnormally dangerous only if it involves a substantial risk of serious harm to persons or property, even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors, and the activity is not a matter of common usage in the community. Designing an aeration system for a wastewater treatment plant would not constitute an abnormally dangerous activity under this test

Answer 218

A No, because the guest did not have invitee status when he was climbing over the gate.

In jurisdictions following the traditional landowner liability rules, the duty owed by an owner or occupier of land to those on the land depends on whether the person on the land is characterized as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee.

An invitee is one who enters onto the premises in response to an express or implied invitation from the landowner. A person loses his status as an invitee if he exceeds the scope of the invitation.

Here, the guest was an invitee while on the grounds of the resort, but he lost invitee status when he began climbing over the gate to get into the closed bar. He became a trespasser because he clearly did not have express or implied permission to climb into the bar, and a landowner owes no duty to an undiscovered trespasser.

Here, while the guest can argue that he was an anticipated trespasser because others had climbed over the gate in the past, there is no evidence that the resort knew of the dangerous condition of the brackets, so the resort has breached no duty to the guest under these facts.

(C) is incorrect because, as discussed above, the resort's awareness of previous thefts from the bar may make the guest an anticipated trespasser rather than an undiscovered trespasser, but it does not make the resort liable to the guest under these circumstances.

(D) is incorrect because the failure to inspect or discover the dangerous condition does not make the resort liable here. The guest could argue that the resort operators should have known of the dangerous condition of the gate, but that would not establish liability here. The landowner must know of a highly dangerous artificial condition to be liable to trespassers, and nothing indicates that any resort employee knew that the gate would collapse.

Answer 219

B Yes, because the factory owner intended to conduct the activities that caused the particles to fall on the farmer's land.

Here, note that the farmer had complained to the factory owner. The factory owner continued his activity knowing with substantial certainty that the flakes would continue to fall on the farm whenever the wind was right. Thus, it can be found that the factory owner intended to bring about the trespass.

Answer 220

C That the steering mechanism was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users, and the defect could have been discovered and corrected if the component manufacturer had exercised reasonable care in its quality control process.

PFC of negligence in a products liability case, the plaintiff must show: (i) the existence of a legal duty owed by the defendant to that particular plaintiff; (ii) breach of that duty; (iii) actual and proximate cause; and (iv) damages.

The duty of care arises when the defendant acts as a commercial supplier of products. A commercial supplier who assembles a product from components manufactured by others is subject to the same liability as the manufacturer of the defective component. To prove breach of duty, the plaintiff must show (i) negligent conduct by the defendant that leads to (ii) the supplying of a defective product.

Here, because the snowmobile manufacturer assembled the snowmobile from component parts, including the steering mechanism manufactured by the component manufacturer, and sold the snowmobile as its own product, it will be liable for the negligence of the component manufacturer.

(A) would be correct if the plaintiff were suing the snowmobile manufacturer on a strict liability theory, BUT the facts of the question indicate that the plaintiff is suing in negligence. In products liability actions, always make sure you are applying the appropriate theory of liability.

(D) is incorrect even though the snowmobile manufacturer may have had a duty to inspect the steering mechanism before assembly. Nothing in (D) indicates that either the component manufacturer or the snowmobile manufacturer was negligent.

The existence of a defect does NOT by itself establish negligence, and the snowmobile manufacturer's failure to inspect the mechanism before assembly is not actionable negligence if the defect would not have been discovered even with a reasonably careful inspection. It becomes actionable negligence, however, due to the existence of the defect, the failure of the component manufacture to exercise reasonable care, the snowmobile's failure to inspect, and most importantly, the fact that BOTH snowmobile AND component manufacturer are BOTH in the chain of commerce thus, making the snowmobile manufacturer liable for the component manufacturer's negligence.

IOW: cannot claim negligence if even reasonable inspection would NOT have revealed the defect…because inspection would probably negate the claim of negligence (because someone took the time to reasonably inspect so, they would not be negligent). Have to show that defect was discoverable. Therefore, (C) is a better choice because it supplies the negligence element, which (D) does not.

Answer 221

D The failure of the machinery company to inspect the tunnel has no legal effect on the electronics company's liability.

Even if an inspection would have disclosed the defect, the machinery company's failure to do so would have no legal effect on the electronics company's liability.

Regardless of whether the technician's survivors are using a negligence theory or a strict liability theory (both theories must be considered because the call of the question does not supply the theory of liability), an intermediary's negligent failure to discover a defect is NOT a superseding cause, and the defendant who supplied the defective product will be held liable along with the intermediary. Thus, even if the machinery company's failure to inspect were negligent, it would not relieve the electronics company of liability.

(A) is incorrect because it is a reversal of one of the situations in which indemnity is available. Where strict liability rules apply, each supplier of a defective product is liable to an injured person, but each supplier has a right of indemnification against all previous suppliers of the defective product in the distribution chain.

Here, both the machinery company and the electronics company would be liable in a strict liability action as suppliers if they supplied a defective product. However, the electronics company, as the previous supplier in the chain, would be liable to the machinery company for indemnity, rather than the machinery company being liable to the electronics company for indemnity.

Answer 222

C No, because the injury did not arise from the dangerous aspect of the activity.

The motorist is not likely to prevail in a strict liability action because her injury did not arise from the abnormally dangerous aspect of the freight carrier's activity.

Strict liability does not apply to harms that were not caused by the normally dangerous aspect or propensity of the activity. The scope of liability extends only to the dangers that would be anticipated from the activity involved.

Here, the carrier's activity is subject to strict liability because of the danger of explosion from the truck's cargo, but not from a crash by itself. Because the motorist's injuries were not caused by an explosion from the explosives in the truck, strict liability does not apply.

The carrier would be liable for the injuries from the crash only if the motorist established negligence…but here the question asks about strict liability.

(D) is incorrect. It is questionable whether the negligence by the local authorities could be considered an intervening force, which must come into play after the culpable conduct by the defendant. Even if it were an intervening force, it likely would not be considered so extraordinary as to be an unforeseeable intervening force. Hence, it would not constitute a superseding force that would break the causal connection between the motorist's injury and the carrier's actions.

Answer 223

B Yes, because the negligence of the parking attendant created the opportunity for the theft.

The general rule of proximate cause is that the defendant is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of and within the increased risk caused by his acts.

In indirect cause cases, an independent intervening force may be foreseeable where the defendant's negligence increased the risk that these forces would cause harm to the plaintiff.

Even a criminal act by a third party will not cut off the defendant's liability if the defendant's negligence created a foreseeable risk that a third person would commit the crime.

Here, the parking company's employee negligently left the key in the ignition when she parked the owner's car on a side street away from the restaurant, creating a foreseeable risk that the car would be stolen. But for that negligence, the car would not have been stolen.

(A) is incorrect because, under pure comparative negligence rules, the car owner could recover some of his damages even if his negligence was deemed to be greater than the defendant's.

(D) is incorrect because superseding cause analysis does not apply to the plaintiff's negligence. Rather, it is an issue of contributory negligence.

Answer 224

a landowner to regain real property after being tortiously dispossessed

Answer 225

B Yes, if the manufacturer knew that its television was sometimes mounted on ceilings rather than walls.

Courts in a strict liability case require a commercial supplier to anticipate reasonably foreseeable uses even if they are misuses of the product. If the manufacturer knew that members of the public were sometimes mounting the television on the ceiling, marketing the product without including either warnings against the practice or appropriate hardware and instructions on how to safely do so made the product so defective as to be unreasonably dangerous if it were improperly mounted. Under a strict liability theory, the manufacturer is liable for supplying a defective product. As a guest of a purchaser of the product, the woman is a foreseeable plaintiff; thus, the manufacturer may be liable to her. The defective product actually and proximately caused the woman to suffer serious injuries. Therefore, the manufacturer is liable to the woman in a strict products liability action.

(A) is incorrect because the facts do not establish that the manufacturer was under a duty to include the warnings in its manual. Such a duty would exist if the manufacturer knew (as (B) states) or should have known that the television was being mounted on ceilings.

Answer 226

C The volunteers, because the guest cannot establish which of the volunteers breached her duty of care.The volunteers, because the guest cannot establish which of the volunteers breached her duty of care.

Here, the volunteers each owed a duty of care to anyone consuming the food they prepared, including the guest. The facts indicate that at least one of the volunteers breached that duty by improperly preparing or cooking the ground beef. That breach of duty caused the guest to become seriously ill. However, he cannot establish which of the volunteers breached the duty of care and was a factual cause of his injury. Absent additional evidence, the guest will not prevail.

(B) is incorrect. The alternative liability or unascertainable cause approach of Summers v. Tice applies when two or more persons have been negligent but it cannot be determined which one caused the plaintiff's injury. The court will shift the burden of proof to each of the negligent defendants to show that his negligence was not a factual cause of the injury. Here, however, there is no evidence that all of the volunteers were negligent; most likely, just one of them was. Hence, the volunteers will not be required to prove that they did not cause the guest's injury.

Answer 227

C The landlord's conduct was not the proximate cause of the nephew's injuries.

To establish proximate cause in indirect cause cases, where an intervening force combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's negligence caused a foreseeable harm or caused a foreseeable reaction from a foreseeable intervening force. Intervening forces that produce a harm outside of the scope of what would normally be anticipated from the defendant's negligence are generally deemed unforeseeable and superseding. Such a superseding event will break the chain of causation and relieve the defendant of liability. Here, it is ultimately a question for the jury whether the landlord's failure to fix the water heater was a proximate cause of the nephew's injury. However, the jury could very well find that the landlord's failure to do so, even if negligent, is not a proximate cause of the nephew's burn injuries because the conduct of the nephew and the tenant are superseding forces.

(A) is incorrect. Not only the tenant but also the landlord owes a duty to the tenant's nephew. The landlord's duty to maintain hot water in the tenant's apartment extends to guests of the tenant as well.

(B) is incorrect. The tenant's conduct was not the only actual cause of the nephew's injuries under the "but for" test for actual cause. The landlord's failure to repair the water heater promptly was also an actual cause, because but for his failure to do so, the tenant would not have been carrying a pot of hot water to the bathroom.

(D) is incorrect. Under the rule that a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him, it is irrelevant that the extent or severity of the plaintiff's injuries was unforeseeable. If the landlord were liable to the nephew, he would be liable for all of his injuries even though some were not foreseeable.

Answer 228

D The jurisdiction has abolished joint and several liability.

If the plaintiff recovers only $25,000, it will be because the jurisdiction has abolished joint and several liability. Under joint and several liability, when two or more tortious acts combine to proximately cause an indivisible injury to a plaintiff, each tortfeasor is liable to the plaintiff for the entire damage incurred. Hence, the plaintiff could recover $50,000 from the defendant if joint and several liability applied (her total damages reduced by the amount of her own fault that contributed to her injury). The facts do not state what percent of fault was assigned to the defendant, but given that the other choices are incorrect, the defendant's fault must have been determined to be 25%, so that $25,000 would be the plaintiff's recovery in the absence of joint and several liability.

(A) is incorrect regardless of whether joint and several liability applies. If the defendant's fault were less serious than that of the other tortfeasor, he would be liable to the plaintiff for less than $25,000 in the absence of joint and several liability. If joint and several liability did apply, he would be liable to the plaintiff for $50,000-the full amount of her damages.

(B) is incorrect because the fact that the plaintiff's fault equals the combined fault of the other two tortfeasors is relevant only in a partial comparative negligence jurisdiction. It is irrelevant in a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction.

(C) is incorrect because the rule of contribution, regardless of whether it is based on a pro rata approach or a proportional fault approach, does not affect how much the plaintiff receives from a defendant. Rather, it enables a defendant who has paid more than his share of damages to the plaintiff under joint and several liability to seek recovery against any other joint tortfeasor for the excess paid.

Answer 229

C) $40,000.

The pedestrian can collect $40,000 from the driver. In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, the plaintiff can recover even if he was over 50% at fault.

Thus, (A) is wrong. The recovery will be limited to the percentage of damage attributed to the defendant(s), in this case 40%.

The jurisdiction retains the rule on joint and several liability. Therefore, each defendant is responsible for the combined liability of all defendants. (C) is therefore correct and (B) is wrong.

(D) is wrong because, in a comparative negligence jurisdiction, the plaintiff's recovery is reduced due to his negligence.

Answer 230

* the intentional and unlawful confinement of another* against that person's will (eg, by force, threat, or fraud)* coupled with either moving or hiding that person.A perpetrator need only move the victim a short distance—even a few feet—to satisfy the movement (ie, asportation) element of kidnapping. However, for a kidnapping to occur incident to the commission of another offense, the movement of the victim must be more than is necessary to complete the other offense.* Otherwise, the perpetrator cannot be convicted of kidnapping.