First Exam Flashcards
Passenger departed on an ocean line knowing that it would be a rough voyage due to predicted storms. The ocean liner was not equipped with the type of lifeboats required by the applicable statute.
Passenger was swept overboard and drowned in a storm so heavy that even a lifeboat that conformed to the statute could not have been launched.
In an action against the operator of the ocean liner brought by Passenger’s representative, will Passenger’s representative prevail?
(A) Yes, because the ocean liner was not equipped with the statutorily required lifeboats.
(B) Yes, beucase in these circumstances common carriers are strictly liable.
(C) No, because the storm was so severe that it would have been impossible to launch a statutorily required lifeboat.
(D) No, because passenger assumed the risk by boarding the ocean liner knowing that it would be a rough voyage.
C
A man was angered after he was unexpectedly laid off from his longtime job as a factory assembly worker. The next day, he returned to the factory floor and indiscriminately fired shotgun rounds in the air. The man later testified, without contradiction that he had not intended to kill anyone but simply sought to exact revenge on the factory,’s owners by shutting down operations for that day. Unfortunately, one of the bullets ricocheted off the wall and killed the man’s best friend.
The crime below are listed in descending order of seriousness.
On these facts, what is the most serious offense for which the man properly could be convicted?
(A) Murder
(B) Voluntary manslaughter
(C) Involuntary manslaughter
(D) Assault
A
A host pointed an unloaded revolver at her guest, threatening to shot him. The guest knew that the revolver was not loaded, and that the ammunition for the revolver was stored in a locked basement closet, two stories below where the two were then standing.
In an action brought by the guest against the host for assault, will the guest prevail?
(A) No, because the host did not intend to shoot her guest
(B) No, because the hose did not put her guest in apprehension of an imminent contact.
(C) Yes, because the ammunition was accessible to the host
(D) Yes, because the host threatened her guest with a revolver.
B
Under the FTCA with certain exceptions no relevant here, the federal government is liable only for negligence.
A federally owned and operated nuclear reactor emitted substantial quantities of radioactive matter that settled on a nearby dairy farm, killing the dairy herd and contaminating the soil.
At the trial of an action brought against the federal government by the farm’s owner, the trier of fact found that the nuclear plant had a sound design, but that a valve made by the Acme Engineering Company had malfunctioned and allowed the radioactive matter to escape, that Acme Engineering Company is universally regarded as a quality manufacturer of components for nuclear plants, and that there was no way the federal government could have anticipated or prevented the emission of the radioactive matter.
If there is no other applicable statute, for whom should the trial judge enter judgment?
(A) The plaintiff, on the ground that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies.
(B) The plaintiff, on the ground that one who allows dangerous material to escape to the property of another is liable for the damage done.
(C) The defendant, on the ground that the Acme Engineering Company is the proximate cause of the owner’s damage.
(D) The defendant, on the ground that a case under the FTCA has not been proved.
D
Joe and Marty were coworkers. Joe admired Marty’s wristwatch and frequently said how much he wished he had one like it. Marty decided to give Joe the watch for his birthday the following week.
On the weekend before Joe’s birthday, Joe and Marty attended a company picnic. Marty took his watch off and left it on a blanket when he went off to join in a touch football game. Joe strolled by, saw the watch on the blanket, and decided to steal it. He bent over and picked up the watch. Before he could pocket it, however, Marty returned. When he saw Joe holding the watch, he said, “joe, I know how much you like that watch. I was planning to give it to you for your birthday. Go ahead and take it now.” Joe keeps the watch.
Joe has committed.
(A) larceny
(B) attempted larceny
(C) embezzlement
(D) no crime.
A
A 14-year-old teenager of low intelligence received her parents’ permission to drive their car. She had had very little experience driving a car and did not have a driver’s license. Although she did the best she could, she lost control of the car and hit a pedestrian.
The pedestrian has brought a negligence action against the teenager. Is the pedestrian likely to prevail?
(A) No, because only the teenager’s parents are subject to liablilty.
(B) No, because the teenager was acting reasonably for a 14-year-old of low intelligence and little driving experience.
(C) Yes, because the teenager was engaging in an adult activity
(D) Yes, because the teenager was not old enough to obtain a driver’s license
C
Toxic materials being transported by truck from a manufacturer’s plant to a warehouse leaked from the truck onto the street a few miles from the plant. A driver lost control of his car when he hit the puddle of spilled toxic material on the street, and he was injured when his car hit a stop sign.
In an action for damages by the driver against the manufacturer based on strict liability, is the driver likely to prevail?
(A) No, because the driver’s loss of control was an intervening cause.
(B) No, because the drivers injury did not result from the toxicity of the materials.
(C) Yes, because the manufacturer is strictly liable for leaks of its toxic materials.
(D) Yes, because the leak occurred near the manufacturer’s plant.
B
During an altercation between Oscar and Martin at a company picnic, Oscar suffered a knife wound in his abdomen and Martin was charged with assault and attempted murder. At his trial, Martin seeks to offer evidence that he had been drinking at the picnic and was highly intoxicated at the time of the altercation.
In a jurisdiction that follows the common-law rules concerning admissibility of evidence of intoxication, the evidence of Martin’s intoxication should be
(A) admitted without limitation
(B) admitted subject to an instruction that it pertains only to the attempted murder charge
(C) admitted subject to an instruction that it pertains only to the assault charge
(D) excluded altogether.
A
While approaching an intersection with the red light against him, Motorist suffered a heart attack that rendered him unconscious. Motorist’s car struck Child, who was crossing the street with the green light in her favor. Under the state motor vehicle code, it is an offense to drive through a red traffic light.
Child sued Motorist to recover for her injuries. At trial it was stipulated that (1) immediately prior to suffering the heart attack, Motorist had been driving within the speed limit, had seen the rid light, and had begun to slow his car; (2) Motorist had no history of heart disease and no warning of this attack; (3) while Motorist was unconscious, his car ran the red light.
On cross motions for directed verdicts on the issue of liability at the conclusion of the proofs, the court should
(A) grant Child’s motion, because Motorist ran a red light in violation of the motor vehicle code
(B) grant Child’s motion, because, in the circumstances, reasonable persons would infer that Motorist was negligent
(C) grant Motorist’s motion, because he had no history of heart disease or warning of the heart attack
(D) deny both motions and submit the case to the jury, to determine whether, in the circumstances, Motorist’s conduct was that of a reasonably prudent person.
C
The manager of a department store noticed that Paula was carrying a scarf with her as she examined various items in the blouse department. The manager recognized the scarf as an expensive one carried by the store. Paula was trying to find a blouse that matched the color in the scarf, and after a while, found one. The manager then saw Paula put the scarf into her purse, pay for the blouse, and head for the door. The manager, who was eight inches taller than Paula, blocked Paula’s way to the door and asked to see the scarf in Paula’s purse. Paula produced the scarf, as well as a receipt for it, showing that it had been purchased from he store on the previous day. The manager then told Paula there as no problem, and stepped out of her way.
If Paula brings a claim against the store based on false imprisonment, the store’s best defense would be that
(A) by carrying the scarf in public view and then putting it into her purse, Paula assumed the risk of being detained
(B) the manager had a reasonable believe that Paula was shoplifting and detained her only briefly for a reasonable investigation of the facts
(C) Paula should have realized that her conduct would create a reasonable belief that facts existed warranting a privilege to detain
(D) Paula was not detained, but was merely questioned about the scarf.
B
At a party, D and V agreed to play a game they called “spin the barrel.” V took an unloaded revolver, placed one bullet in the barrel, and spun the barrel. V then pointed the gun at D’s head and pulled the trigger once. The gun did not fire. D then took the gun, pointed it at V, spun the barrel, and pulled the trigger once. The gun fired, and V fell over dead.
A statute in the jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree as an intentional and premeditated killing or one occurring during the commission of a common-law felony, and murder in the second degree as all other murder at common law. Manslaughter is defined as a killing in the heat of passion upon an adequate legal provocation or a killing caused by gross negligence.
The most serous crime for which D can properly be convicted is
(A) murder in the first degree, because the killing was intentional and premeditated and, in any event, occurred during commission of the felony of assault with a deadly weapon
(B) murder in the second degree, because D’s act posed a great threat of serious bodily harm
(C) manslaughter, because D’s act was grossly negligent and reckless
(D) no crime, because V and D voluntarily agreed to play a game and each assumed the risk of death.
B
While browsing in a clothing store, A decided to take a purse without paying for it. She placed the purse under her coat ad took a couple of steps toward the exit. She then realized that a sensor tag on the purse would set off an alarm. She placed the purse near the counter from which she removed it.
A has committed
(A) No crime, because the purse was never removed from the store
(B) no crime, because she withdrew from her criminal enterprise
(C) only attempted larceny, because she intended to take the purse out of the store
(D) larceny, because she took the purse from its original location and concealed it with the intent to steal
D
A driver was traveling along a highway during an unusually heavy rainstorm when the roadway began to flood. To protect his car from water damage, the driver pulled his car up a steep, unmarked driveway abutting the highway that led to a homeowner’s residence. The driver left his car parked in the driveway and walked home, intending to return when the floodwater had subsided. Shortly after the driver started to walk home, the homeowner carefully rolled the parked car back down his driveway and parked it on the highway shoulder. The floodwater continued to rise and caused damage to the driver’s car.
If the driver sues the homeowner to recover for damage to the car, is driver likely to prevail?
(A) Yes, because the driver was privileged to park his car on the homeowner’s property.
(B) Yes, because there were no “no trespassing” signs posed
(C) No, because the driver intentionally drover his car onto the homeowner’s property.
(D) No, because the homeowner was privileged to remove the car from his property.
A
A homeowner owned a large poisonous snake which had been defanged and was kept in a cage. A storm damaged the homeowner’s house and the snake’s cage, allowing it to escape. During the cleanup after the storm, a volunteer worker cam across the snake. The worker tried to run away from the snake and fell, breaking his arm.
In a suit by the worker against the homeowner based on strict liability in tort to recover for his injury, will the worker prevail?
(A) No, because the snake’s escape was caused by a force of nature
(B) No, because the work should have anticipated an injury during his volunteer work
(C) Yes, because the homeowner did not take adequate precautions to secure the snake.
(D) Yes, because the worker’s injury was the result of a fear of the escaped snake.
D
A manufacturing plant emitted a faint noise even though the owner had installed state-of-the-art sound dampeners. The plant operated only on weekdays and only during daylight hours. A homeowner who lived near the plant work a night shift and could not sleep when he arrived home because of the noise from the plant. The other residents in the area did not notice the noise.
Does the homeowner have a viable nuisance claim against the owner of the plant?
(A) No, because the homeowner is unusually sensitive to noise during the day
(B) No, because the plant operates only during the day
(C) Yes, because the noise is heard beyond the boundaries of the plant
(D) Yes, because the operation of the plant interferes with the homeowner’s quiet use and enjoyment of his property.
A
