Questions Flashcards
1
Q
D’s employee negligently aided a passenger boarding the train. D caused the passenger to drop a package, which exploded and caused a scale a substantial distance away to fall upon a second passenger. Under which Palsgraf case theory would D be liable for injuries to the second passenger?
A
Andrews view (minority view)
- Everyone is foreseeable
- D’s duty to P1 will extend to P2
- D was negligent towards P2
NOT Cardozo view (majority view)
- P2 was NOT in foreseeable zone of danger (substantial distance away)
- D’s duty only extends to those that reasonable person would have foreseen risk of injury towards
- D was NOT negligent towards P2
2
Q
D was cycling with his son lapped on his back in the mountainside. Suddenly an eagle flew past him causing D to lose control as he swerved and his son fell down a cliff. A pedestrian, P, was walking by and saw his son fall into a lake. The pedestrian had to get through barbed wires to get to the lake to help D’s son and injured himself along the way. Is D liable to P for his injuries?
A
No
- D did NOT negligently place TP (son) in peril (eagle suddenly flew past)
- P recklessly caused himself injuries trying to help son (disregarded risk of crossing barbed wires)
- P was NOT foreseeable rescuer => D did NOT owe duty to P
3
Q
D had finished cooking his food in the kitchen but forgot to turn off the stove. D left the apartment as the stove was heating up and eventually the building was on fire. One of the neighbours called the fire brigade who came round. A firefighter, P, went inside the building trying to rescue the neighbours when he was suddenly hit by the ceiling falling down on him. Is D liable to P for his injuries?
A
Unlikely
- Firefighters’ rule
- D does NOT owe duty to firefighters based on public policy/assumption of risk
- D was NOT negligent towards P
4
Q
P was pregnant and went to a medical check-up from her doctor, D. D was not sure whether P could give birth because her son was not a viable fetus at this point, but P decided to go along with the pregnancy anyway. Ultimately, P’s son was born handicapped due to a defect that D could have treated. Who can sue P for what?
A
Neither P/P’s son
- P could sue for wrongful birth (failure to diagnose defect)
- BUT P’s son was NOT viable at time of injury
- P can NOT sue for child’s defect (emotional distress)
5
Q
D is a farmer who entered into a contract with a supplier to cure some carrots without knowledge that the carrots were to be shipped to a grocery store. One day, a customer purchased carrots from the store and suffered poisoning. Other customers started shopping at a different store and the store suffered losses. Can the store sue D for negligence?
A
No
- Business transaction (carrot trade)
- Store (TP) was NOT intended beneficiary of economic transaction (D could NOT reasonably foresee TP’s economic loss)
- D did NOT owe duty to Store => D was NOT negligent towards Store
6
Q
D had his arm amputated after a car accident. However, D was still willing to continue riding motorbikes as his hobby. One day, D rode his motorbike at night in the motorway when he suddenly lost control and crashed into a pedestrian, P, causing injuries. D argued it was not his fault because he could not drive properly with one arm. Can P sue D?
A
Yes
- D owes basic standard of care as reasonably prudent person would in D’s position (objective)
- D’s argument NOT relevant (subjective NOT relevant)
- Reasonable person with D’s same physical characteristics (amputated arm) would expect driving motorbike with one arm would likely cause accident
- D was negligent towards D
7
Q
One day, there was a power cut in a bank and the computers were all switched off. The bank’s manager complained to the computer technician, D, for failing to fix the electricity supply. D denied liability as he was only responsible for fixing computers, although his former position was to maintain the power supplies. Can the manager sue D?
A
Yes
- D owes basic standard of care as reasonably prudent person would in D’s position (objective)
- D’s argument NOT relevant (subjective NOT relevant)
- Reasonable person with superior knowledge re electricity supply compared to others would fix the electricyt supply (even though D’s position is computer technician)
- D was negligent towards Manager
8
Q
D is a doctor who was supplying a vaccine to a patient, P. D did not realise the needle was not sterilised. P then suffered injuries and sued D for not complying with conduct as other doctors across the world would. Can P sue D?
A
Yes (NOT international standard)
- D is professional (doctor) and must exercise special skill => D owes duty to P
- D negligently applied particular standard of care (not sterilise needle)
- D breached national standard of care (NOT international)
9
Q
A patient, P, consented to an operation not necessary to save his life. D failed to warn P that he may not be able to run for a day or two. Can P sue D?
A
No
- D had NO duty to disclose risk of treatment (not run for day or two)
- Risk was NOT serious enough that P would have withheld consent
- D was NOT negligent towards P
10
Q
A 16-year old boy thought it would be funny to leave marbles in the exam hall for the teacher to fall over. The teacher fell over and suffered injuries. Can teacher sue the boy?
A
Yes
- Child owed duty to Teacher
- Child judged by subjective standard based on his age (16), intelligence (would know person would slip on marbles and suffer injury)
- Child was negligent towards Teacher
11
Q
A young boy found a lighter and played with it. He accidentally caused the house on fire and the neighbour suffered injuries. The boy turned out to be five years old. Can Neighbour sue Boy?
A
No
- Child is below 5 years old => NOT likely negligent
12
Q
A mother decided it would be okay to let her 15-year old son drive her car. As he was driving, he crashed into a pedestrian by accident. Can Pedestrian sue Son?
A
Yes
- Son engaged in potentially dangerous activity (driving car)
- Son is held to adult standard of care => Son did not have driving experience
- Son was negligent towards Pedestrian
13
Q
A taxi driver was driving his car one day when a robber suddenly got into his car and told him drive quickly away from the police. Driver drove quickly and accidentally crashed into a lamppost, causing Robber a small bruise on his shoulder. Can Robber sue Driver?
A
No
- Driver is common carrier
- Driver caused ‘slight’ negligence (small bruise) which is sufficient enough for negligence
- BUT Robber was NOT passenger (no consent in entering Driver’s car)
- Driver owed NO duty to Robber => Driver was NOT negligent towards Robber
14
Q
A hotel manager invited his friend over for drinks at the hotel. The friend decided to sleep in one of the rooms without the manager knowing. However, a burglar somehow entered Friend’s room and stole $5 from Friend’s wallet while he was sleeping. Can Friend sue Manager?
A
No
- Manager is Innkeeper
- Friend caused ‘slight’ negligence (stole $5) which is sufficient enough for negligence
- BUT Friend was NOT guest (no consent in sleeping in Manager’s hotel)
- Manager owed NO duty to Friend => Manager was NOT negligent towards Friend
15
Q
D decided to go out for the night and drive. His friend, P, asked whether he could come along. D said okay. They were on the motorway in the evening when they saw two police cars and an ambulance rush by as their alarm sounds were ringing. D assumed it was okay to continue driving. Suddenly, a wild bear appeared out of nowhere and hit D’s car. D swerved as he crashed and injured P. It turned out the wild bear was on the loose and hurt people, requiring police and medics to attend. Can P sue D?
A
Yes (most states)
- Automobile-driver
- Ordinary care
- D should have drove back when he saw police cars and ambulance rushing by (potential accident)
- D is negligent towards P
No (few states)
- Automobile-driver
- Guest statute
- D did NOT conduct wilful and wanton misconduct (ignoring police cars and ambulance)
- D is NOT negligent towards P
16
Q
X asked his neighbour, Y, to take in X’s mail while he is on vacation. Y forgot to take in one of X’s mails. How likely is Y liable to X?
A
Not likely (common law)
- Bailment (X asked Y to look after his personal property by possession, NOT title)
- Sole benefit to X (X’s mail) => Y owes low standard of care (common law)
- Y owes ordinary standard of care (modern view)
- Y forgot to take one of X’s mails => Small negligence
- Y NOT breach low standard of care (common law) => Y is NOT negligent towards X
17
Q
X lent his lawn mower to Y. Y accidentally cut a bit of the tyre in the mower. How likely is Y liable to X?
A
Likely (modern view)
- Bailment (X asked Y to look after his personal property by possession, NOT title)
- Sole benefit to Y (use of mower) => Y owes high standard of care (common law)
- Y owes ordinary standard of care (modern view)
- Y cut bit of tyre => Small negligence
- Y breached high standard of care (common law) => Y is negligent towards X
- Y breached ordinary standard of care (modern view)
18
Q
X lent his lawn mower to Y. Y tried to connect the cord to an electricity supply when he received an electric shock. X was aware the cord was faulty. How likely is X liable to Y?
A
Likely
- Bailment (X asked Y to look after his personal property by possession, NOT title)
- Sole benefit to Y (use of mower) => X must disclose known defects to Y
- X failed to disclose faulty cord to Y => X was negligent towards Y
19
Q
X lent his lawn mower to Y to mow both their lawns. Y tried to connect the cord to an electricity supply when he received an electric shock. X was not aware the cord was faulty. How likely is X liable to Y?
A
Likely
- Bailment (X asked Y to look after his personal property by possession, NOT title)
- Mutual benefit (mow lawns of X and Y) => X must disclose defects to Y that X knew/should have known
- X failed to disclose faulty cord to Y => X did not know of defect, BUT should have known (X would have faced similar problems when connecting the cord himself) => X was negligent towards Y
20
Q
D saw a plane crash into the ground. D tried to remove the rubble and recover the passengers, when more rubble fell down because D removed the rubble. The rubble hit one of the passengers, P. Can P sue D?
A
No
- Emergency (D did NOT create)
- D acted as reasonable person would in rescuing P (remove rubble) in emergency => D was NOT negligent towards P
21
Q
D was practising his fire juggling tricks when he accidentally lit his apartment on fire. The fire spread to the building. D tried to rescue his neighbour who was screaming for help. D wanted to smash his door down, but D’s neighbour told him to wait. However, D smashed it down and the door struck his neighbour’s son, P. Can P sue D?
A
Yes
- Emergency NOT relevant (D created - fire juggling tricks)
- D did NOT act as reasonable person would (smash door down despite neighbour telling him to wait) (emergency NOT relevant) => D was negligent towards P
22
Q
A man was running away from the police and he jumped into a neighbour’s yard. The neighbour accidentally set his house on fire, causing Man to catch fire. The law imposes a duty on landowners to keep their premises in safe conditions. Can Man sue Neighbour?
A
No
- Man is NOT in protected class of persons (trespasser)
- Neighbour owed NO statutory duty to Man => Neighbour is NOT liable to Man
23
Q
P decided to steal some clothes from D’s open store during the weekend. However, P tripped over and smashed his head on the floor. The law required that all stores be closed on weekends. Can P sue D?
A
No
- P’s harm is NOT intended to be prevented (accident in store NOT intended to be prevented, but rather for commercial reasons)
- D owed NO statutory duty to P => D is NOT liable to P
24
Q
D was driving on the right side of the road. A young child darted across the road and D swerved onto the other lane. D was caught driving on the wrong side and was arrested. Should D be arrested under statutory law?
A
No
- D violated law (drove on wrong side of road)
- D’s compliance (driving on right side of road) would have caused more danger (hit child) than violation of law
- D’s violation should be excused => D is NOT liable for negligent driving
25
D was colourblind. D decided to cross the road although the light was red. Should D be arrested under statutory law?
No
- D violated law (crossed red light)
- D's compliance (not crossing red light) would have been beyond D's control (D is colourblind, cannot differentiate red and green light)
- D's violation should be excused => D is NOT liable for negligent crossing
26
D grew some trees in his garden. The leaves were prickly and flew off the trees from time to time onto D’s neighbour’s garden. One day, Neighbour was struck by the leaf. Can Neighbour sue D?
No
- P was injured off D's premises
- P was injured by natural condition (prickly leaf)
- D owed NO duty to Neighbour => D was NOT negligent to Neighbour
27
D was growing some apples on his trees. One day, a few apples fell from the tree onto P, his neighbour’s garden. P walked onto his garden and the apple fell on his head, which P was irritated by. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured off D's premises
- P was injured by artificial condition (apple); Apple was NOT unreasonably dangerous
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
28
D was cleaning his roof and poured some of the water onto P’s garden. One day, the water froze and P walked onto his garden and slipped on the ice, hitting his head. Can P sue D?
Yes
- P was injured off D's premises
- P was injured by artificial condition (ice); Ice was unreasonably dangerous
- D owed duty to P => D was negligent to P
29
D hired a builder to construct a shed on his garden. While the builder was constructing, the wood flew out of his hands onto D’s neighbour’s garden (P) and hit D’s neighbour’s head. Can P sue D?
Yes
- P was injured off D's premises
- P was injured by conduct of others on D's premises (Builder)
- D owed duty to P => D was negligent to P
30
P secretly snuck onto D’s garden to steal his chairs in the evening. D was wearing earplugs and could not hear P coming onto his garden. P tried to run away when he slipped on some barbed wire in the garden that D installed to prevent robbers from escaping. P hurt himself. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D's premises
- P is trespasser (D NOT consent)
- P NOT discovered (D had no notice - wearing earplugs)
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
31
P secretly snuck onto D’s garden to steal his chairs in the evening. D heard someone’s footsteps and looked out the window to see P. P tried to run away when a large tarantula bit P. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D's premises
- P is trespasser (D NOT consent)
- NOT artificial condition (tarantula) => NO need to warn P of tarantula
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
32
P secretly snuck onto D’s garden to steal his chairs in the evening. D heard someone’s footsteps and looked out the window to see P. P tried to run away when he slipped on some barbed wire in the garden that D was not aware of. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D's premises
- P is trespasser (D NOT consent)
- NO knowledge of barbed wire
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
33
P secretly snuck onto D’s garden to steal his chairs in the evening. D heard someone’s footsteps and looked out the window to see P. P tried to run away when he slipped over D’s child’s toys in the garden. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D's premises
- P is trespasser (D NOT consent)
- NO risk of serious harm/death (toys)
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
34
P secretly snuck onto D’s garden to steal his chairs in the evening. D heard someone’s footsteps and looked out the window to see P. P tried to run away when he smacked his head against the door of a treehouse left swung open that D was constructing. Can P sue D?
Yes
- P was injured on D's premises
- P is trespasser (D NOT consent)
- D owed reasonable care in active operations (constructing treehouse)
- D owed duty to P => D was negligent to P
35
P secretly snuck onto D’s garden to steal his chairs in the evening, ignoring D’s signs that were posted on his fence ‘do not enter’. P tried to run away when he smacked his head against the door of a treehouse left swung open that D was constructing. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D's premises
- P is trespasser (D NOT consent)
- P NOT discovered (D posted 'do not enter' sign - P NOT anticipated trespasser)
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
36
P, a young boy, secretly snuck onto D’s garden to swim in his swimming pool. D heard someone’s footsteps and looked out the window to see P. P tried to run away but he accidentally swallowed a plant in the water and choked. P wants to sue D. D claims he did not know the plants were in the water and P’s medical costs are not as high as the risk itself. Can P sue D?
Yes
- P was injured on D's premises
- Attractive nuisance doctrine applies
- P is child
- D should have known plant was dangerous condition (natural) => Could lead to choking in water
- D should have known P would frequent in vicinity of dangerous condition (swimming pool)
- Plant would likely cause injury (choke)
- Risk magnitude > Remedy expenses (even slightly above is sufficient)
- D owed duty to P => D was negligent to P
37
P was invited by D to visit his house for a housewarming party. P slipped on some very sticky visible mud in D’s garden and hit his head against the ground. D was aware of the mud but refused to get rid of it. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D's premises
- P is licensee (entered premises for P's benefit)
- Natural condition was discoverable (very sticky mud) => D owed NO duty to inspect/repair mud => D was NOT negligent to P
38
P decided to visit D’s museum. P climbed the staircase when he stepped onto a large visible splinter and hurt his foot. D was aware of the splinter but refused to repair it. Can P sue D?
Yes
- P was injured on D's premises
- P is invitee (entered premises for D's benefit, public land)
- D had duty to reasonably inspect natural condition (large visible splinter) => D owed duty to P => D was negligent to P
39
P jumped into a lake in D’s undeveloped land. P did not realise the lake was shallow and P hurt his foot on a rock underwater. D did not intend for anyone to be injured. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D's premises
- Lake is recreational land (NO fee, open to public)
- D was NOT wilful/malicious in failing to warn P of rock
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
40
X leased his flat to Y. Y invited his friend, Z, over for dinner. Z was climbing the staircase when his foot suddenly got stuck in the wood. The wood turned out to be weak and was not visible to Z. Z injured his foot. Who can Z sue?
X + Y
- Lessor-Lessee
- X (landlord) + Y (tenant) should have known of defect (weak wood)
- X + Y should have known Z could not discover weak wood by reasonable inspection (not visible to Z)
- X + Y owed duties to warn of weak wood to Z => X + Y were negligent to Z
41
X sold his apartment to Y. After Y moved in, Y was climbing the staircase when his foot suddenly got stuck in the wood. The wood turned out to be weak and was not visible to Y. Y injured his foot. Can Y sue X?
Yes
- Seller-Buyer
- X (Seller) should have known of defect
- X should have known Y (Buyer) could not discover weak wood by reasonable inspection (not visible to Y)
- X owed duties to disclose weak wood to Y => X was negligent to Y
42
D negligently ran a red light and skidded to a stop inches away from P. P was properly crossing the street in a crosswalk. P was shocked from nearly being run over which caused her a heart attack. Can P sue D for negligent distress?
Yes
1) P was within zone of danger (inches away)
2) P suffered physical symptoms from distress (heart attack)
=> D caused negligent infliction of emotional distress to P
43
P was the mother of a young boy. They were sitting in a park when the boy decided to cross the road. D negligently ran a red light and hit the boy. P was asleep, but the boy came back hurt and cried to his mother. P was distraught. Can P sue D for negligent distress?
No
- P + boy were closely related (mother-child)
- P was present at scene (park)
- P did NOT personally observe event (asleep)
- NOT bystander case => D did NOT cause negligent infliction of emotional distress to P
44
P met a girl on their first date. They were sitting in a park and the girl went to cross the road to buy some food for them. D negligently ran a red light and hit the girl. P saw the accident and was distraught. Can P sue D for negligent distress?
No
- P was present at scene (park)
- P personally observed event
- P + girl were NOT closely related (dating)
- NOT bystander case => D did NOT cause negligent infliction of emotional distress to P
45
D was jogging when he saw P crying for help in a park. P was cycling and slipped over a rock, hurting his leg. D carried P to a chair in the park and tried to wrap a bandage around his leg. However, it hurt P even more. D then went to get medical assistance. An hour later, P’s leg was getting worse. Can P sue D?
Yes
- D assumed duty to aid P (carry P to chair in park)
- D acted with reasonable care (bandaging)
- D did NOT act with reasonable care (medical assistance for one hour) => D owed affirmative duty of care to P => D was negligent towards P
46
D is a doctor who was performing a leg surgery on P. D was using a needle on P’s leg when the light suddenly went out and D poked into P’s leg causing him to suffer. Can P sue D?
No
- D assumed duty to aid P (doctor)
- D did NOT use gross negligence (light suddenly went out)
- D acted with ordinary care (Good Samaritan statute) => D was NOT negligent towards P
47
D organised a boat trip with his colleagues in the sea. One of his colleagues, P, decided to jump out of the boat to swim in the sea. However, a shark bit P’s leg. Can P sue D for negligence?
Yes
- D placed P in peril (innocently) (in sea)
- D owed affirmative duty of care to P => D was negligent towards P
48
D and his son went out hiking in the mountains. D warned his son to walk behind him because there were other hikers passing by, but his son decided to run ahead and accidentally tripped over a rock. His son was hurt and D decided to look for help. After a few hours, D came back and his son was suffering more. Can D’s son sue D?
Yes
- Special relationship between D + Son (Parent-child)
- D owed affirmative duty of care to Son => D was negligent towards Son
49
P and his mates were staying at a small bnb for the night. That night, a group of thieves entered P’s room and tried to steal his money. P woke up and the thief pushed P against the wall, damaging his head. The bnb’s manager, D, claimed all the locks were safe and there was no way the thief could enter the rooms. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Special relationship between D + P (Place of accommodation + Guest)
- D owed affirmative duty of care to P (protect P from TP harm, even though locks were safe) => D was negligent towards P
50
D and his grandson went out hiking in the mountains. D was aware his grandson tended to get hyperactive and attack other people. However, D was disabled and sat on a wheelchair, but trusted his grandson would be fine. In fact, his grandson saw P and pushed him to the ground. Can P sue D?
No
- D knew Grandson could cause harm (hyperactive)
- D had authority to control Grandson's actions (grandparent)
- BUT D had NO ability to control Grandson's actions (on wheelchair, disabled)
- D owed NO affirmative duty of care to prevent TP (Grandson) from causing harm to others > D was NOT negligent towards P
51
D lent his camera to his friend for his friend’s wedding. During the wedding dinner party, D’s friend and D were sat at the table. Friend was taking pictures when he received a text message showing a picture of his wife been cheating with another guy, P. Friend lashed out and threw the camera at P on the other side of the table. Can P sue D?
No
- D had authority to control Friend's actions (bailore-bailee)
- D had ability to control Friend's actions (sat on same table)
- D had NO reason to know Friend would throw camera (camera intended for picture use, NOT injuring)
- D owed NO affirmative duty of care to prevent TP (Friend) from causing harm to others > D was NOT negligent towards P
52
D, a bank, was expected to provide accurate financial advice to customers, according to financial custom. One day, D gave negligent advice about financial savings to customer, P. Has D breached custom?
Not sure
- Custom/Usage determines standard of conduct, NOT breach
- Trier of fact to determine breach => Negligence
53
P was hit by a window that fell from D’s building. How can P sue D?
Res ipsa loquitor
| - Inference of negligence (window would not fall from building unless D was negligent)
54
P went to the hospital to receive surgery on his liver. After the surgery, P detected an object was inside his body. Can P sue surgeon for negligence?
Res ipsa loquitor
- Negligence attributable to D (evidence can prove the surgery equipment that caused object to fall inside P's body was in Surgeon's exclusive control)
- Inference of negligence (accident would not normally occur unless surgeon was negligent)
55
D was driving his car in the motorway. At an intersection, D forgot to put the brakes on at a red light and another car ran into D without putting his brakes on as well. The two cars collided, hurting a passenger in D’s car. P cannot determine which car would have injured P. How can P still sue both drivers?
'But for' test
- Concurrent causation
- D + another car caused injury BUT neither alone would be sufficient to cause injury
- P can argue that 'but for' both cars, P would not have suffered injuries => Both cars were negligent drivers
56
D was having a birthday party at his house. D accidentally dropped a lighter setting the house on fire. The fire reached a nearby barn. However, another fire was caused by a group of drunk men near the barn as well. The barn caught fire. Either fire would have set the barn on fire. How can the barn’s owner sue both parties?
'Substantial factor' test
- Concurrent causation
- D + drunk men caused injury
- Either party alone would be sufficient to cause injury
- Substantial factors are known
- Owner can argue that both parties were substantial factors in causing barn on fire => Both parties were negligent
57
D and his friend baked some cakes for a charity event. P attended the event and ate their cakes. P then got food poisoning. Medical exam reports reveal P was food poisoned by the cakes. P sues D and his friend. D argues P does not know whether it was his cake that led to the food poisoning. Are both parties liable?
Alternatives causes approach (Summers v Tice)
- Concurrent causation
- D + Friend caused injury
- Either party alone would be sufficient to cause injury
- Substantial factor is NOT known
- D + Friend has burden of proof => Must prove neither was NOT negligent (NOT actual cause)
58
D was driving his sports car down a busy street at a high rate of speed. P, pedestrian, stepped out in the crosswalk in front of D. D swerved to one side to avoid hitting P, hit a parked truck and bounced to the other side of the street. The truck then hit another car that propelled into the street and injured P’s leg. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Direct cause - Foreseeable)
- D's injuring P was foreseeable (high rate of speed, busy street)
- D's injuring P was unusual (hit truck, hit car, hit P) BUT NOT relevant
- D negligently drove + injured P
59
D was driving his cab very fast. D threatened his passenger, P, with injury if P did not pay more money. Without warning, the section of the road that D was driving on suddenly collapsed and injured D. Can P sue D?
No
- NO proximate causation (Direct cause - Unforeseeable)
- P could argue but for D's speeding, P would not have been on that section of the road
- BUT sudden collapse of road was NOT foreseeable harm (no warning)
- D NOT negligent
60
D crashed his car into P. P was then taken to hospital and received treatment on his leg. The surgeon accidentally used the wrong surgery technique, injuring P’s leg even more. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Foreseeable)
- Surgeon's medical malpractice was intervening force that combined with D's act => Normal response
- P's injury was foreseeable result => D was negligent
61
D was jogging with P when they got into a fight. D accidentally pushed P over a cliff, injuring P. Another man came to help P and carried him to a hospital. However, the man tripped and hurt P even more. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Foreseeable)
- Man's negligent rescue was intervening force that combined with D's act => Normal response
- P's injury was foreseeable result => D was negligent
62
D accidentally shot a paintball gun at P. P overreacted and pushed another man out of the way, who fell down and was injured. Can Man sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Foreseeable)
- P's reaction (escaping gunshot) was intervening force that combined with D's act => Normal response
- Man's injury was foreseeable result => D was negligent
63
D crashed his car into P. P was then taken to hospital and received treatment on his leg. After the surgery, P started suffering some pneumonia. His doctor confirmed his injury exposed him to the condition. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Foreseeable)
- P's subsequent disease was intervening force that combined with D's act (placed P in weakened condition exposing him to disease) => Normal response
- P's disease was foreseeable result => D was negligent
64
D crashed his car into P. P was then taken to hospital and had his right leg amputated. After the surgery, P had to walk on crutches. P slipped and broke his other leg. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Foreseeable)
- P's accident was intervening force that combined with D's act (amputation of right leg likely to cause accident) => Normal response
- P's injury was foreseeable result => D was negligent
65
D negligently blocked a sidewalk. P, a pedestrian, had to get to work so P decided to walk on the pavement. A negligent driver crashed into P, injuring him. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Independent)
- D's blocking sidewalk increased risk of P colliding with car while walking on PAVEMENT => Foreseeable
- Driver's negligent driving (TP's negligence) was foreseeable result => D was negligent
66
D was a parking lot attendant. P entrusted D with his keys to the car. D negligently left the keys in P’s car and the doors unlocked. A thief drove his car at night and took off. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Independent)
- D's negligently leaving doors unlocked increased risk of Thief stealing P's car => Foreseeable
- Thief's stealing of car (TP's crime) was foreseeable result => D was negligent
67
P asked D to clean his house for him while he was on vacation. One day, D left the doors unlocked. A sudden rainstorm caused flooding in P’s house. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Independent)
- D's negligently leaving doors unlocked increased risk of rainstorm flooding P's house => Foreseeable
- Flooding by rainstorm (Act of God) was foreseeable result => D was negligent
68
D failed to move ammonia gas from a storage facility. An unforeseeable bolt of lightning struck the facility, causing an explosion and injuring several workers. Can the workers sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Unforeseeable)
- D's negligently leaving ammonia gas increased risk of explosion harming others => Foreseeable result
- Bolt of lightning (unforeseeable) created foreseeable result => D was negligent
69
D failed to move ammonia gas from a storage facility. A man entered the facility one night to blow it up by fire, causing an explosion and injuring several workers. Can the workers sue D?
No
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Unforeseeable)
- Man's arson (TP crime) was unforeseeable => D was NOT negligent
70
D accidentally shot a paintball gun at his friend. The friend panicked and took out a kitchen knife making wounds on his other friend standing next to him. Can the other friend sue D?
No
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Unforeseeable)
- D's paintball gunshot did NOT increase risk of victim using kitchen knife to hurt others => Unforeseeable harm
- Friend's knife actions were unforeseeable => Superseding action that broke causal chain => D was NOT negligent
71
D drove his passenger in his taxi recklessly during a violent windstorm. It was blowing large branches and other debris onto the road. D slammed on his brakes to avoid a large branch in the road, but swerved sideways onto the shoulder of the road. Before D could proceed, another branch crashed onto the roof of the cab, breaking a window and causing P to be cut by flying glass. Can P sue D for the glasscut?
No
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Foreseeable)
- D's reckless driving did NOT increase risk of window breaking and glass cutting P => Unforeseeable harm
- D was NOT negligent
72
D negligently blocked off the road, forcing P to take an alternate road. Another driver negligently collided with P on this road. Can P sue D?
No
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Unforeseeable)
- D's blocking sidewalk did NOT increase risk of P colliding with another car on the ROAD => Unforeseeable
- Driver's negligent driving was NOT foreseeable result => D was NOT negligent
73
D negligently drove into P. P suffered a concussion. Days later, P started suffering from amnesia due to an existing mental illness. D never expected P would suffer from amnesia. Can P sue D for the amnesia as well as the concussion?
Yes
- Proximate causation
- Eggshell-skull plaintiff rule: D must take P as he finds him
- D's negligent driving aggravated P's existing mental illness => Amnesia
- Unforeseeability of amnesia NOT relevant
- D is liable for concussion + amnesia
74
D negligently drove into P. P suffered a concussion. Days later, P started suffering from hallucinations due to a psychedelic he took at a party. D never expected P would suffer from the hallucinations. Can P sue D for the hallucinations as well as the concussion?
No
- Proximate causation
- Eggshell-skull plaintiff rule: D must take P as he finds him
- D's negligent driving did NOT aggravated P's hallucinations (NOT existing condition at time of accident)
- D is liable for concussion (NOT amnesia)
75
D manufactured an engine on his lawnmower. One day, D was mowing the lawn when the engine blew up and a piece of metal struck his neighbour, P. P went to the hospital to receive treatment. P could not go to work because he felt depressed by the injury. P wants to sue D, but D argues it is not his fault he did not expect P to become depressed. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Personal injury suit
- Economic damages (medical expenses)
- Non-economic damages (emotional distress)
- Unforeseeability of emotional distress NOT relevant (D takes P as he finds him)
76
D manufactured a lawnmower. One day, D was mowing the lawn when the engine blew up and smashed into P’s car window. P had to pay $1,000 to fix the window. P wants to sue D. The car window now costs $1,500. How much can P recover?
$1,000
- Negligence
- D damaged car window (property) => P can recover $1,000 (repair cost)
77
D manufactured a lawnmower. One day, D was mowing the lawn when the engine blew up and almost destroyed P’s car window that was worth $1,600 at the time. P wants to sue D. The car window now costs $1,500 but $1,000 to repair. How much can P recover?
$1,600
- Negligence (Conversion)
- D nearly destroyed car (property) => P can recover $1,600 (fair market value at time of accident)
78
D manufactured a lawnmower. One day, D was mowing the lawn when the engine blew up and almost destroyed P’s car that was worth $1,600 at the time. P was so upset by this incident that he wanted to sue D. Can P recover for his distress?
No
- Negligence
- D nearly destroyed car (property)
- P can NOT recover emotional distress
79
D was driving his car with passenger P when his phone rang. D picked up the phone but saw a truck come towards him. D failed to stop and crashed, injuring P. P wants to sue D not just for medical expenses, but also for punitive damages. Is this recoverable?
No
- D's conduct did NOT involve wilful and wanton conduct/recklessness/malice
- D just picked up the phone
80
D was driving his car with passenger P when his phone rang. D picked up the phone but saw a truck come towards him. P told him to stop the car but D insisted it would be funny to see what happens. D failed to stop and crashed, injuring P. P wants to sue D not just for medical expenses, but also for punitive damages. Is this recoverable?
Yes
- D's conduct did involve wilful and wanton conduct/recklessness/malice
- D intentionally failed to stop car
81
D was driving his car with passenger P when his phone rang. D picked up the phone but saw a truck come towards him. D failed to stop and crashed, injuring P. P managed to obtain health insurance and his company allowed him to take sick leave with compensation. P still wants to sue D, but D claims P’s benefits already compensated him for his injuries. Can P still sue D?
Yes
- Collateral Source rule
- P's benefits (health insurance, sick pay) will NOT reduce P's damages
82
D was driving his car when his phone rang. D picked up the phone and could not see there was a red light. D failed to stop and crashed, injuring P and damaging his car who was in front of him. P was bleeding badly but decided to go home and treat his wounds. P also left his car in its damaged state although he had insurance to cover it. Can P still sue D for damages?
No
- P had duty to mitigate damages
- P's injuries: P should have gone to hospital to effect cure + get treatment (avoid aggravation of injuries)
- P's car: P should have found appropriate cover
- P can NOT recover damages
83
D was driving his car faster than usual. P was smoking marijuana when he didn’t see D driving towards him. D crashed into P and P suffered injuries. P wants to sue D. What defences can D assert?
P's violation of statute
- P violated statute (drug law)
- P's contributory negligence => Defence to D's negligence
84
D was driving his car faster than usual when a young child was running to school and accidentally bumped into D’s car. Child suffered injuries. Child wants to sue D. What defences can D assert?
None
- D violated statute (speeding)
- Child's contributory negligence can NOT be used as defence to D's violation of statute
- Child was intended to be protected by statute (incapacity)
85
P hired his assistant to deliver some goods to a customer using P’s car. P’s assistant was driving at faster than usual speed when D suddenly drove into P’s car, causing damages. P wants to sue D. What defences can D assert? Can P still sue D?
Imputed contributory negligence
- P's assistant acted within his scope of employment (delivering goods)
- P's assistant's negligence may be imputed to P (employer-employee)
- P can still sue BOTH + Assistant as joint tortfeasors
86
P was a partner in a large law firm. His co-partner accidentally failed to include an important figure in their financial statement report. He still sent the report to the client who relied on it and entered a merger deal. However, the deal went awry and caused losses towards P’s firm. P wants to sue Client. Can Client assert defences? Can P still sue Client?
Imputed contributory negligence
- P's co-partner was negligent (failure to send proper report)
- P's co-partner's negligence may be imputed to P (partners)
- P can still sue BOTH D + Client as joint tortfeasors
87
P was driving his car with his wife. His wife kept showing P some pictures from their honeymoon, which distracted P. Suddenly P crashed into D’s car. P wants to sue D. What defence can D assert?
NO imputed contributory negligence
| - P's wife's negligence can NOT be imputed to P (spouses)
88
P was driving his car with his wife. His wife kept showing P some pictures from their honeymoon, which distracted P. Suddenly P crashed into D’s car. P wants to sue D for his wife’s loss of consortium and services. What defence can D assert?
Derivative contributory negligence
- P is suing on behalf of P's wife
- P was negligent => P's negligence will bar P's recovery
NO imputed contributory negligence
- P's negligence can NOT be imputed to P's wife (spouses)
89
P was driving his car with his daughter. His daughter kept crying for food, which distracted P. Suddenly P crashed into D’s car. P wants to sue D. What defence can D assert?
NO imputed contributory negligence
| - P's daughter's negligence can NOT be imputed to P (parent-child)
90
P asked his friend to deliver some goods for him, as a friend. His friend was driving faster than usual and suddenly D’s car smashed into P’s car. P wants to sue D. Can D assert imputed contributory negligence by P?
NO imputed contributory negligence
- Friend's negligence can NOT be imputed to P (automobile owner-driver)
- Friend was NOT employee (NO vicarious liability)
91
P asked his friend to deliver some goods for him, as a friend. P decided to come along with him. His friend was driving faster than usual and suddenly D’s car smashed into P’s car. P wants to sue D. What defence can D assert?
P's contributory negligence
| - P was passenger in own car => P should have stopped Friend driving so fast
92
P negligently parked his car on the railroad tracks. D, train engineer, saw P in time to stop the train but failed to do so. D crashed into P causing injuries to P. P wants to sue D. What defence can D assert?
NO last clear chance
- P was contributorily negligent (negligently parked car on railroad tracks)
- D had last clear chance (could have stopped train) BUT failed => D is negligent
93
P managed to make it to the final rounds of the basketball tournament. During the match, P and another opponent, D, collided against each other. P damaged his teeth. P wants to sue D. Can D assert any defences?
Assumption of risk
1) Knowledge of risk (sports)
2) Voluntarily (impliedly - sports)
94
P was riding a bus. The bus driver, D, gave a ticket to P. On the back of the ticket, it read that the bus company is not liable for any injuries to P. However, the bus driver was driving faster than usual and hit a large tree, injuring P. P wants to sue D. Can D assert any defences?
NO assumption of risk
| - NOT implied (common carriers can NOT avoid liability)
95
P was a regular employee at a finance company. One day, the office started smelling of fumes. P kept coughing and eventually suffered a disease. P wants to sue Finance Company, but they claim they limited their liability under their employment contract, in which P assumed such risk. Can P still sue FC?
```
Yes (NO assumption of risk)
- NOT implied (P is under statutorily intended protected class of persons - Employers should obey health regulations)
```
96
P signed up for a rowing activity. The organisor, D, entered an agreement with P limiting his liability from any injuries sustained by P during the activity. While they were rowing, P and D got into an argument and D tried to hit P. He missed, but P fell off the boat and hit his head. P wants to sue D, but D claims their agreement limits his liability. Can P still sue D?
Yes (NO assumption of risk)
| - P's assumption of risk NOT defence to D's intentional tort (assault)
97
P signed up for a rowing activity. The organisor, D, entered an agreement with P limiting his liability from any injuries sustained by P during the activity. While they were rowing, D could not find his phone. He stood up and somehow hit P in the face, making P fall off the boat and hit his head. P wants to sue D, but D claims their agreement limits his liability. Can P still sue D?
NO (Assumption of risk)
| - P's assumption of risk is defence to D's reckless conduct
98
P signed up for a rowing activity. Before setting off, the organisor, D, told P ‘whatever happens, it’s all on you mate’. P did not understand what D meant, but decided to row anyway. While they were rowing, the boat hit a large rock. P fell off the boat and hit his head. P wants to sue D, but D claims he warned P beforehand and P agreed. Can P still sue D?
Yes (NO assumption of risk)
| - NO knowledge of risk (D's ambiguous statement)
99
P signed up for a rowing activity. Before setting off, the organisor, D, told P ‘you either accept that I’m not liable for anything that happens to you, or I’m not paying you back’. P reluctantly agreed. While they were rowing, the boat hit a large rock. P fell off the boat and hit his head. P wants to sue D, but D claims P agreed he will take responsibility. Can P still sue D?
Yes (NO assumption of risk)
| - NOT voluntary (D threatened P by not paying him back)
100
D negligently drove in a motorway and crashed into P’s car. P was also driving negligently. P sued D for $100,000. The court concluded that P was 70% liable and D was 30% liable. Can both parties recover in a pure comparative negligence state?
$40,000
- Pure comparative negligence (presumed)
- P is 70% liable (contributory negligence)
- P should recover 30% (100% - 70%) of $100,000 = $30,000
- D should recover 70% (100% - 30%) of $100,000 = $70,000
- Court will offset P's damages vs D's damages => $70,000 - $30,000 => D should recover $40,000 (P should recover nothing)
101
D negligently drove in a motorway and crashed into P’s car. P was also driving negligently. P sued D for $100,000. The court concluded that P was 70% liable and D was 30% liable. Each is entitled to damages of $100,000. The state adopts partial comparative negligence rules. Can both parties recover?
NO
- Partial comparative negligence
- P is 70% liable (contributory negligence) => Bars P's recovery => P recovers nothing
- D is 30% liable => D recovers 70% (100% - 30%) of $100,000 = $70,000
102
D negligently drove in a motorway and crashed into P’s car. P was also driving negligently. P sued D for $100,000. The court concluded that P was 40% liable and D was 60% liable. The state adopts partial comparative negligence rules. Can both parties recover?
$60,000
- Partial comparative negligence
- P is 40% liable (contributory negligence) < 50% => NOT bar P's recovery
- P recovers 60% (100% - 40%) of $100,000 = $60,000
- D is 60% liable > 50% => Bars D's recovery
103
D1 negligently drove in a motorway and crashed into P’s car. P was also driving negligently. Another driver, D2, drove into both cars. P sued D1 and D2 for $100,000. The court concluded that P was 40% liable and D1 was 35% liable and D2 was 25% liable. The state adopts partial comparative negligence rules. Can all parties recover?
$60,000 (from D1 or D2)
- Partial comparative negligence
- P is 40% liable (contributory negligence)
- P recovers 60% (100% - 40%) of $100,000 = $60,000 (ALL from EITHER D1 or D2 - BOTH are jointly and severally liable to each other)
- D1 recovers 25% of $100,000 = $25,000 (from D2)
- D2 recovers 35% of $100,000 = $35,000 (from D1)
104
P negligently parked his car on the railroad tracks. D, train engineer, saw P in time to stop the train but failed to do so. D crashed into P causing injuries to P. P sued D for $100,000. The court ruled that P was 40% liable and D was 60% liable. D argues P should be more liable because he had the last clear chance. How much should each recover?
- Pure comparative negligence (presumed)
- P is 40% liable (contributory negligence)
- P should recover 60% (100% - 40%) of $100,000 = $60,000
- D should recover 40% (100% - 60%) of $100,000 = $40,000
- Court will offset D's damages vs P's damages => $60,000 - $40,000 => P should recover $20,000 (D should recover nothing)
- P's last clear chance NOT defence
105
P and D were competing in a professional football match. P and D ran for the ball when D slid into P’s ankle. P sued D. The court ruled that P was 20% liable and D was 80% liable. P was entitled to $100,000. D argues P should be more liable by an additional 20% because he assumed the risk of being injured in a sports match. How much should each recover?
- Pure comparative negligence (presumed)
- P's assumption of risk is defence (P impliedly assumed risk; D owed limited duty of care to P during professional sports match; D did NOT breach such duty by injuring P's ankle)
- P is now 40% liable (20% + 20%) (contributory negligence)
- P should recover 60% (100% - 40%) of $100,000 = $60,000
- D should recover 40% (100% - 60%) of $100,000 = $40,000
- Court will offset D's damages vs P's damages => $60,000 - $40,000 => P should recover $20,000 (D should recover nothing)
106
D1 was speed driving and crashed into P. D2 was also speed driving and crashed into P. P broke his leg and arm. D1 was responsible for P’s leg, which cost $10,000 for surgery. D2 was responsible for P’s leg and arm, which cost $20,000 for surgery. How much should P sue both Ds for?
Several liability (NOT joint)
- Ds acting separately: Divisible injuries
- D1: Leg ($10,000 only)
- D2: Leg + arm ($20,000 only)
107
D1 and D2 agreed to go speed driving in the motorway and crashed into P. P broke his leg and arm. D1 was responsible for P’s leg, which cost $10,000 for surgery. D2 was responsible for P’s leg and arm, which cost $20,000 for surgery. How much should P sue both Ds for?
Joint + several liability
- Ds acting by agreement: Divisible injuries
- D1: Leg + arm ($30,000)
- D2: Leg + arm ($30,000)
108
D1 was speed driving and crashed into P. D2 was also speed driving and crashed into P. P broke his leg and arm. P sued D1 for $100,000. D1 was 60% liable and D2 was 40% liable. P was able to recover all $100,000 from D1. Can P still sue D2?
No
- P recovered ALL damages from D1 => Satisfaction
- P can NOT recover further more other tortfeasors (D2)
109
D1 was speed driving and crashed into P. D2 was also speed driving and crashed into P. P broke his leg and arm. P sued D1 for $100,000. D1 was 60% liable and D2 was 40% liable. P agreed to release D1 for $60,000 with no further agreement for discharge. How much can P still sue D2?
$100,000
| - NO express agreement to discharge D2
110
D1 was speed driving and crashed into P. D2 was also speed driving and crashed into P. P broke his leg and arm. P sued D1 for $100,000. D1 was 60% liable and D2 was 40% liable. P agreed to release D1 for $60,000. P also agreed that D2 would be discharged by $60,000. How much can P still sue D2?
$40,000
- Express agreement to discharge D2 => D2's liability is reduced by agreed amount ($60,000)
- D2 should still pay $40,000 ($100,000 - $60,000)
111
D and his friend went for a drive. They thought it would be fun to drive very fast. D’s wife was on her way back home from work. D suddenly crashed into D’s wife. D’s wife sued D and his friend for $100,000. D was 60% liable and D’s friend was 40% liable. How much can D’s wife sue D? The state recognises spousal immunity.
Nothing
- Spousal immunity applies => D's wife can NOT sue D
- D's wife can sue D's friend for $100,000 (joint + several liability)
- D's friend can NOT recover $60,000 from D (contribution NOT imposed on D)
112
D hired an assistant to prepare financial statements for a client, P. D’s assistant failed to prepare correctly. P sued D, who paid his assistant's entire damages. Can D recover from D’s assistant?
ENTIRE damages
- Vicarious liability (Employment)
- D's assistant should indemnify D for entire damages
113
D crashed into P’s car by accident. P was taken to hospital for treatment. P sued D immediately. A few months later, P died. P’s executor wishes to sue on his behalf, but D claims P already died so he cannot recover anything. Can P’s executor still sue D?
Yes
- Personal injury: P's claim survives P's death
- P can recover damages between P's injury + P's death (medical expenses)
114
D made a false rumour about P and spread to his friends. P sued D immediately. A few months later, P died. P’s executor wishes to sue on his behalf, but D claims P already died so he cannot recover anything. Can P’s executor still sue D?
No
- Defamation: P's claim does NOT survive P's death
- P can NOT recover damages between P's defamation + P's death
115
D went for a drive. D thought it would be fun to drive very fast. D suddenly crashed into P, who was also driving fast. P died leaving his wife, step-son and brother. They all wanted to sue D for their pain and suffering, as well as loss of P’s support due to P’s death. P’s bank also wanted to sue for not repaying an outstanding loan. The court ruled that D was 60% liable and P was 40% liable. Who can sue D? For how much?
P's wrongful death
- P's wife + brother (next of kin) can sue D
- They can sue for pecuniary injury (loss of support), NOT pain and suffering
- Their damages will be reduced by P's contributory negligence (40%)
- P's step-son + Bank can NOT sue D
116
D went for a drive. D thought it would be fun to drive very fast. D suddenly crashed into P. P was injured and could not go to work. P’s husband and son wanted to sue D for loss of P’s consortium. Can they both sue D?
P's husband (spouse) can sue D
P's son (Child) can NOT sue D
117
D went for a drive. D thought it would be fun to drive very fast. D suddenly crashed into P who was driving fast with his wife. P’s wife was injured and could not go to work. P wanted to sue D for loss of P’s wife’s consortium. The court ruled that P was 60% liable and D was 40% liable. The state adopts partial contributory negligence rules. How much can P recover?
None
- Partial contributory negligence: P is at least 50% liable => Bars P's recovery
- P's derivative action on behalf of P's wife => P's contributory negligence is derivative to P's wife's consortium (NOT imputed to)
- P is entitled to nothing
- D is entitled to 60% from P
118
D was riding his bicycle with his brother. D did not look at the red light and crashed into a driver. D and his brother suffered injuries. Can D’s brother sue D?
No
- Intra-family tort immunity
- Personal injury: Family can NOT sue family
119
D and his brother were fixing his brother’s bicycle. D accidentally smashed the hammer into the bicycle’s wheel, deflating it. Can D’s brother sue D?
Yes
- NO intra-family tort immunity
- Property damage: Family can sue family
120
D was riding his bicycle with his wife. D did not look at the red light and crashed into a driver. D and his wife suffered injuries. Can D’s wife sue D?
Yes
- NO intra-family tort immunity
- Spouse can sue Spouse
121
D went to a playground with her young son. D let her son ride on a large swing. D’s son fell off the swing and hurt himself. Can D’s son sue D?
No
- Intra-family tort immunity
- Parent supervision: Child can NOT sue Parent
122
D took her son on a ride to the mountains. D did not look at the GPS as she believed she was going the right way. However, D ended up crashing into a tree and both were injured. Can D’s son sue D?
Yes
- NO intra-family tort immunity
- Automobile: Child can sue Parent
123
A federal officer attended a meeting with a citizen about his federal rights. They got into an argument and the officer threatened to hurt the citizen. The citizen wanted to sue the government for assault. Is this allowed?
No
| - Governmental tort immunity (Citizen can NOT sue Fed for battery/assault)
124
A state officer enacted a law prohibiting citizens from obtaining driving licences before the age of 22. A citizen wanted to sue the government in tort. Is this allowed?
No
| - Governmental tort immunity (Citizen can NOT sue State for legislative decision-making 'discretionary' act)
125
D ran a shoe selling business. D hired an assistant to deliver shoes purchased by a customer in Brooklyn. Assistant was driving towards Brooklyn when he decided to go for a quick coffee in LeBronx only for five minutes. On his way, Assistant was texting on his phone and crashed into Pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
No
- NO vicarious liability
- Employment relationship (D + Assistant)
- Assistant made substantial deviation (not minor) (frolic of his own) in terms of geographic area (LeBronx, NOT Brooklyn) => Assistant did NOT act within scope of employment
- D is NOT vicariously liable for Assistant's act
126
D hired a bouncer at his nightclub. One night, a drunk teenager tried to skip past the line. The bouncer told him to go back, the teenager refused. The bouncer pushed him to the ground. Can Teenager sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Bouncer used force as authorised in employment (intentional tort) => Bouncer acted within scope of employment
- D is vicariously liable for Bouncer's act
127
D hired a debt collector to demand one of his clients to pay up. The collector kept sending emails and went to Client’s house. Client refused. Collector began sending more notifications. Can Client sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Debt Collector created friction as authorised in employment (intentional tort) => Debt Collector acted within scope of employment
- D is vicariously liable for Collector's act
128
D was the manager of an accounting team. D recently hired a new accountant from an anonymous website without checking his profile. D started training Account on how to review the client’s statements. However, Accountant made a mistake and Client wants to sue D. Can Client sue D for Accountant’s mistake?
Yes (NOT for Accountant's mistake)
- Client can sue D for his negligent supervision (mistake despite training)/selection (anonymous hiring source)
- Client can NOT sue D for Accountant's act (NO vicarious liability)
129
D hired a contractor to replace the pavement walk next to a kindergarten school. The contractor had to first drill large holes and fill it with toxic tar. One day, a young girl left the school when she was hit in the face by the contractor’s truck. She also suffered from the toxic tar. Can the girl’s mother sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Independent Contractor
- Inherently dangerous activity (construction next to kindergarten school)
- D is vicariously liable for Contractor's act
130
D was constructing its house. D decided to delegate its duty to a contractor and to keep its premises safe. One day, D’s neighbour was hit in the face by the contractor’s nails. Can the neighbour sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Independent Contractor
- Non-delegable duty (public policy - keep premises safe)
- D is vicariously liable for Contractor's act
131
D wanted to find a builder to construct his new home. Someone slipped a letter through D’s door recommending a builder without further information. D rang up the builder and hired him. Builder started constructing D’s new house when D decided to go to the shop. However, Builder kept throwing his wrenches in his toolbox and accidentally hit Neighbour. Can Neighbour sue D for Builder’s acts?
Yes (NOT for Builder's acts)
- Neighbour can sue D for his negligent supervision (going to shop)/selection (anonymous letter)
- Neighbour can NOT sue D for Builder's act (NO vicarious liability)
132
D was about to drive to the corner shop. His son told him to take the passenger seat because he wanted to drive it himself. D had no choice but to let him drive and D took the passenger seat. On his way, D’s son was texting. They suddenly crashed into a pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
Yes
- NOT vicarious liability
- Family car doctrine does NOT apply (D did NOT give consent for Son to drive
- Negligent entrustment
- D was in car + D could have stopped Son's texting => D is liable (NOT for Son's texting)
133
D was about to drive to the corner shop. His son told him to take the passenger seat because he wanted to drive it himself. D thought his son was old enough to drive so he let him do so. On his way, D’s son was texting. They suddenly crashed into a pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Family car doctrine applies (D gave consent for Son to drive) => D is liable for Son's driving
134
D was about to drive to the corner shop. His son told him to take the passenger seat because he wanted to drive it himself. D reluctantly let him drive and D decided to stay at home. On his way, D’s son was texting. He suddenly crashed into a pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
No
- NOT vicarious liability
- Family car doctrine does NOT apply (D did NOT give consent for Son to drive)
- NO negligent entrustment (D was NOT in car)
135
D was driving along the road at night. D noticed the wheel was not working properly. A man came out of nowhere and told D he can fix it for him if he can drive it to the garage and bring it back to D. D agreed and the man took off. On his way, Man was texting. They suddenly crashed into a pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Permissive use applies (D gave consent for Man to drive) => D is liable for Man's driving
136
X lent his lawn mower to Y. Y tried to pull out the switch from the mower when it came off the machine and Y hit his neighbour in the face from behind. Can Neighbour sue X?
Yes
- NOT vicarious liability (NOT in bailment)
- Negligent entrustment of mower => X is negligently liable to Neighbour (NOT for Y's act)
137
D asked his young son to buy some flowers for his mother as it was mother’s day. As his son rode on his bicycle to the store, he didn’t pay attention and crashed into Pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- D's son acted as agent for Parent (D) => D is liable for Child's act
138
D’s daughter asked if she could ride his motorbike. D said ‘go ahead’. She rode the bike without paying attention and crashed into Pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
Yes
- D's own negligence (NOT vicarious liability)
- D consented to Daughter driving motorbike => D is liable to Pedestrian (NOT for Daughter's act)
139
D was selling absinthe at a local store. A customer came to buy two bottles. The customer then shared the bottles with his friend. Friend got so intoxicated he passed out. Can Friend sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Dramshop Act: Vendor (D) is liable for TP's (Friend) intoxication, caused by Vendee's act (Customer) => D is vicarously liable to Friend for Customer's act
140
D was selling absinthe at a local store. A customer came to buy two bottles. He looked incredibly young but D did not bother asking for his ID and sold the bottles to him. Customer got so intoxicated he passed out. Can Customer sue D?
Yes
- Negligence
- Vendor (D) foresaw risk of serving minor (Customer) => D is negligently liable to Customer
141
P purchased a lawn mower from D. P noticed the engine on the mower looked slightly different to others. P tried to turn the engine on, but could only turn it on eventually after a few seconds than normal. P is dissatisfied. Can P sue D?
No
- NO manufacturing defect (different appearance BUT few seconds switching on
is NOT beyond ordinary expectation)
- NO product liability
142
P purchased a swiss army knife from D. P expected the knife would be safe as it looked the same as any other swiss army knife. However, P cut himself with the knife as it had a slight cut at the tip. P requested D to reimburse for another one which was safer. D argued the new knife could not be any safer due to its sharp features. Can P sue D?
No
- Design defect (same line of products + more dangerous propensities)
- Feasible alternative approach: No less dangerous modification because knives are always likely to cause injuries
- NO product liability
143
P purchased a lawn mower from D. P tried to turn the engine on, but the engine lost control and the bolts flew out hitting P in the face. P requested for a safer design from D. D claimed it would cost him more than twice the amount to replace it with a better design. Can P sue D?
No
- Design defect (same line of products + more dangerous propensities)
- Feasible alternative approach: No economically feasible alternative if at least twice as expensive
- NO product liability
144
P purchased a lawn mower from D. P tried to turn the engine on, but the engine lost control and the bolts flew out hitting P in the face. P requested for a safer design from D. D claimed he complied with requisite government regulations, which shows conclusive evidence the engine did have not have any defects. Can P still sue D?
Yes
| - Compliance with government safety standards => NOT conclusive evidence (rebuttable)
145
P purchased a toaster from D. The instructions in the box that came with the toaster warned that P should avoid placing his fingers in the toaster when using it. However, P switched the toaster on and noticed it was not heating up. P then placed his fingers in the toaster and burnt his fingers. Can P sue D?
No
- D gave adequate warnings (box)
- Risks of heating fingers was 'apparent' to P => NO design defect
- NO product liability
146
P went to his physician for a leg x-ray scan. The physician performed the scan, but it turns out P suffered from some radioactivity that P nor the physician was not aware of. Physician claims he was never told by the company that manufactured the x-ray scanning machine. Who can P sue?
Physician can sue Manufacturer
- Learned intermediary rule: Manufacturer failed to warn Physician re radioactive risks of using x-ray machine
- NO need to warn Patient => P can NOT sue Physician
147
P purchased a liquid furniture polish provided for home use from D. P had left the polish on the kitchen table when his young son took the polish and spilt it on his fingers. His son tasted the polish and fell sick. P complained to D. D argues he did not expect a young child to play with the polish and it would require installing a child proof lid. P argues the lid only costs a few dollars. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Reasonable misuse: Child spilling polish
- Feasible alternative appoach: Economically feasible (few dollars to install child proof lid)
- Product liability
148
P had stomach cramps and went to a pharmacist to purchase some ibuprofen. The pharmacist, D, sold some recently new products of ibuprofen that appeared to be safe. P took some but suffered further cramps. Reports later revealed the product is defective. D claims there was no signs of defects before they were sold. Can P sue D?
No
- NOT scientifically knowable risk (at time of marketing)
- NO product liability
149
P went to a computer shop and bought a hard drive from D. P had not used the drive for a few months, which started to wear out. P then tried it for the first time, but it suddenly broke his laptop. Can P sue D?
No
- Defect did NOT exist when it left D's control
- NO product liability
150
P purchased a toaster from D. D was aware that the toaster tended to heat up more than usual, but thought it was okay to use anyway. P sold the toaster to someone on ebay. The customer was switching the toaster on when it burnt his fingers. Customer wants to sue D. D claims there is no relationship between them. Can Customer still sue D?
Yes
- Intent: D knew consequences would substantially be certain to occur
- NO privity required (ANY customer can sue)
- Product liability (battery)
151
P asked D to repair a toaster he previously bought. D fixed the toaster and gave to P. P was switching the toaster on when it burnt his fingers. Can P sue D for product liability?
No
- Duty of care NOT owed by D (NOT as commercial supplier - Repair company)
- UNLESS sue for negligence alone
152
P purchased lawn mower from D who regularly sells mowers. P was using the mower when the engine suddenly spiralled out of control and a bolt flew into the sky hitting the pilot in a plane. D had no idea the engine was faulty. Can Pilot sue D?
No
- NO duty of care owed to Pilot (NOT foreseeable) => NO negligence
- NO product liability
153
P purchased lawn mower from D who regularly manufactures mowers. P noticed the engine looked different to other engines. P still decided to use the engine when the engine suddenly spiralled out of control and a bolt flew into his face. D had no idea the engine was faulty. Can P still sue D?
Yes
- Breach of duty
- Manufacturing defect (engine different from others + dangerous propensities)
- D manufacturer => Res ipsa loquitor (accident would not occur unless D was negligent) => Negligent
- Product liability
154
P purchased lawn mower from D who regularly sells mowers. P used the engine when the engine suddenly spiralled out of control and a bolt flew into his face. The manufacturer was not able to find any defects at the time it manufactured the engine. D somehow noticed the engine was strange when he tested it, but forgot to inform P. Can P still sue Manufacturer? What if D's negligence was foreseeable?
No
- D discovered defect BUT negligently failed to inform P => D is intermediary (superseding cause)
- D is liable (actual + proximate causation)
- Manufacturer is NOT liable
- Product liability
If D's negligence was foreseeable =>
- D is liable (proximate causation)
- D is liable (actual causation)
155
P purchased lawn mower from D who regularly sells mowers. P did not properly use the engine when the engine suddenly spiralled out of control and a bolt flew into his face. P sued D. The court concluded that P was 70% liable and D was 30% liable. Each is entitled to damages of $100,000. The state adopts partial comparative negligence rules. How much can P recover from D?
Nothing
- Negligence (product liability)
- P made contributory negligence (70%)
- Partial comparative negligence: P is at least 50% liable => P is entitled to nothing
156
P purchased some candy at a cinema theatre. P suddenly suffered from food poisoning. The theatre could not have known of the poisoning. Can P still sue theatre?
Yes
- Strict tort liability (Cinema made NO fault)
- Commercial supplier (cinema sells candy - retailer)
157
P was in a shoe manufacturer’s store to purchase some shoes. The manufacturer’s boiler suddenly exploded, injuring P. Can P sue Manufacturer for strict liability?
No
| - Commercial supplier of shoes (NOT boiler) => NO strict tort liability
158
P asked his neighbour, D, whether he could make some jam for him. P’s friend recommended he try D’s jam. However, P suffered food poisoning. Can P sue D for strict liability?
No
| - NOT commercial supplier (neighbour) => NO strict tort liability
159
P rented a car from a car agency, D. The car’s tyres suddenly flattened out and P crashed into a tree. P wants to sue D, but D claims he was not in the business of selling. Can P still sue D?
Yes
- Strict tort liability (D made NO fault)
- Commercial supplier (D is lessor of cars)
160
P booked a flight from USA to UK. The plane suddenly lost control and crashed, injuring P. P wants to sue the pilot for loss of steering control. Can P sue Pilot in strict product liability?
No
| - NOT defective product (Pilot's bad service) => NO strict tort liability (maybe negligence)
161
P purchased some shoes from a shoe manufacturer. P went running with the shoes but the shoes suddenly wore out and P injured his foot. P could not fully prove the shoes were defective because of the manufacturer. Can P still sue Manufacturer for strict liability?
Yes
- Actual causation (even if defect difficult to trace => P can rely on inference that shoe's problem would not normally occur due to defect)
- Strict tort liability
162
P purchased lawn mower from D who regularly sells mowers. P used the engine when the engine suddenly spiralled out of control and a bolt flew into his face. The manufacturer was at no fault. D could also not discover the defect. Can P still sue Manufacturer for strict liability?
Yes
- D negligently failed to discover defect => D is NOT intermediary (NOT superseding cause)
- Manufacturer is liable (actual causation)
- D is liable (proximate causation)
- Product liability (strict tort - Manufacturer NOT at fault)
163
P purchased some shoes from a shoe manufacturer. P wanted to use the shoes for a fundraising marathon. P went running with the shoes but the shoes suddenly wore out and P injured his foot. P claims he lost a lot of profit from the marathon. Can P still sue Manufacturer for strict liability?
No
| - Economic loss (profit loss) NOT recoverable => NO strict liability (P must sue for breach of warranty)
164
P purchased lawn mower from D who regularly sells mowers. P used the engine when the engine suddenly spiralled out of control and a bolt flew into his face. The manufacturer was at no fault and argues P was responsible for not looking properly at the engine before using it. Can P still sue Manufacturer?
Yes
- Contributory negligence (P's failure to discover defect) => NOT applicable
- Strict tort liability
165
P purchased a toaster from D. P was feeling cold so he thought it would be okay to warm his hands by placing them on the toaster. However, P burnt his hands on the toaster. The manufacturer was at no fault and argues P was responsible for not using the toaster properly. Can P still sue Manufacturer?
No
- Contributory negligence (P's unreasonably foreseeable misuse) => Applicable
- NO strict tort liability
166
P purchased a television set from D. P switched it on but the screen was blank. P kept plugging the socket into the adapter but then electrocuted himself. The manufacturer was at no fault and argues P was responsible for not using the socket properly. Can P still sue Manufacturer?
Yes
- Contributory negligence (P's reasonably foreseeable misuse) => NOT applicable
- Strict tort liability
167
P purchased a toaster from D. P burnt his hands while using the toaster. P complained saying the product was not fit for its ordinary use. The manufacturer claims he was at no fault. Can P still sue Manufacturer?
Yes
| - NO fault required => Breach of implied warranty of merchantability
168
P purchased a toaster from D. P’s friend who was staying over at his for the weekend wanted to eat some toast, but burnt his hands while using the toaster. His friend left the toaster alone. One evening, a burglar snuck into P’s house and stole the toaster. The burglar burnt his hands while using it. Burglar and P’s friend wanted to sue D for not properly manufacturing the toaster because it was not fit for its ordinary use. Can Burglar and P’s friend sue D?
P's friend can sue D
- Horizontal privity shown between P + P's friend (overnight guest) => Breach of implied warranty
Burglar can NOT sue D
- NO horizontal privity shown between P + Burglar => NO breach of implied warranty
169
P purchased a toaster from his favourite retailer. P somehow burnt his hands while using it. P wants to sue Retailer for not properly manufacturing the toaster because it was not fit for its ordinary use under an implied warranty. Retailer claims Manufacturer was just as responsible. Can P sue Manufacturer as well as Retailer?
Yes
| - NO vertical privity required between P + Manufacturer => Breach of implied warranty
170
P purchased a toaster from his favourite retailer. P wanted to melt his chocolate bars by using the toaster to make fondu. However, the chocolate could not be removed from the toaster due to its liquid form. P wants to sue Retailer for not properly manufacturing the toaster because it was not fit for its ordinary use. Can P sue Retailer?
NO
- NOT breach of implied warranty (merchantability) (Toaster was fit for its ordinary purpose of cooking toast, not chocolate)
171
P went to his favourite retailer to buy a dvd player. His retailer told P they only sell playstations, not dvd players. However, he also told him the playstation is not the most suitable for playing DVDs. P texted his friend and asked whether he should buy it. His friend said his playstation seems to work fine in playing dvds. P then purchased a playstation. P played the dvd at home but the screen kept turning black. P wants to sue Retailer because the playstation was not fit for playing dvds. Can P sue Retailer?
NO
- NOT breach of implied warranty (fitness for particular purpose) (Retailer knew P wanted to play dvds on playstation BUT P did NOT rely on Retailer's skill and judgment, P relied on friend's advice)
172
P purchased a barbeque grill from D for a big wedding during the weekend. The grill unfortunately burst into flames and P incurred a lot of expenses into the wedding that it had to be cancelled. P wanted to sue D for the defective grill, but D argues P cannot recover his wedding expenses in strict tort. Can P still sue D?
Breach of implied warranty of merchantability
| - Economic damages (wedding expenses) are recoverable in warranty breach (NOT in strict tort)
173
P went to his favourite retailer, D, to buy a dvd player. D told P he had no dvd players, but he had playstations for playing video games. P‘s friend recommended he should buy the console to play dvds as well. P then purchased the playstation to watch dvds. One evening, a burglar snuck into P’s house and stole the console. Burglar tried watching dvds on it, but the screen kept going blank. Burglar wanted to sue D for not properly manufacturing the playstation. Can Burglar sue D?
No
- Express warranty (playstation for playing video games)
- Burglar + P (NO privity required)
- P did NOT rely on D's representation (relied on Friend's representation on watching dvds) => D's rep did NOT become basis of bargain => Burglar can NOT sue
174
P purchased a barbeque grill from D for a big wedding during the weekend. D included in their contract that D disclaims any liability for expenses and injuries. The grill unfortunately burst into flames and P incurred a lot of expenses into the wedding that it had to be cancelled, as well as suffering hand wounds. Can P sue D for breach of implied warranty?
Yes
- Implied warranty of merchantability
- Hand wounds (NO disclaimer allowed for personal injury)
- NOT wedding expenses (Disclaimer allowed for economic damages)
175
P purchased a barbeque grill from D for a big wedding during the weekend. D included in their contract that the grill is specifically safe for use and D disclaims any liability for expenses and injuries. The grill unfortunately burst into flames and P incurred a lot of expenses into the wedding that it had to be cancelled, as well as suffering hand wounds. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Express warranty
- Disclaimer to be read consistently with express warranty (safe for use) => NO disclaimer allowed for personal injury (hand wounds) + economic damages (wedding expenses) => D is liable
176
P purchased a barbeque grill from D for a big wedding during the weekend. The grill unfortunately burst into flames and P incurred a lot of expenses into the wedding that it had to be cancelled, as well as suffering hand wounds. P kept delaying notification to D about the grill for several months. Can P now sue D?
No
- Implied warranty of merchantability
- NO notice of breach given within reasonable time (several months) => D is NOT liable
177
P was walking across the street when he saw a shop that sells barbeque grills. P decided to buy the grill from the shop. The grill unfortunately burst into flames and P suffered hand wounds. P claims the shop misrepresented the fact that the grill would be safe. Can P sue the shop?
No
- D had NO intent to induce P (NO advert/label representing barbeque grill's safety)
- NO misrepresentation of fact
178
Man purchased herbal tea from a store and suffered liver damage. The man is sure that he purchased several different brands of the herbal tea at the store, but he cannot establish which brands. There is no evidence that the store nor the brands were negligent. Can Man still sue the brands?
No
- NO negligence liability
- NO alternative causes approach (Summers v Tice) applicable (NOT in strict tort liability) => NO burden of proof on each brand => NO strict tort liability
179
P is a young boy sitting in a park. D brought his son to the park to play with his x-man action toy. The toy made noises saying ‘I will destroy you’. P was frightened and ran away, tripping over himself and hurting himself. P wants to sue D under strict liability. Can P sue D?
No
- Nature of son's activity (playing with toy) => NO absolute duty to make safe
- NO strict liability
180
P needed a ride home and D offered him a ride in his truck. D warned P that there is dynamite in the tires. The tires suddenly got punctured and the truck lost control. P fell off his seat and hurt his head. Can P sue D under strict liability?
No
- Dangerous aspect of tires (dynamite blowing up) did NOT cause P's injury (caused by puncture) => NO causation
- NO strict liability
181
P prepared to have a big wedding at his home during the weekend. P’s neighbour, D, was enjoying playing with fireworks. However, the fireworks did not set off properly and caused fire towards both P and D’s homes. P incurred a lot of expenses into the wedding that it had to be cancelled. Can P now sue D for his wedding expenses under strict liability?
No
- NO damages (economic loss NOT recoverable in strict liability)
- NO strict liability
182
One day, D’s duck escaped from his home, jumped over his neighbour’s fence and somehow set his house on fire by knocking a vodka bottle over and a lighter on it. Can Neighbour sue D under strict liability?
No
- Animals (trespassing animals)
- NOT reasonably foreseeable damage (vodka and lighter)
- NO strict liability
183
D’s hamster strolled away from his home and snuck into the neighbour’s yard. The hamster made a mess of his flowers. Can Neighbour sue D under strict liability?
No
- Animals (trespassing animals)
- Household pets (hamster) are NOT strictly liable
- NO strict liability
184
D invited his friend over to his hut. D warned his friend about the bear he was looking after. However, the bear struck his friend and caused injuries. D denies liability because the bear was his pet. Can Friend still sue D?
Yes
- Animals (wild animals)
- Licensee (Friend)
- Wild animals are strictly liable (even if pets)
- Strict liability
185
D ran a zoo. P visited the zoo but was suddenly attacked by a lion who came out of the cage. Can P sue D in strict liability?
No
- Animals (wild animals)
- Invitee (P)
- If D is under public duty (zoo) => P must show D was negligent (allowing lion out of cage)
- NOT strict liability
186
D invited his friend over to his cottage in a wild forest. Friend suddenly was attacked by a horse that did not live in the cottage. Can Friend sue D in strict liability?
No
- Animal (domestic animals)
- Licensee (Friend)
- D did NOT own horse => D is NOT liable
- NO strict liability
187
D invited his friend over to his cottage in a wild forest. Friend suddenly was attacked by a horse. D knew that the horse wasn’t friendly to people, but never saw him attack anyone before. Can Friend sue D in strict liability?
No
- Animal (domestic animals)
- Licensee (Friend)
- Horse had dangerous propensities (attacking people) BUT D did NOT know horse attacked people => D is NOT liable
- NO strict liability
188
At night, P wanted to get to the football pitch on the other side quickly. P decided to run across D’s farm. P noticed a sign that was almost destroyed, reading ‘Beware large fox’. However, P crossed the farm and suddenly got attacked by a fox. D could not see P at the time. Can P still sue D in strict liability?
No
- Trespasser (P)
- D could NOT discover P => D was NOT negligent
- NO strict liability
189
P was walking across an old farmer’s land. P suddenly got approached by the farmer’s watchdog, who bit a small part of his trousers off. Can P sue Farmer in strict liability?
No
- Trespasser (P)
- D's vicious watchdog did NOT cause serious bodily harm (biting trouser) => D was NOT negligent
- NO strict liability
190
D was manufacturing some pipes along the motorway, which was not common in the area. However, the pipes suddenly exploded even though D was careful and its explosion could not be predicted. P was injured as he drove along the motorway. Can P sue D?
No
- NOT foreseeable risk (NOT predicted) => NOT abnormally dangerous activity
- NO strict liability
191
D was the owner of an oil company. D decided to construct nuclear plants near a local neighbourhood as many plants were constructed there in the past. The neighbours complained that the plants gave off expected fumes, causing lung damage. Can Neighbours sue D?
No
- Common usage (other plant constructions) => NOT abnormally dangerous activity
- NO strict liability
192
P prepared to have a big wedding at his home during the weekend. P’s neighbour, D, who lived on the other side of town, was enjoying playing with fireworks. However, the fireworks did not set off properly and caused fire towards both P and D’s homes. Can P now sue D?
No
- P was NOT foreseeable plaintiff (lived on other side of town) => NOT abnormally dangerous activity
- NO strict liability
193
D was the owner of an oil company. D decided to construct nuclear plants near a local neighbourhood. One neighbour complained that the plants gave off expected fumes, causing lung damage. They also complained it was not normal for such plants to be constructed there. Neighbour later kept losing breath due to his lung damage. Neighbour went to hospital. Can Neighbour sue D?
Yes
- Causation (proximate - subsequent accidents likely due to lung damage) => Abnormally dangerous activity
- Strict liability
194
D was manufacturing some pipes along the motorway, which was not common in the area. P was driving along the motorway and saw the signs D created to warn him of the pipes’ potential explosion. P tried as carefully as he could to avoid the pipes and find an alternate route. However, the pipes suddenly exploded even though D was careful. P was injured. Can P sue D?
Yes
- P knew of danger BUT P did NOT create unreasonable conduct leading to injuries (P tried as carefully to avoid pipes) => NO contributory negligence defence vs abnormally dangerous activity
- Strict liability
195
D was manufacturing some pipes along the motorway, which was not common in the area. The pipes appeared safe to any driver along the motorway. But the pipes suddenly exploded even though D was careful. P who was driving became injured. P wants to sue D, but D argues P should have avoided the pipes. Can P still sue D?
Yes
- P's failure to avoid pipe explosion => NO defence vs abnormally dangerous activity
- Strict liability
196
D tripped and was falling. To break the fall, D pulled his hand out trying to hang onto a rock. However, D ended up pushing P into P2. Can P2 sue D for battery?
Intentional tort (Battery)
1) D's act (volitional movement - by D's own will to push P)
2) D's intent
3) Causation
197
D had an epileptic fit and pushed P into a tree. Can P sue D?
NO intentional tort (NO battery)
| - NO D's act (NOT volitional movement - D's epileptic fit was NOT by D's own will)
198
D, five years old, pulls a chair out from under P as she is sitting down. D apologises because although she expected there was a chance P would fall on the ground, she didn’t intend her to do so. Can P sue D?
```
Intentional tort (Battery)
- General intent (D knew with substantial 'certainty' that P would fall, even though NOT full certainty)
```
199
D wanted to scare X by raising his fist at him. By accident, D smacks Y in the face instead. Can Y sue D?
Battery (Transferred intent)
- D intended to commit assault towards X
- D commits battery towards Y instead
- Assault + Battey (within scope of limited use)
- D's intent to commit assault transferred to Y instead
200
D wanted to scare X by raising his fist at him. X instead feels scared and becomes depressed afterwards. Can X sue D for transferred intent?
No
- D intended to commit assault towards X
- D commits IIED towards X
- IIED is NOT within scope of limited use
201
D wanted to break X’s tractor because he was angry at X. Instead, D decided to steal his neighbour, Y’s tractor instead. Can Y sue D for transferred intent?
No
- D intended to commit trespass towards X's chattel
- D commits conversion towards Y's tractor
- Conversion is NOT within scope of limited use
202
D, five years old, pulls a chair out from under P as she is sitting down because D thought it would be funny. P sues D for battery. Who holds the burden of proof?
```
Intentional tort (battery)
- Burden of proof => P
```
203
D thought it would be funny to flick a rubber at P’s head during class. Can P sue D for battery?
NO battery
| - NO contact (flicking rubber - NOT offensive to reasonable person)
204
D grabbed P’s purse, which was hanging on her shoulder. Can P sue D for battery?
Yes (Battery)
| - Contact with P's person (purse on shoulder)
205
D wanted P to fall into a hole that D dug. P eventually fell. Can P sue D?
Yes (Battery)
| - Causation (Indirect - D's hole set in motion force that injured P)
206
P needed a liver operation. P was sterilised and fell asleep. The surgeon ended up performing a leg surgery instead. P wants to sue Surgeon but Surgeon claims P was not even aware of the surgery at the time. Can P still sue Surgeon for battery?
Yes (Battery)
- Contact
- NO apprehension required (P falling asleep NOT relevant)
207
D punched P in the face wanting P to bleed. P could not prove he suffered actual damages. Can P still recover from D for battery?
Battery
- NO actual damages required
- Nominal damages recoverable
- Punitive damages recoverable (D acted with malice - Intent for P to bleed)
208
D and P went to the same gym class. After the session, D whispered to P ‘you’re going down next time’. Can P sue D for assault?
No
| - Apprehension NOT reasonable (NOT exaggerated fear of contact)
209
P needed a liver operation. P was sterilised and fell asleep. The surgeon was about to perform a leg surgery instead, but the nurse told him not to do so. P eventually woke up and heard about the surgeon’s potential mistake. Can P sue Surgeon for assault?
No
| - NO apprehension (P was asleep)
210
P was walking home in the evening. P saw someone in the alleyway in a dark hoody shouting ‘I’m gonna kill you!’. P was scared and called the police. Can P sue the person?
Yes (Assault)
| - Apprehension (Knowledge of D's identity NOT required)
211
D pointed an unloaded gun at P. P was afraid D would kill him. Can P sue D?
Yes (Assault)
| - Apprehension (D had apparent ability to hurt P, even though D's gun was unloaded)
212
D shakes a clenched fist while talking to P and tells him ‘If I weren’t such a good guy, I’d hit you’. Can P sue D?
No (NO assault)
- NO overt act
- D's words alone negates assault
213
D worked in a bank. D was angry at his manager and whispered to him ‘In a few months’ time, you’ll get what’s coming, mark my words’. Can Manager sue D for assault?
NO
| - NOT immediate harmful contact (few months' time)
214
D was in the police car with handcuffs. As P was walking away, D shouted at him ‘Get back here! I’m gonna kill you!’ Can P sue D for assault?
NO
| - NOT immediate harmful contact (D arrested in police car)
215
P went to visit his friend, D. D snatched P’s wallet from him. P could not leave the building until D gave the wallet back. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
Yes
| - D's act confined P to bounded area (physical force vs P's property)
216
P was waiting at a hotel lobby with his girlfriend. P’s friend, D, was jealous of his girlfriend. D kept pestering his girlfriend and P could not leave the lobby. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
No
| - D's act did NOT confine P to bounded area (NO physical force vs P's family (P's girlfriend is NOT family))
217
P was waiting at a hotel lobby with his mother. P’s friend, D, was angry at P’s mother for not letting them go on holiday together. D threatened to hurt P’s mother and P could not leave the lobby, although he could have stopped D from doing so. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
Yes
- D's act confined P to bounded area (Direct force vs P's family (mother))
- P's ability to resist force NOT relevant
218
P was sentenced to prison for 6 months. At the end of his jail sentence, D, the jailer, refused to allow P to leave jail even for a few minutes. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
Yes
- D's act confined P to bounded area (D failed to release P after end of his sentence while D was under legal affirmative duty to do so as jailer)
- Time period NOT relevant (few minutes)
219
P and his mates were hanging around a campfire. His mates tempted P to try some drugs, but P refused. P wanted to leave but felt pressured to do the drugs. Can P sue his mates for false imprisonment?
No
| - Mates' act did NOT confine P to bounded area (Mates' moral pressure)
220
P was walking towards a park. D came out of nowhere and blocked P’s way unless she gave him money. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
No
| - NOT bounded area (P's freedom of movement is NOT limited in all directions; P can walk elsewhere)
221
P was living on the 50th floor of a large tower. Suddenly D came into P’s room and threatened to hurt him, blocking the entrance. P knew he could jump out of the window, but it would be too risky. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
No
| - NOT bounded area (NO reasonable means of escape - 50th floor; P's knowledge of window jumping NOT relevant)
222
P was cleaning the sewers underground where there was no light when a homeless man, D, threatened P to give him money. P did not see a small hole behind him that he could have used to get away. Can P still sue D for false imprisonment?
Yes
| - Bounded area (Reasonable means of escape BUT P was NOT aware)
223
D and P got in a heated argument in their flat as P’s mate was in the room. D locked all the doors to stop P from getting away. D then changed his mind and smacked P’s mate in the teeth. Can P’s mate sue D for transferred intent?
Yes (Battery)
- D intended to commit false imprisonment towards P
- D committed battery towards P's mate instead
- D's intent transferred to his battery
224
D was a bill collector. P failed to pay his debts within the last three months. D sent him emails but P never responded. D then knocked P’s door every day, until P was very upset by D. Can P sue D for emotional distress?
Yes (IIED)
| - Extreme + outrageous conduct (extreme business conduct - knocking P's door every day)
225
P kept failing his homework at school. The school’s head decided to call P names and warned him he will get kicked out if he does not pass. P was very upset by this. Can P sue Head?
Yes (IIED)
| - Extreme + outrageous conduct (misuse of authority - school calling names vs P)
226
P went to his regular shop where the shopkeeper kept calling P ‘brat’. P was very upset by this. Can P sue Shopkeeper?
NO IIED
| - NO extreme + outrageous conduct (NO offensive language - P + Shopkeeper shared NO special relationship)
227
P was unhappy living at a foster’s home because the foster parent kept calling him a ‘fucking twat’. P was upset by this. Can P sue Parent?
IIED
| - Extreme + outrageous conduct (Offensive language - P + Parent shared special relationship)
228
P went to his regular shop where the shopkeeper kept calling P ‘brat’. P was very upset by this due to his sensitivities. Can P sue Shopkeeper?
NO IIED
| - NO extreme + outrageous conduct (NOT offensive language - Shopkeeper did NOT know P's sensitivities)
229
P was being verbally abused by the taxi driver while in the car. P was very upset by this. Can P sue Driver?
IIED
| - Extreme + outrageous conduct (Driver is common carrier (taxi))
230
P needed a place to stay and saw a motel. P asked the manager whether he could stay for half price. The manager refused. P kept asking him but the manager verbally abused him. P was very upset by this. Can P sue Manager for distress?
NO IIED
| - NO extreme + outrageous conduct (Manager is NOT innkeeper - P did NOT book room yet)
231
P was one month pregnant and got on the bus. P asked D whether she could sit on the disabled chair. D refused and called P ‘selfish bitch’. P was very upset by this especially because she was pregnant. Can P sue D?
NO IIED
| - NO extreme + outrageous conduct (D did NOT know P was sensitive - One month pregnant)
232
P, a young boy, went to his regular shop where the shopkeeper kept calling P ‘fucking brat’. P was very upset by this. Shopkeeper told P he did not intend for P to be upset. Can P still sue Shopkeeper?
IIED
- Recklessness (Shopkeeper knew P was sensitive child + calling him name could upset him)
- Intent NOT required
233
P and his mates were partying one night. As they were playing poker, P dealt a better hand than P’s friend, D. D was angry and said to P ‘at least I could beat your sister’. P was very upset by this because her sister recently passed away. D did not mean to upset P because he had no idea of her sister’s death. Can P still sue D?
NO IIED
- NOT reckless (D was NOT aware of P's sister's death; D did not disregard any risk of upsetting P which he was aware of)
234
D was chilling with his friend, P in his living room. D then got into a fight with P and hit his face. P’s brother saw through the window from outside and suffered severe emotional distress. Can P’s brother sue D for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
NO IIED
| - D did NOT know P's brother was outside the room => NO causation (TP bystander)
235
D was chilling with his friend, P in his living room. D then got into a fight with P and thought it would be funny to hit his face as he saw P’s girlfriend through the window. P’s girlfriend saw through the window from outside and suffered severe emotional distress. Can P’s girlfriend sue D for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
NO IIED
| - P's girlfriend is NOT close relative of P => NO causation (TP bystander)
236
D was chilling with his friend, P in his living room. P was on the phone to his mother. D told him to get off the phone but P told him he had to speak with his mother. D then got into a fight with P and hit his face. P’s mother heard via the phone and suffered severe emotional distress. Can P’s mother sue D for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
NO IIED
| - P's mother was NOT present at scene => NO causation (TP bystander)
237
D was chilling with his friend, P in his living room. D then got into a fight with P and slapped P in the face. P’s mother was waiting outside and saw through the window. P’s mother cried momentarily and was upset, but not extremely upset. D was not aware P’s mother was outside. Can she sue D?
NIED
- Emotional distress (NOT severe - NOT IIED)
- P's mother closely related
- P's mother present + observed scene
- D's lack of knowledge of P's mother NOT relevant (NIED)
238
D yelled at P saying ‘You are worth nothing! Let me break you down asshole!’ P feared D at that time but later suffered no aftermath distress. P still wanted to sue D for intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault. D argues that P never suffered any distress nor physical injuries. Can P still sue D?
Assault
- P reasonably apprehended offensive contact
- D intended to cause harm to P
- NO damages required
NOT IIED
- NO actual damages shown (NO distress)
- Physical injuries NOT relevant
239
D was playing hide and seek with his friend. D found friend and chased him by crossing onto P’s garden. Can P sue D for trespass?
Intentional trespass to land
| - D's physical invasion (D's object - Friend)
240
D was constructing a nuclear power plant near P’s home. The plant gave off fumes entering P’s garden. P started suffocating. Can P sue D for trespass?
No intentional trespass to land
- NO physical invasion by physical object (fumes)
- BUT P can still sue D for nuisance
241
D built a small helicopter and flew it across P’s garden. D did not hit P. Can P still sue D for trespass?
Yes (Intentional trespass to land)
| - Physical invasion over P's real property (above)
242
D was walking his dog and wanted to go the park. D saw a shortcut through P’s back garden and decided to enter it, without realising it belonged to P. P then came out and told D to get off for trespassing. D insisted he never intended to trespass and thought it was an empty space. Can P still sue D for trespass?
Yes (Intentional trespass to land)
- D intended to enter P's garden
- D's lack of intent to trespass NOT relevant
- D's mistake as to P's ownership of garden NOT relevant
243
D was walking his dog and wanted to go the park. D saw a shortcut through P’s back garden and decided to enter it, without realising it belonged to P. P’s tenant and his guest then came out and told D to get off for trespassing. Can Tenant and Guest sue D for trespass?
Tenant (NOT Guest)
- Tenant has constructive possession
- Guest has NO constructive possession
244
D was walking his dog and wanted to go the park. D saw a shortcut through P’s back garden and decided to enter it, without realising it belonged to P. Before causing any damage, P came out and told D to get off for trespassing. D denies causing any damage. Can P still sue D for trespass?
Yes
| - NO damage required for intentional trespass
245
D was playing football in the park. D kicked the ball onto P’s garden. P came out and told D to get off for trespassing. D denies causing any damage and claims it was an accident. D later admitted he wanted to kick the ball onto P’s garden because P irritated him before. Can P still sue D for trespass?
Yes
- Intentional trespass to land (NOT accident)
- NO damage required (unlike negligence)
246
D was playing football in the park. P was driving by and told D to stop playing. D got angry and kicked the ball against P’s car, denting the door. Can P sue D for trespass?
Yes (Intentional trespass to chattel)
| - D's interference (intermeddling)
247
D took P’s playstation away and told P ‘I’ll bring it back in a couple of days, don’t worry.’ D eventually gave it back but P was still unhappy about D taking it away. Can P sue D for trespass?
No intentional trespass to chattel
| - D's NO interference (NO deprivation)
248
P managed to steal his friend’s laptop and showed it to his other friend, D. One day, D went into P’s home and took the laptop away. Can P sue D for trespass?
No intentional trespass to chattel
| - P had NO right of possession (P stole laptop)
249
D stepped outside his house and saw a football he believed to be his. D took the ball and auctioned it for sale. P saw the ball and told D it was his. D told P he had no intent to commit any trespass to P’s property. Can P still sue D for trespass?
Intentional trespass to chattel
- P had intent to interfere
- P's lack of intent to trespass NOT relevant
- P's mistake re ownership of ball NOT relevant
250
D was playing football in the park. P was driving by and told D to stop playing. D got angry and kicked the ball against P’s car, denting the door. Repairing the door costs $500 and the rental value of the car at the time was $12,000. How much can P sue D for trespass? What if D stole the car?
Intentional trespass to chattel
- P can recover $500 (direct damage to door)
- NO rental value (NO dispossession) (unless D stole the car)
251
D believed the bike on his street was his and took it, when it was actually P’s. How much can P sue D for trespass?
Intentional trespass to chattel
| - P can recover rental value for dispossession
252
D was playing football in the park. P came out of his house and told D to stop playing because he was being noisy. D got angry and thought about kicking the ball towards P’s house. Instead, D kicked the ball against P’s car. P was angry at D despite no damage or crack made on the car. Can P still sue D for trespass?
NO intentional trespass to chattel
- D intended to trespass to P's land
- D's intent transferred => D trespassed P's chattel (car)
- NO damages shown => NO intentional trespass to chattel
253
D entered P’s bank account and took $10,000. P found out it was D. Can P sue D in tort?
Conversion
| - D's interference (Wrongful acquisition - Embezzlement)
254
D was hanging out with P in his bedroom. They had an argument and D decided to smash P’s antique, which costs $10,000. D also took P’s jewellery and removed most of the gold on it for sale. Can P sue D in tort?
Conversion
| - D's interference (Substantial change/Destruction)
255
D stole P’s promissory note changing the due amount from $10,000 to $30,000. Can P sue D in tort?
Conversion
| - D's interference with P's possession (intangible)
256
D believed the car on his street was his and took it, when it was actually P’s. D sold the car for $20,000, which was higher than when he took the car which was valued $15,000 at the time. What remedies can P exercise?
Conversion
- Damages: $15,000 (fair market value at time of conversion)
- Replevin: Recover car
257
P mistakenly thought his car was so broken there was no reason to keep it anymore. P told D he could smash it up. D honestly thought P’s mistake was genuine and so destroyed his car. P was told by his engineer that the car was actually working. Can P sue D for conversion?
No
- Conversion (Car destruction)
- P gave consent (express)
- D did NOT know P's mistake
258
D kept telling P ‘Give me your car or I will take your money from your bank tomorrow’. P reluctantly gave his car to D. Can P sue D for conversion?
No
- Conversion (Car theft)
- P gave consent (express)
- NO duress (future threat - tomorrow)
259
P was rescued after almost drowning in the sea. P was immediately taken to hospital and Doctor performed surgery on P without his consent. Can P sue Doctor for battery?
No
- Battery (surgery)
- P gave consent (implied by law - Doctor had to save P's life)
260
P and D got into a heated argument. P yelled ‘If I could hit you, I would’. D was afraid and punched P in the nose claiming self-defence. Can P sue D for battery?
Yes
- Battery (punch nose)
- D did NOT act in self-defence (NO reasonable belief P would attack D - 'if I could hit you')
261
P and D got into a heated argument. P pushed D to the ground. D got up and smacked P in the nose claiming self-defence. Can P sue D for battery?
Yes
- Battery (punch nose)
- D did NOT act in self-defence (P already committed battery - D can NOT use retaliation)
262
P was swimming on a boat with his friend, D in the middle of an ocean. P and D got into an argument. P was about to hit D so D punched P claiming self-defence. P argues D could have swum and escaped. Can P sue D for battery?
No
- Battery (punch nose)
- D acted in self-defence (before P committed battery)
- NO duty to retreat safely (middle of ocean)
263
P and D got into a heated argument while chilling in P’s house. P was about to hit D so D punched P claiming self-defence. P argues D could have run away from P’s house. Can P sue D for battery?
Yes
- Battery (punch nose)
- D did NOT act in self-defence (before P committed battery)
- Duty to retreat safely (from P's home, NOT D's own dwelling)
264
P and D got into a heated argument in a car park. D pushed P out of the way. P was about to push D into a car and break the glass window. D then kicked P in the leg and ran away. Can P sue D for battery?
No
- Battery (kick)
- D acted in self-defence
- D was initial aggressor BUT used non-deadly force (push)
- P then used deadly force (break car window) => D can use self-defence
265
P and D got into a heated argument in a car park. P was about to smack D in the head with his phone. D then got his swiss army knife out and stabbed P, claiming he acted in self-defence. Can P sue D for battery?
Yes
- Battery (stab)
- D did NOT act in self-defence
- D's knife was NOT reasonably necessary (P's phone unlikely to cause serious bodily harm)
266
P and D got into a heated argument in a car park. P’s son was waiting in the car. P was about to smack D in the face and so P’s son came out of the car. D saw P’s son and swung a punch at him instead of P. D claims he acted in self-defence. Can P’s son sue D for battery?
Yes
- Battery (punch)
- D did NOT act in self-defence
- D punched P's son (TP) 'intentionally'
267
P, his girlfriend and his best friend went on a camping trip. One night, P’s girlfriend and his best friend got into a fight. Girlfriend spat in Friend’s face. Friend threw his phone at her face. P was angry so then stood up and smashed Friend’s nose, leaving him bleeding. P wanted to protect his girlfriend because he honestly thought Friend would attack Girlfriend. Can Friend sue P?
No
- Battery (punch)
- D acted in defence of other (Girlfriend)
- D reasonably believed Friend would attack Girlfriend + Girlfriend had right to use self-defence (even though Girlfriend was initial aggressor)
268
P, his girlfriend and his best friend went on a camping trip. One night, P’s girlfriend and his best friend got into a fight. Girlfriend spat in Friend’s face. Friend threw his phone at her face. P was angry so then stood up and drove the car into Friend. P wanted to protect his girlfriend because he honestly thought Friend would attack Girlfriend. Can Friend sue P?
Yes
- Battery (punch)
- D did NOT act in defence of other (Girlfriend)
- D did NOT use as much force as necessary like in self-defence (driving car into someone not necessary to defend vs throwing phone)
269
P was armed with a weapon and tried to burn down the neighbour, D’s house. D came out and hit sticks at P telling him to get lost. Can P sue D?
No (Defence of property)
- P's intentional trespass to property
- D did NOT need to request to desist (too dangerous - P was armed) => D acted in defence of property
270
P was smashing down D’s shed. D told him to go away, but P refused. D then beat up P and P eventually ran away. Can P sue D?
Yes (NO defence of property)
| - P already committed tort (trespass to property) => D can NOT use force vs P => D did NOT act in defence of property
271
P gave his house to D but if he parties in the house, P can re-enter at his will. At one point, D invited his friends over and had drinks. P then told D he is coming inside. P entered the door and D told P to get lost. P refused, so D punched P. Can P sue D?
Yes (NO defence of property)
- P had privilege (right of re-entry) => Supersedes D's defence of property => D can NOT use force vs P => D did NOT act in defence of property
272
P climbed into D’s house and took his tv. D lost track of P. The next day, D went to P’s house and saw the tv in P’s neighbour’s house. D smashed Neighbour’s door down and took the tv. P’s neighbour saw D and refused to give it back because he purchased it from P only knowing that it belonged to P. Can P’s neighbour sue D in tort?
Yes (NO recapture of chattel)
- D tried recovering from Neighbour's house (innocent party, NOT wrongdoer)
- Neighbour refused to return BUT D did NOT act in peaceful manner (smashed door down)
- NO recapture of chattel defence allowed
273
P climbed into D’s house and took his tv. D lost track of P. Months later, D went to P’s house and saw the tv in P’s house. P told D to leave because it was too late to take the tv back. Can P sue D in tort?
Yes (NO recapture of chattel)
| - D did NOT make timely demand (months) => NO recapture of chattel defence allowed
274
P wanted to buy some food from a store. D, manager, suddenly took P to the storage room for a few minutes. D suspected P was the one who recently stole cash from the tills because P wore the same jacket and hat as the robber. D then asked P a few questions regarding his whereabouts at the time. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
Yes
- NO shoplifter's privilege
- D had NO reasonable belief as to theft (same jacket + hat)
275
D, manager of a store, recognised a customer, P, from a recent shoplifting. D then suddenly hit P and knocked him out. D later held him under detention for a few minutes. D then asked P a few questions regarding his whereabouts at the time. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
Yes
- NO shoplifter's privilege
- D did NOT act in reasonable manner (used deadly force)
276
D, manager of a store, recognised a customer, P, from a recent shoplifting. D took P to a storage room and kept him there for an hour. D then asked P a few questions regarding his whereabouts at the time. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
Yes
- NO shoplifter's privilege
- D did NOT keep P for reasonable time (hour)
277
D, manager of a store, recognised a customer, P, from a recent shoplifting. D took P to a storage room for a few minutes and yelled at P for how humiliated he felt. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
Yes
- NO shoplifter's privilege
- D did NOT keep P for investigative purposes
278
D was a police officer who was eating his doughnuts outside a building. D suddenly heard gunshots in a building and someone screaming. D saw a man, P, running out of the building covered in blood. D then told P to stop but P told him to get out of the way or he will beat D up. D then kicked P in the leg and held him by his throat, putting him under arrest. P turned out to be shooting a movie scene and there was no murder involved. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
No
- Privilege of arrest
- Felony (Murder)
- By police (D)
- D had reasonable belief as to felony (gunshot, screaming) + P committing felony (running out of building, covered in blood)
- D used deadly force (P threatened to hurt D)
279
D was walking his dog on the street. D suddenly heard gunshots in a building and someone screaming. D saw a man, P, running out of the building covered in blood. D then told P to stop but P told him to get out of the way or he will beat D up. D then kicked P in the leg and held him by his throat. P turned out to be shooting a movie scene and there was no murder involved. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
No
- Privilege of arrest
- Felony (Murder)
- By citizen (D)
- NO felony was committed (movie scene)
- D's reasonable belief NOT required
280
D was a police officer who was eating his doughnuts outside a shop. D suddenly heard someone yelling that a man has just stolen his cash. D saw the thief running away who scared everyone in the shop. D then told P to stop but P told him to get out of the way or he will beat D up. D then kicked P in the leg and held him by his throat, putting him under arrest. Can P sue D for false imprisonment?
Yes
- NO privilege of arrest
- Misdemeanor (Robbery)
- Breach of the peace (scared everyone)
- D did NOT witness larceny
- D can NOT use deadly force (kick, hold by throat)
281
D was driving at night with his family when he saw some rainfall coming towards him. D saw an abandoned farm but it was locked. D then smashed the door open and took his family inside to take cover. The farm’s owner, P, saw D and told them to get out. D refused. Can P sue D for trespass?
Yes
- NO necessity
- Threatened injury (rainfall) NOT as serious as breaking door down
282
D was driving when he saw a house on fire. D smashed the house’s door down and rescued a woman. The woman had no idea it was on fire, but was angry at D for kicking the door down. Can P sue D for trespass?
No
- Necessity (private)
- D protected P (Owner) from fire (natural force) => NO liability
283
D and his family were being chased by a group of drunk men. D saw an empty house, smashed the house’s door down and took his family inside. The landlord, P, discovered D and was angry at D for kicking the door down. Can P sue D for trespass?
Yes
- Necessity (private)
- D protected his family (others) from drunk men (NOT natural force)
284
D was running away from a terrorist threatening to blow up the city with a bomb. D smashed a shop’s door down and made sure everybody took cover. The bomb exploded but no one was hurt. The shopowner, P, was angry at D for kicking the door down. Can P sue D for trespass?
No
- Necessity (public)
- D protected public from bomb (natural force) => D is NOT liable
285
P’s mother could not stand P throwing his toys around all the time. Mother then hit P with the toys warning him to stop. Can P sue Mother for battery?
Yes
- NO discipline
- NOT reasonable force (hit with toys)
286
P worked in a bank. P’s manager was unhappy with P stealing the stationery equipment. Manager then pushed P to the side and detained him for hours to teach him a lesson by discipline. Can P sue Manager for false imprisonment?
Yes
- NO discipline
- Manager is NOT D's teacher/parent
- D is NOT Manager's child
287
D was constructing a power plant that obstructed motorway access. P, a driver, had to drive around the plant and started suffering from its fumes. P wants to sue D for nuisance. D argues P must sue in separate torts for strict liability and nuisance. Is this true?
No
| - Nuisance is separate harm (part of strict liability)
288
D was excavating in the middle of a street in a commercial city. This blocked only a few pedestrians and drivers. One pedestrian, P, could not get to work on time. Can P sue D?
No
- NOT public nuisance
- NOT unique damage not suffered by public at large (delayed arrival)
- Interference to only few people NOT relevant
289
D was constructing a power plant near a small town. One of the residents, P, could not stand the fumes coming out from the plant. Some residents also complained, some residents weren’t bothered. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Private nuisance
- Substantial interference
- Offensive (fumes) to average person (some residents complained, even though others did not)
290
D was constructing a power plant near a small town. One of the residents, P, could not stand the fumes coming out from the plant particularly because it bothered his sensitivity to toxic gas. Can P sue D?
No
- NO private nuisance
- NO substantial interference
- P's hypersensitivity does NOT count
291
D was constructing a power plant near a small town. One of the residents, P, could not stand the construction noise particularly because he was trying to record his music album. Can P sue D?
No
- NO private nuisance
- NO substantial interference
- P's specialised use (recording music) does NOT count
292
D was constructing a dam near a small town to prevent flooding. One of the residents, P, was frustrated with the noise as other people complained as well. Can P sue D?
No
- NO private nuisance
- NO unreasonable interference
- Utility of D's conduct (prevent flooding) > Severity of injury (noise pollution)
293
D was constructing traffic lights near a small town to reduce car accidents. One of the residents, P, kept getting hit by small rocks pelted out by the construction as other people complained as well. P suggested D could install safeguards instead. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Private nuisance
- Unreasonable interference
- Utility of D's conduct (prevent car accidents) > Severity of injury (rock injury) BUT alternative option was open to D (safeguards)
294
D was constructing a power plant near a small town. A landlord of a house, P, could not stand the fumes coming out from the plant. Some residents also complained. Can P sue D for nuisance?
No
- Private nuisance
- P did NOT enjoy possession of land (P is landlord - Trespass would be more appropriate)
295
D was constructing a power plant near a small town. A landlord of a house, P, could not stand the fumes coming out from the plant as well as rocks being thrown onto P’s garden. Some residents also complained. Can P sue D for nuisance for the fumes and the rocks?
Rocks
- Trespass to land (rocks are tangibles => physical invasion)
- NOT nuisance (fume is intangible BUT P does NOT enjoy possession of land because P is landlord)
296
D was constructing a power plant near a small town. One of the tenants, P, could not stand the noise from the tractors scheduled for that particular day. Some residents also complained. D told P he will compensate him sufficiently. P still complained that he wants to obtain a court order to stop D constructing. Can P recover an injunctive order?
No
- Private nuisance
- Damages available (compensation)
- Injunctive relief NOT required (adequate damages + noise only for particular day so NOT irreparable injury)
297
D planned to construct a power plant near a small town that he personally disliked. One of the tenants, P, could not stand the construction noise. Some residents also complained. D told P he will compensate him sufficiently. P still complained that he wants to obtain a court order to stop D constructing. D argued that stopping the construction will affect his financial profits. Can P recover an injunctive order?
Yes
- Private nuisance
- Damages NOT adequate (construction noise - irreparable injury)
- NO need to consider hardships of injunction (D's wilful conduct - Personal dislike towards small town)
- Injunctive relief to be granted
298
D was excavating in the middle of a street in a commercial city. This blocked only a few pedestrians and drivers. One pedestrian, P, could not get to work on time. How can P stop D from excavating?
Abatement by public authority's self-help
- Public nuisance
- NOT abatement by P (NOT suffer unique damage - delayed arrival)
- Public authority can enter D's excavation and stop it
299
D was excavating in the middle of a street in a commercial city. This blocked only a few pedestrians and drivers. One pedestrian, P, tried to get round the excavation but crashed into a traffic light. How can P stop D from excavating?
Abatement by P's self-help
- Public nuisance
- P suffered unique damage - car crash
- NO need for public authority's self-help
- P can ask D directly to stop excavation
300
D planned to construct a power plant near a small town. One of the tenants, P, could not stand the construction noise. Some residents also complained. P went to the power plant himself and asked D to stop. D refused to do so. P then brought his friends to destroy the plant. Is this allowed?
NO abatement by self-help
- Private nuisance
- P's destruction of plant was NOT necessary force (construction noise could be reduced to morning time only)
301
D was excavating in the middle of a street in a commercial city. One pedestrian, P, tried to get round the excavation but crashed into a traffic light. D stated that he was given a licence to do so as he complied with the zoning ordinance. Can P still sue D?
Yes
- Public nuisance
- D's legislative authority (zoning ordinance, licence) is NOT conclusive defence (still must prove D did NOT commit nuisance)
302
D planned to construct a power plant near a small town as other plants were being constructed there. One of the tenants, P, could not stand the construction noise. Some residents also complained. Can P sue D only?
No
- Private nuisance
- Conduct of others (other plants) => D alone can NOT be liable for construction noise of other plants (only D's own noise)
303
D planned to construct a power plant near a small town by using abnormally dangerous gas. One of the tenants, P, had suffered from the gas. Some residents also complained. D argues that he was at no fault and P was negligent in failing to protect himself from the gas. Can P still sue D in nuisance?
Yes
- Strict liability (private nuisance)
- Contributory negligence NOT available vs strict liability
304
D intended to construct a power plant near a small town that it knew would set off fumes. One of the tenants, P, had suffered from the gas. Some residents also complained. D argues that P was negligent in failing to protect himself from the gas. Can P still sue D?
Yes
- Intentional trespass (private nuisance)
- Contributory negligence NOT available vs intentional trespass
305
D planned to construct a power plant near a small town, without realising the town was nearby. One of the tenants, P, had suffered from the gas. Some residents also complained. D argues that P was negligent in failing to protect himself from the gas. Can P still sue D?
Yes
- Negligent trespass (private nuisance)
- Contributory negligence available vs negligent trespass
306
D was in the middle of constructing a power plant near a small town. P recently moved into the small town knowing the construction was taking place and that P could always sue D if he was irritated by it. P then suffered from the gas emanating from the power plants. Some residents also complained. Can P sue D?
No
- NO private nuisance
- P came to the nuisance (P intended to file lawsuit)
307
P was in talks with a potential buyer for his car. D was angry at P for not selling the car to him at a cheaper price. D deliberately told the buyer P is a con. The buyer walked away and P lost a lot of profit. Can P sue D?
Interference with business relations
- P had valid business expectancy (likely sale of car to Buyer), even though P + Buyer did NOT have valid business relationship
308
D used to work for P in a computer software company until P fired D telling him he’s closing down the company and nothing further. P then started up a new trade business without informing D. P was entering into various trade deals with investors. D was still angry at P and so posted various notices online anonymously criticising P to get back at him. P’s investors saw the notices somehow and cancelled their contracts. P lost a lot of profit. Can P sue D?
NO interference with business relations
| - D had NO knowledge of P's business relationships/expectancies (P never told D about his new trade business)
309
P was negotiating with a buyer for his car. D was angry at P for not selling the car to him at a cheaper price. D deliberately told the buyer P is a con. The buyer walked away but P found another buyer despite suffering distress from having to do so. Can P still sue D?
Interference with business relations
- NO actual damages recoverable
- Mental distress recoverable
310
P was negotiating with a buyer for his car. D was another car seller who saw an opportunity to sell to the buyer for a cheaper price. The buyer walked away from P and purchased from D instead. P lost profit. Can P sue D?
NO interference with business relations
| - D was competing with P for sale of cars => Privileged interference with P's business expectancy
311
P negotiated a deal with a Mexican contractor to build his house in US for $100,000. D is a financial exchange agent who was approached by Contractor on whether the deal was good. D informed him that the price was too high based on current exchange rates. Contractor then contacted P and wanted to cancel the deal. P lost profit. Can P sue D?
NO interference with business relations
| - Buyer (TP) sought business advice from D (exchange rates) => Privileged interference with P's business expectancy
312
P owed an outstanding debt to D, bank. D later approached P and told him to pay up immediately or he will foreclose on P’s house. P paid the debt but had to pay more interest on the loans borrowed from his other creditors. Can P sue D for interfering with his creditors’ loans?
NO interference with business relations
| - D had to protect his own interests (pay off debt) => Privileged interference with P's business expectancy
313
D chatted to his friend saying ‘I don’t think P is the best person to chat to about most things’. Can P sue D for defamation?
NO
- NO common law defamation
- NO statement of opinion (NOT specific facts - about most things)
314
D published an erroneous report that P had given birth to twins. P complained to D that this was false, but D claims he never intended to defame P at all. Can P still sue D for defamation?
Yes
- Common law defamation
- Publication (intent to publish - D's lack of intent to defame NOT relevant)
315
D wrote a report that P had given birth to twins. D kept the report saved on his laptop, but his brother hacked onto the laptop and sent it to various papers. P complained to D that this was false, but D claims he never intended to send the report out. Can P still sue D for defamation?
NO
- NO common law defamation
- NO publication (NO intent to publish)
316
D wrote a column news article stating that P is a sexual addict. P was the first to see the article and complained to D. Can P sue D for defamation?
NO
- NO common law defamation
- NO publication (NOT to TP, only P)
317
D wrote a column news article in Hebrew stating that P is a sexual addict. P saw people laughing at the article, but P could not understand Hebrew. Can P still sue D for defamation?
Yes
- Common law defamation
- Publication (TP understood statement)
318
D made a mockery joke about P’s family and recorded it on a tape. D gave the tape to his friend at school, who is in charge of the school’s online website. D told Friend the tape is a demo of his new band’s song. Friend played the song on the website and everyone laughed at P. Can P sue Friend for defamation?
No
- NO common law defamation
- NO publication (Secondary publisher (Friend) had NO reason to know of defamatory content)
319
D wrote a joke online stating that P is a sexual addict. D sold the joke to a local newspaper. The newspaper published the joke without reading it first beforehand. P was furious and wanted to sue Newspaper. Newspaper argued it did not know the joke was about P’s sexual habits. Can P still sue Newspaper for defamation?
Yes
- Common law defamation
- Publication (Secondary publisher (Newspaper) had reason to know of defamatory content)
320
D wrote a joke online stating that P was a sexual addict before he passed away recently. P’s mother was furious and wanted to sue D. Can P’s mother sue D for defamation?
No
- NO common law defamation
- NO damage to P's reputation (NOT living P)
321
D went on a game show and made a mockery joke about P’s sexual habits. P saw this on his TV and wanted to sue D. D claims P has no damages to prove. Can P still sue D for defamation?
Yes
- Common law defamation
- Libel (TV programme)
- General damages presumed (NO need to prove)
322
D went on a radio show and made a mockery joke about P’s sexual habits. P heard this on the radio and wanted to sue D. D claims P has no damages to prove. Can P still sue D for defamation?
Yes
- Common law defamation
- Libel (radio)
- General damages presumed (NO need to prove)
323
D wrote an article online and made a mockery joke about P’s sexual habits. P saw this and wanted to sue D. D claims P has no damages to prove. Can P still sue D for defamation?
Yes
- Common law defamation
- Libel (written article)
- General damages presumed (NO need to prove)
324
D saw online a mockery joke about P’s sexual habits and told this to his friends. P heard about the joke from D’s friends and wanted to sue D. D claims P has no damages to prove. Can P still sue D for defamation?
Yes
- Common law defamation
- Libel (oral repetition of article)
- General damages presumed (NO need to prove)
325
D’s friend wanted to enter a new deal with a company. He asked D whether P was a good company. D told him ‘P’s company’s in shambles, they’re always entering dodgy scams’. P found out about this statement and wanted to sue D. D claims P has no damages to prove. Can P still sue D for defamation?
Yes
- Common law defamation
- Slander per se (Business conduct)
- General damages presumed (NO need to prove)
326
D was hanging out with his mates. D laughed about P how he recently caught AIDS and a runny cold, and no one should hang out with him. P found out about this statement and wanted to sue D. D claims P has no damages to prove. Can P still sue D for defamation?
Yes (AIDS)
- Common law defamation
- Slander per se (Loathsome disease - AIDS, NOT runny cold)
- AIDS: General damages presumed (NO need to prove)
- Runny cold: Must prove special damages
327
D was hanging out with his mates. D laughed about how P’s been raping little girls and nicking a few dollars off of them. P found out about this statement and wanted to sue D. D claims P has no damages to prove. Can P still sue D for defamation?
Yes (Rape)
- Common law defamation
- Slander per se (Moral turpitude crime - Rape, NOT theft of small money)
- Rape: General damages presumed (NO need to prove)
- Theft: Must prove special damages
328
D was hanging out with his mates. D laughed about how P’s been sleeping with the teacher in their class and dating other girls. P found out about this statement and wanted to sue D. D claims P has no damages to prove. Can P still sue D for defamation?
Yes (Sex)
- Common law defamation
- Slander per se (Chastity - Sleeping with teacher, NOT dating other girls)
- Sex: General damages presumed (NO need to prove)
- Dating: Must prove special damages
329
D told his co-workers about P’s sexual habits. Their boss decided to sack P and everyone stopped talking to P. Can P sue D for defamation?
Yes
- Common law defamation
- Slander not per se
- P must prove special damages/pecuniary loss (job loss, NOT loss of friends)
330
D published an erroneous report that P had given birth to twins. P wanted to sue D for defamation. D argues that P cannot prove it is false under constitutional law. Can P still sue D for defamation?
Yes
- Common law defamation (NOT constitutional - NOT matter of public concern)
- NO need to prove falsity
331
D wrote a report about P’s negligent medical treatment as a doctor. P was upset by this although it was true. Can P sue D?
Yes
- NOT defamation (NO falsity)
- IIED (Private P; if extreme + outrageous)
332
D wrote a newspaper article about P’s continuous overspending on luxury goods. P was angry by D’s intrusion of P’s life although it was true. Can P sue D?
Yes
- NOT defamation (NO falsity)
- Invasion of right to privacy (Private P)
333
D wrote a report about the president’s racist remarks towards a citizen. President was upset by this and annoyed at D’s intrusion on his activities, although it was true. Can President sue D?
NO
- NOT defamation (NO falsity)
- NOT IIED/Invasion of right to privacy (NOT private plaintiff)
334
D is a journalist. D wanted to get back at Kim Kardashian for not interviewing with him. D heard rumours from publishers that Kim has been taking drugs, and so wrote a comment online that this was true. Kim complained that this was never true. D complained that he did not know it was true. Can Kim still sue D?
No
- NOT constitutional law defamation
- Public plaintiff (celebrity)
- NO malice (NO recklessness - D was not aware of falsity)
- D's intent (wanting to get back) NOT relevant
335
D is a journalist. D heard several fake jokes from publishers that P who recently joined a communist party has been taking drugs, and so wrote a comment online that this was true. P complained that this was never true. D complained that one could not have known it was not true. Can P still sue D?
Yes
- Constitutional law defamation
- Public plaintiff (public controversial role)
- Malice (recklessness - D was aware of falsity)
- Subjective test (NOT objective - One's inability to know truth NOT relevant)
336
D is a journalist. D heard anonymous rumours that P, a private lawyer, has been taking drugs, and so wrote a comment online that this was true to the public at large. P complained that this was never true. D complained that he did not know it was not true. Can P still sue D?
Yes
- Constitutional law defamation (public)
- Private plaintiff (private lawyer)
- Negligence (D's lack of awareness NOT relevant; D had reason to know its truth)
337
D is a journalist. D heard convincing evidence from publishers that P who recently joined a communist party has been taking drugs, and so wrote a comment online that this was true. P complained that this was never true and P’s reputation was harmed as well as suffering depression. What damages can P recover from D?
Actual damages (Reputation damage, depression)
- Constitutional law defamation (public)
- NOT presumed/punitive damages (NO malice)
338
D is a journalist. D heard convincing evidence from publishers that P who recently joined a communist party has been taking drugs, and so wrote a comment online that this was true. P complained that this was never true. D said to P ‘well it’s not like your reputation was affected and you’re not humiliated by this, so what have you got to lose?’ Can P still recover damages from D?
None
- NO actual damages
- NO presumed/punitive damages (NO malice)
339
D is a journalist. D heard some jokes from publishers that P who recently joined a communist party has been taking drugs, and so wrote a comment online that this was true. P complained that this was never true. D said to P ‘well it’s not like your reputation was affected and you’re not humiliated by this, so what have you got to lose?’ Can P still recover damages from D?
Presumed/Punitive damages
- Constitutional law defamation (communist - public figure)
- Malice shown (D heard jokes - D was reckless, in that he was aware it was not true)
- NO actual damages
340
D was told by P’s friend that P recently lost his job. D then told his co-workers about P’s recent job loss. P was angry but D told him ‘well it’s not like your reputation was affected and you’re not humiliated by this, so what have you got to lose?’ Can P still recover damages from D?
Presumed/Punitive damages
- Common law defamation (private matter)
- NO malice required
- NO pecuniary harm (NO job loss)
341
D met P at a business seminar. P approached D but D said to him ‘no thanks, I know you’ve done some bad deals in the past’. A few men overheard D and P felt humiliated. Can P sue D?
No
- NO common law defamation
- Slander per se (business)
- P's consent (implied by custom - business seminar)
342
D was being sued in court by P for reckless driving. D testified ‘P shouldn’t even be here, he’s suffering from coronavirus’. P felt humiliated in court. Can P sue D?
No
- NO common law defamation
- Slander per se (disease)
- Absolute privilege (judicial proceedings)
343
D was told by P’s friend that P recently lost his job. D then told his co-workers about P’s recent job loss. P was angry but D told him ‘well it’s true, right?’ Can P still recover damages from D?
No
- NO common law defamation
- Slander per se (business)
- Truth => No defamation
344
D suggested to ABC news that they announce the news about the President’s recent drug abuse, which was not true. ABC news was aware of its falsity but announced it anyway. President complained to ABC, who argued that they are not responsible as they only broadcasted it. Can President still sue ABC?
Yes
- Constitutional law defamation
- NO absolute privilege (NOT 'compelled' broadcast)
345
D threatened ABC news to announce the news about the President’s recent drug abuse, which was not true. ABC news was aware of its falsity but announced it anyway. President complained to ABC, who argued that they are not responsible as they only broadcasted it. Can President still sue ABC?
NO
- NO constitutional law defamation
- Absolute privilege ('compelled' broadcast)
346
D worked in the federal government. D secretly told his colleagues that President was planning to enact new laws regarding equal protection. President was angry because this was not true. Can President sue D? What if D talked about President's plans to declare war?
Yes
- Constitutional law defamation
- NO absolute privilege (executive proceedings NOT related to executive matters, but legislative matters)
No (declare war)
- Absolute privilege (related to executive matters)
347
D overheard his friend, P’s argument with his ex-wife about their outstanding debts. D then told his mates about it. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Common law defamation
- NO absolute privilege (NOT spousal communications - ex-spouse)
348
Regarding the enactment of a new law on gun possession, one of the government officials, D mentioned in a report that President planned to secretly enact the law to kill terrorists. D said he heard from an anonymous source. President said this is not true and was humiliated. Can President sue D?
Yes
- Constitutional law defamation
- NO qualified privilege (official proceedings report BUT malice involved)
349
D needed a new picture for the front cover of his magazine. D asked P whether he could use P’s recent wedding picture for personal use. P gave him the picture. P later saw his picture in a magazine but was embarrassed. Can P sue D for invasion of privacy?
No
- NO invasion of right to privacy
- NO appropration of P's picture (P consented)
- NOT for commercial advantage (own profit)
350
D needed to come up with a name that his friends needed for the promotion of a major festival. D thought his friend’s name, Cypher, would be good. They decided to use the name ‘Cypher Festival’. Can Cypher sue D for invasion of privacy?
Yes
- Invasion of right to privacy
- Appropration of P's picture (for promotion of services - festival)
351
D went to a recent presidential election debate and recorded the presidential electorate’s speech criticising the opponent. Can Electorate sue D for invasion of privacy?
No
- NO invasion of right to privacy
- NO intrusion on Electorate's private affairs (public - election)
352
D put his microphone against the bedroom wall of his flatmate who was telling his friend how he cheated on a recent maths test at school. Can Flatmate sue D for invasion of privacy?
No
- NO invasion of right to privacy
- NO intrusion on Flatmate's private affairs (NOT highly offensive to reasonable person - Maths test cheating)
353
D published on his website his opinion on P’s athletic ability as a football player. Can P sue D for invasion of his right to privacy?
No
| - NO publication of P's facts in false light (NOT facts; Opinion)
354
D published on his website about P’s recent fallout with his football coach, saying P’s performance was dipping recently. This was true but P was still unhappy that D posted it online. Can P sue D for invasion of his right to privacy?
No
| - NO publication of P's facts in false light (NOT false light)
355
D mentioned to football pundits about P’s recent fallout with his football coach, saying P’s performance was dipping recently. P did fall out with his coach but was still unhappy that D posted it online. D argued it was true so he cannot do anything about it. Can P sue D for invasion of his right to privacy?
Yes
- Disclosure of P's private facts
- Truth of facts NOT relevant
356
D put his microphone against the bedroom wall of his flatmate who was telling his friend how he recently got diagnosed with HIV. D then sent his recording to the school website, who then uploaded it for everyone to hear including a caption saying ‘kid got HIV!!!’. Flatmate complained to D, but D denies liability because in the end his school website uploaded it. Can Flatmate still sue D?
Yes
- Invasion of right to privacy
- Intrusion on P's private affairs
- Proximate causation allowed (even if school website intervened)
357
D published on his website about P’s recent fallout with his football coach, saying P’s performance was dipping recently. This was true but P was still emotionally irritated that D posted it online. D argued that unless P can show he suffered any loss to his reputation or employment, P cannot sue D. Can P still sue D for invasion of his right to privacy?
Yes
- P can sue D for emotional distress (must prove)
- P does NOT need to show special damages (presumed)
358
A journalist attended a court hearing without permission. P was being sued in court for drug trafficking. The journalist mentioned that P’s children are drug addicts. P felt humiliated in court. Can P sue Journalist?
Yes
- Invasion of right to privacy (Journalist's intrusion on P's private affairs)
- NO privilege (judicial proceedings privilege does NOT apply to intrusion)
359
D needed to come up with a name that his friends needed for the promotion of a major festival. D thought his friend’s surname, Michael Cypher, would be good. They decided to use the name ‘Cypher Festival’. Michael passed away and his brother, Douglas, was annoyed by the use of his name. Can Douglas sue D?
No
- NO invasion of right to privacy
- NOT extendable after Michael's death
- NOT extendable to Michael's family
360
D published on his website about P’s recent fallout with his football coach, saying P’s performance was dipping recently. This was true but P’s football team was still unhappy that D posted it online. Can P’s football team sue D for invasion of his right to privacy?
No
- NO invasion of right to privacy
- NOT extendable to corporations (football team)
361
D put his microphone against the bedroom wall of his flatmate who was telling his friend how he recently got diagnosed with HIV. D then sent his recording to the school website, who then uploaded it for everyone to hear including a caption saying ‘kid got HIV!!!’. Flatmate was afraid to approach D, so he gave her right of privacy to his girlfriend. Can Girlfriend sue D?
No
- NO invasion of right to privacy
- NOT extendable by assignment (Flatmate to Girlfriend)
362
A house in D’s neighbourhood was currently empty and D wanted a new neighbour. P was walking by and D mentioned to P ‘that house is likely to get sold soon, it’s in such perfect condition. So if you’re interested, you better buy it first’. P believed D’s statement and bought the house. P then incurred significant money in removing existing defects in the house. Can P sue D?
NO intentional misrepresentation
| - NO misrepresentation (NOT material past/present fact - Future fact that house will get sold)
363
P and D worked in a bank together. P thought about sending the bank's financial statements to the client. Although P had more knowledge on the financial statements, he quickly asked D whether the statement was accurate. D tried to get ahead in promotion so he deliberately lied to P telling him his opinion that he thinks it was accurate, when it was not. P sent the statement and the client later lost profit. P was then fired from the bank. Can P sue D?
NO intentional misrepresentation
| - NO misrepresentation (Opinion - D had superior knowledge, but P also had superior knowledge)
364
A corporation’s president stated to the client’s director that their financial profit last year was $100,000 according to the accounting team’s profit and loss statement, which the president checked himself. However, there was a miscalculation by one of the team members when in fact the financial profit was $90,000. The client then suffered losses. President denies responsibility as he checked the statement himself, although the due diligence team did not review it beforehand. Can Client sue President?
Negligent misrepresentation
| - NOT intentional misrepresentation (NO scienter - President did NOT recklessly disregarded falsity of statement)
365
A corporation’s president stated to the client’s director that their financial profit last year was $100,000 according to the accounting team’s profit and loss statement, which the president did not check. This was in support of a large project involving several parties. However, there was a miscalculation by one of the team members when in fact the financial profit was $90,000. The client then sent the statement to another client who suffered losses. Can the second client sue President?
Intentional misrepresentation
| - Causation (President could reasonably foresee TP (second client)'s reliance - Large project)
366
P worked in a bank. P thought about sending the client some business information. P called up and asked his ex-colleague, D, whether he thinks the statement would look accurate. D presumed it was right, although he did not check. P sent the statement and the client later lost profit. P was then fired from the bank. Can P sue D?
NO intentional misrepresentation
| - NO justifiable reliance (asking ex-colleague)
367
A house in D’s neighbourhood was currently empty and D wanted a new neighbour. P was walking by and D mentioned to P ‘that house is likely to get sold soon, it’s in such perfect condition. So if you’re interested, you better buy it first’. P believed D’s statement and bought the house. P found out this was not true but was still angry that D would make him buy it so quickly. Can P sue D?
NO intentional misrepresentation
| - NO damages (NO pecuniary loss)
368
D invited his friend P to stay over at his house, while D was on holiday. D assured P ‘the place is fully clean and there should be no problem at all’. P then discovered termites and felt uncomfortable. P had to pay to remove the termites. D had no idea there were termites. Can P sue D for misrepresentation?
NO negligent misrepresentation
- Negligent (D did NOT know of termites, but had reason to know)
- NO misrepresentation (NOT in business capacity)
369
A corporation’s president stated to the client’s director that their financial profit last year was $100,000 according to the accounting team’s profit and loss statement, which the president checked. This was in support of an exclusive project between the two parties. However, there was a miscalculation by one of the team members when in fact the financial profit was $90,000. The due diligence team did not check it beforehand, who the President could have asked. The client then sent the statement to another client who suffered losses. Can the second client sue President?
NO negligent misrepresentation
| - NO breach of duty (Second client was NOT particular plaintiff who D was dealing with/knew)
370
D is a journalist. D heard anonymous rumours that P, a private lawyer, has been taking drugs, and so wrote this down in his personal diary. A burglar later entered D’s house and stole his personal property, including his diary. The burglar later read D’s entry about P and told this to his friends, who happened to tell P. P complained that this was never true. D complained that he did not know it was not true. Can P still sue D?
No
- NO constitutional law defamation (public)
- Private plaintiff (private lawyer)
- NO negligence (D had NO reason to expect burglar would see his diary entry)
- Strict liability NOT allowed (D at NO fault)
371
D1 was speed driving and crashed into P. D2 was also speed driving and crashed into P. P broke his leg and arm, but could not determine which D was responsible for which body part. P had to pay $30,000 for surgery. How much should P sue both Ds for?
Joint + several liability
- Ds acting separately: Indvisible injuries
- D1: Leg + arm ($30,000)
- D2: Leg + arm ($30,000)
