Torts Flashcards
ALA Quizzes, Kaplan Quizzes, Kaplan Qbank, CLS Quizzes
Three friends were driving home together from a local tavern. The driver had not consumed any alcoholic
beverages at the tavern. On their way home, the three friends observed a man wandering haphazardly
across the busy highway. One friend remarked, “I hope that guy makes it home. If he’s not careful, he could get killed.” The driver said, “That’s his problem. I have to get home. I can’t be bothered to stop and help him.” After being dropped off at his home, the friend felt pangs of guilt and decided to go back and help the man that he’d seen. The friend asked his brother, who had not been drinking, to drive back to find and help the man. When the brothers returned to the area where the man had been, they found him lying on the shoulder of the highway, obviously injured. They helped the man into their car and the brother drove the man to the hospital. When they arrived at the hospital, the man was admitted with a broken leg. The leg had been broken when the man was wandering on the highway and was struck by a vehicle which had left the scene. The broken leg was the man’s only injury.
If the man sues the driver of the car the friend had been in on the way home from the tavern for damages for his injuries, will he prevail?
(A) No, because the driver was under no duty to help the man.
(B) No, because the man was involved in an abnormally dangerous activity.
(C) Yes, because a reasonable person would have helped the man.
(D) Yes, because the driver breached his duty to the man.
(A) No, because the driver was under no duty to help the man.
While a man was cutting his front lawn with a rotary power lawn mower, his neighbor was coming home from work. The neighbor was walking past the man’s front lawn when he was hit in the eye with a small rock discharged from the lawn mower. The neighbor lost the use of his eye. The lawn mower had no space for any protective device such as metal netting or a drag plate to prevent the ejection of projectiles such as rocks or pieces of wood.
In a suit for damages based on strict liability against the manufacturer of the mower, will the neighbor prevail?
A. Yes, because he will be able to prove a manufacturing defect.
B. Yes, because the lawn mower was defectively designed.
C. No, because the neighbor is not a proper plaintiff in a strict liability action.
D. No, because the neighbor was negligent in walking on the sidewalk while the lawn mower was being used.
C. No, because the neighbor is not a proper plaintiff in a strict liability action.
A novice rock climber was acquiring all of the equipment he needed to pursue his new favorite hobby. He saw an advertisement for a sale on Steel Strength heavy duty rope at a sporting goods store. The manufacturer’s ad showed a photo of an athletic man standing next to a jagged rock face with a rope tied around his waist in rock-climbing fashion. The ad read: “Steel Strength rope helps me climb where I need to climb and go where I need to go.” The rock climber bought a spool of Steel Strength rope at the store. He didn’t discuss the rope with the sales clerk because, based on the ad, he was confident that it was what he needed. The climber brought the rope on his next climbing excursion. The climber’s large friend, who had also just started climbing, came along, and he borrowed some of the Steel Strength rope. The rope, which really wasn’t designed for supporting even an average-weight person, broke under his weight. He fell from the rock face, landing on a park ranger. The friend broke both of his legs, and the ranger broke her arm. The friend and the park ranger sue the manufacturer in product liability for their injuries.
Which of the following is correct?
A. Neither the ranger nor the friend can prevail, because they were not foreseeable plaintiffs.
B. Neither the ranger nor the friend can prevail against the manufacturer, because the novice climber did not ask the store clerk for help.
C. The ranger cannot prevail against the manufacturer, because she was working at the time of the accident.
D. Both the ranger and the friend can prevail against the manufacturer, because the advertisement created an express warranty.
D. Both the ranger and the friend can prevail against the manufacturer, because the advertisement created an express warranty.
After a power outage, the stoplights at a busy intersection were blinking red for traffic going in every direction. By statute, motorists must come to a full stop at a blinking red traffic signal before proceeding through the intersection. Cars driven by the plaintiff and by the defendant arrived at the intersection at the same time. Due to inattention, neither one stopped for the signal and the cars collided in the intersection.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for his injuries. The trier of fact determined that the plaintiff was more at fault than the defendant.
Will the plaintiff likely recover damages?
A. No, because the plaintiff did not stop at the blinking red light.
B. No, because the plaintiff’s fault was greater than the defendant’s.
C. Yes, if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
D. Yes, even though the plaintiff’s fault was greater than the defendant’s.
D. Yes, even though the plaintiff’s fault was greater than the defendant’s.
On New Year’s Eve, a man negligently hit a woman with his car. The woman was rushed to the hospital and sent into surgery. The surgeon, who was summoned from a nearby party, operated on the woman while
intoxicated. As a result, the surgeon failed to remove a drain tube, causing the woman harm and requiring a second operation to remove. The woman has now brought suit against the man for her injuries.
At trial, testimony showed that the woman suffered $100,000 in damages caused to her legs from the accident and $50,000 from complications surrounding the drain tube. At trial, an expert testified that the surgeon’s efforts fell below the standard of care that should have been exercised in an operating room as a result of his intoxication. The jury also found that the woman was 25% responsible for the accident.
How much should the woman recover from the man?
(A) $75,000, or the amount of her injuries from the accident minus her own negligence.
(C) $125,000, or the woman’s injuries from the accident as well as the doctor’s negligence, minus her own negligence.
(D) $150,000, or the full amount of her injuries for both the accident and the doctor’s negligence.
(B) $100,000, or the full amount of her injuries from the accident.
(A) $75,000, or the amount of her injuries from the accident minus her own negligence.
A family lived in a quiet residential neighborhood. They built a treehouse in the backyard for their three adolescent children. One weekend, the family took a vacation to a neighboring state. While the family was away, a 10-year-old boy who lived in the neighborhood trespassed upon the property. The boy was in the family’s backyard when he saw the treehouse, which was situated in a tall tree. The boy climbed up the ladder and began playing in the treehouse. While inside, the boy peered out the window and saw a large limb with avocados perched above the treehouse.
The boy decided to collect a few avocados to bring home to his mother, but found that he was unable to reach them. Despite knowing it was dangerous, he climbed on top of the treehouse roof in an effort to get closer to the branch. As the boy was walking along the roof, he slipped and fell to the ground, severely fracturing his ankle and leg.
If the boy’s parents assert a tort action against the family to recover for the boy’s injuries, will the plaintiffs prevail?
A. Yes, because the treehouse constituted an attractive nuisance.
B. Yes, because the boy’s own negligence was the cause of his injury.
C. No, because a child of like age, intelligence, and experience would not have climbed on top of the treehouse roof.
D. No, because the boy recognized the risk that was involved.
D. No, because the boy recognized the risk that was involved.
Discussion of correct answer: This is an extremely tricky Multistate question dealing with the attractive nuisance doctrine.
Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to trespassing children where:
(1) an artificial dangerous condition exists on the property;
(2) the possessor knows or should know that children are likely to trespass on the property;
(3) the children because of their youth, age, or immaturity fail to appreciate the danger or realize the risks involved in intermeddling with it; and
(4) the utility of maintaining the dangerous condition is slight compared to the risks involved.
It is important to note that the inability of a child to appreciate the danger is a subjective test. In general, for this subjective test, the child, because of his lack of age and maturity, either must not appreciate the danger involved or must not discover the condition. Because the facts state that the boy knew that climbing out onto the treehouse roof was dangerous but did so anyway, the plaintiffs will not be liable for the boy’s injuries.
A motorist hits a pedestrian and leaves the pedestrian laying on the side of the road, in need of medical attention. As a result of the accident, the pedestrian suffered broken ribs and a concussion. Shortly after the motorist drove away, a passerby found the pedestrian and robbed him. In the course of the robbery, the passerby broke the pedestrian’s arm.
Will the motorist be held liable for the pedestrian’s broken arm?
A. Yes, because the passerby’s action was a superseding cause.
B. Yes, because the passerby’s action was an intervening cause.
C. No, because the passerby’s action was a superseding cause.
D. No, because the passerby’s action was an intervening cause.
C. No, because the passerby’s action was a superseding cause.
Discussion of correct answer: A superseding cause is an unforeseeable, intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation between the initial wrongful act and the ultimate injury, and thus relieves the original tortfeasor of any further liability. An example of a superseding cause is an intentional tort of a third person. On the other hand, an intervening force is one that actively operates in producing harm to another after the actor has already committed his negligent act or omission. As a general rule, a defendant will be held liable for harm caused by foreseeable intervening forces. Here, the passerby committed an intentional tort by robbing the victim. As such, the passerby’s broken arm was caused by a superseding cause and the motorist will not be liable for this particular injury.
A driver wanted to purchase a new SUV but could not afford the retail prices being offered by the new car dealers in the area. While reading the newspaper, the driver saw an advertisement by an auction company. In the advertisement, the auction company claimed that it was selling new, unused, late-model cars for substantially lower prices than those charged by automobile dealers representing manufacturers. The driver went to the automobile auction and placed the winning bid on a late-model SUV. As he was driving the vehicle home at a high rate of speed, the brakes suddenly failed, causing an accident. The brake failure resulted from a defectively designed brake mechanism. The driver suffered a broken leg and brought suit against the auction company in strict liability to recover for his injuries.
What must the driver prove in order to be successful in his lawsuit?
A. The auction company failed to inspect the brakes and a cursory inspection would have disclosed the defect.
B. The auction company was in the business of selling automobiles.
C. The driver’s excessive speed was not a legal cause of the accident.
D. The driver inspected the brakes himself before driving home from the auction.
B. The auction company was in the business of selling automobiles.
A homeowner in a small city-owned property that was bordered by a local roadway. On the very edge of the property, next to the homeowner’s fence, was a large oak tree that hung over the sidewalk beside the roadway. One day a large limb that was decayed broke off and injured a passerby as he was walking on the sidewalk to the grocery store. It was conceded by the homeowner that he was unable to properly maintain the tree due to a recent illness.
If the passerby subsequently brings an action against the homeowner, will he recover?
A. Yes, because the homeowner owed a reasonable duty of care to persons outside the premises.
B. Yes, because the homeowner owed a nondelegable duty to persons outside the premises.
C. No, because the passerby assumed the risk by walking under the tree limb.
D. No, because the homeowner acted reasonably considering his physical condition.
A. Yes, because the homeowner owed a reasonable duty of care to persons outside the premises.
When a hurricane suddenly increased its intensity and changed its path to strike the oceanfront town that a tourist was visiting, she took refuge at the hotel where she was a guest. As the winds increased and the storm surge began to cause the water to rise, the hotel manager advised everyone still in the building to move off of the ground floor. However, the tourist panicked at being trapped by the water and decided to flee the hotel and seek higher ground. She got almost to the main gate of the hotel when she was swept away by the floodwaters and drowned.
In an action by the tourist’s estate against the hotel, what is the likely result?
A. The tourist’s estate will prevail because the tourist was a guest at the hotel.
B. The tourist’s estate will prevail because the hotel manager did not prevent the tourist from leaving.
C. The hotel will prevail because it did not breach any duty it owed to the tourist.
D. The hotel will prevail because the hurricane was an unforeseeable act of God.
C. The hotel will prevail because it did not breach any duty it owed to the tourist.
A popular electronics store is having a Black Friday super sale, with deep price reductions and giveaways for the first five people to make purchases. A man decided to enter the store the night before, hide out in one of the large appliance boxes that were lying in the stockroom, and then be the first person in the store the next morning.
During the night, the man needed to use the restroom, and entered a door marked “Employees Only.” The door led to a stairway that had a broken first step, and the man fell, injuring himself. The next morning, he was found with a broken leg, and arrested.
If the man brings suit against the electronics store, what is the likely result?
A. The man will recover, because he was an invitee who was injured on the premises.
B. The man will recover, because he was a licensee who was injured on the premises.
C. The man will not recover, because he was a trespasser on the premises.
D. The man will not recover, because he was a trespasser in an area marked “Employees Only.”
C. The man will not recover, because he was a trespasser on the premises.
A teenager was traveling northbound through an intersection with a green light. At the moment she entered the intersection, two drivers, one traveling eastbound and one traveling westbound, also entered the intersection. Both of these drivers ran red lights as they entered the intersection, and hit the car driven by the teenager at the same moment. As a result of the accident, the teenager suffered a number of serious injuries.
In a negligence suit by the teenager against the two drivers, what is the likely result?
A. Neither driver will be liable, because the court will apply the but-for test.
B. Both drivers will be liable under the but-for test.
C. Neither driver will be liable, because the court will apply the substantial factor test.
D. Both drivers will be liable under the substantial factor test.
D. Both drivers will be liable under the substantial factor test.
Discussion of correct answer: The court may apply the but-for test in a negligence action, and find that a defendant is liable for the plaintiff’s injuries if the defendant’s conduct was the cause-in-fact of an event, and if that event would not have occurred but-for the existence of the conduct. However, where the conduct of multiple defendants results in injury to the plaintiff, the court will not use this test. This is because both defendants can deny liability by pointing to the conduct of the other defendant. Therefore, the court may apply the substantial factor test in such situations. Under this test, a defendant’s conduct is also the cause-in-fact of a plaintiff’s injury if that conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Here, the conduct of each driver was a substantial factor in bringing about the teenager’s injuries. As such, the court will find that both drivers are liable under the substantial factor test.
A tall building was under construction in the downtown business district of a city. A lawyer took a car to the downtown area to go to a meeting with a client. She was running late for the meeting and could not find a legal parking spot, so she decided to park illegally in front of a fire hydrant. This was in violation of a local ordinance that prohibited parking within 50 feet of a fire hydrant. The lawyer figured that it was better to get a ticket than to miss her meeting with an important client. The spot where she parked was next to the site of the construction of the new building. While the lawyer was at her meeting, an accident occurred at the construction site. A large crane was being used to lift a load of bricks. A cable on the crane broke, and the bricks fell. Most of them landed on top of the lawyer’s car. The load of bricks that fell on the lawyer’s car caused the gas tank of the car to rupture and explode. Shrapnel from the explosion flew in all directions and injured a pedestrian who was walking on the sidewalk near the lawyer’s car.
If the pedestrian sues the lawyer and relies on the doctrine of negligence per se, which of the following, if true, is the lawyer’s best defense?
A. Payment of a small fine is the only penalty provided in the ordinance for those who park too close to fire hydrants.
B. The police never issued a ticket to the lawyer for parking in front of the fire hydrant.
C. The purpose of the parking ordinance was to facilitate access to the hydrant by fire trucks, not to protect against accidents like the one that occurred when bricks fell on the lawyer’s car
D, The pedestrian would not have been injured if the construction company had properly maintained the crane.
C. The purpose of the parking ordinance was to facilitate access to the hydrant by fire trucks, not to protect against accidents like the one that occurred when bricks fell on the lawyer’s car
A bike messenger was injured when the driver of a car, who was not paying attention to the road, drifted into the bicycle lane and hit him. After the accident, the messenger went to a doctor, who advised that, although he suffered no broken bones, he nevertheless needed to stay off his feet for a few weeks in order to allow his body to recover. However, the messenger had just graduated from college, and needed to start repaying his loans. As a result, he could not discontinue his job as a messenger.
The next week, as the messenger was making a routine delivery in an office building, his legs suddenly gave way, causing him to tumble down several flights of stairs. He was rushed to the hospital, where he was treated for two broken legs and a shattered hip.
If the messenger now sues the driver of the car, which of the following statements is the most accurate?
A. The driver is responsible for all injuries sustained by the messenger, under the eggshell plaintiff rule.
B. The driver is responsible for all injuries sustained by the messenger, because they were foreseeable.
C. The driver is not responsible for all injuries sustained by the messenger, because the doctor warned the messenger to stay off his feet.
D. The driver is not responsible for all injuries sustained by the messenger, under the doctrine of avoidable consequences.
D. The driver is not responsible for all injuries sustained by the messenger, under the doctrine of avoidable consequences.
A law student, who was involved in Law Review, moot court, and clinic, was taking 18 credits. She was afraid she was never going to get everything done on time, and she thought some extra caffeine would help. The law student bought a coffee pot from Coffee Warehouse, Inc. She paid top dollar for the coffee maker, but she figured it was worth it because the coffee pot had a special “refresh” function that would keep brewed coffee fresh over a 48-hour period. The law student used the coffee maker for several weeks and noticed a marked improvement in her energy level. One morning, as the law student was reaching for the coffee pot, the pot suddenly exploded. The law student’s hand was severely cut by flying glass from the shattered pot. An investigation revealed that the glass used by Coffee Warehouse to make the coffee pot was defective, which is why it exploded.
If the law student sues Coffee Warehouse on a strict liability theory, what must she prove to prevail?
A. The coffee pot was defective, and a thorough inspection by Coffee Warehouse’s would have revealed the defect.
B. The coffee pot was defective.
C. The coffee pot was defective, and the defect was the cause of the law student’s injuries.
D. The coffee pot was defective, was thoroughly inspected by Coffee Warehouse, and the defect went undetected.
C. The coffee pot was defective, and the defect was the cause of the law student’s injuries.
A builder specialized in the renovation of old buildings. His most recent project was the conversion of a housing project into luxury condominiums. One of the buildings had been renovated by the city 15 years ago when steel guard rails had been installed on all the windows to prevent children from accidental falls. The builder did most of the exterior painting and brick repair work himself to save money. He greatly improved the appearance of the old buildings by painting the window guards an attractive decorative garden pattern. When renovations were completed, members of the local fire department inspected the premises. The fire inspector was a large, heavy-set man. For public relations and safety purposes, he conducted his inspections in full uniform—big steel-toed black boots, a hard hat, tool belt, keys, and a heavy lined coat. The uniform added 25 pounds to his weight of 225 pounds.
The builder showed the inspector around the building. As part of his inspection, the inspector climbed on the window bars to evaluate this means of egress from the apartments on the upper floors in the event of a fire or emergency. When he reached the third floor, the painted window guards gave way, causing the inspector to fall and seriously hurt himself. Examination revealed that underneath the new paint, the window guards was badly corroded and could not support the inspector in his uniform. The inspector sued the builder for his injuries.
In a majority jurisdiction, who should prevail?
A. The inspector, because the builder received an economic benefit from his inspection of the building.
B. The inspector, because the builder had a duty to inspect the window bars.
C. The builder, because he did not intentionally conceal the defective bars with paint.
D. The builder, because he was not aware of the dangerous condition of the window bars.
D. The builder, because he was not aware of the dangerous condition of the window bars.
Discussion of correct answer: This is the best answer, because it correctly states the builder’s required standard of care toward the inspector. Although the builder invited the inspector onto the premises for the builder’s business purposes, courts traditionally classify the inspector as a licensee because he is a fireman. (This also applies to the police officer.) The builder’s duty to a licensee is to fix or warn of known dangers. He is not required to make his land safe for licensees and is not required to inspect to discover dangers, even if a reasonable inspection would have revealed them. If the builder was aware that the window bars would be dangerous to someone the inspector’s size, its condition would be a known defect about which the builder must issue a warning. Nothing in the facts shows that the developer knew of the unsafe condition.
An only daughter whose father died after a long illness arranged with a mortuary to bury him next to his wife’s grave. The daughter selected the most ornate casket available because she wanted it to remain closed during the wake, and she could not bring herself to view the body before the funeral. At the cemetery, however, she decided to view the body just before it was buried. She was horrified to discover that the body in the casket was dressed in a clown costume and a bright orange wig. In fact, it was not her father but a popular circus entertainer who had died the same day as her father and had requested to be buried in his costume. Although the mortuary was able to retrieve her father’s body and bury it, the daughter was greatly distressed by the episode and suffered nightmares as a result. However, she did not seek medical or psychiatric care because of it. The mortuary apologized for its error in switching the bodies, but insisted that the daughter pay all of the agreed-to charges for the funeral.
If the daughter brings action against the mortuary to recover for her emotional distress, can she recover damages?
A. No, because the daughter did not have to obtain medical or psychiatric care.
B. No, because the daughter suffered no physical injury.
C. Yes, because of the known sensitivity of people concerning the death of a family member.
D. Yes, because the mortuary is requiring the daughter to pay the bill for the funeral expenses.
C. Yes, because of the known sensitivity of people concerning the death of a family member.
The daughter can recover damages for her emotional distress, even though she suffered no physical injury and did not require medical care, because of the known sensitivity of people concerning the death of a family member. In the usual case, the duty to avoid negligent infliction of emotional distress is breached when defendant creates a foreseeable risk of physical injury to plaintiff, typically by causing a threat of physical impact that leads to emotional distress, and plaintiff can recover for physical injury caused solely by the distress. In special situations, however, courts have permitted plaintiff to recover in the absence of physical symptoms where defendant’s negligence creates a great likelihood of severe emotional distress. One of these situations is the mishandling of a relative’s corpse, because it is certainly foreseeable that a person will suffer severe emotional distress if the corpse of a family member is negligently mishandled. In this case, the mortuary was negligent in putting the wrong body in the casket, creating a foreseeable risk of severe emotional distress to the daughter under the circumstances. Despite the fact that she suffered no physical injury, she can recover damages from the mortuary.
A doorman negligently locked a door that an office worker was intending to use to exit an office building, so the worker was forced to use a different exit. As she stepped onto the sidewalk outside the building, a car careened out of control on the street and jumped the curb. The car struck and injured the worker and then drove off. The driver was not found.
The worker brought suit against the doorman, seeking damages for her injuries. At trial, the parties stipulated that the doorman was negligent in locking the door and that the worker suffered injuries when she was struck by the car. The worker also established that if she had exited from the door she was intending to, she would not have been struck by the car. At the end of the worker’s case, the doorman moved for a directed verdict in his favor.
How should the judge rule?
A. Grant the motion, because the driver of the car was the actual cause of the worker’s injuries.
B. Grant the motion, because the car was an unforeseeable intervening force.
C. Deny the motion, because the jury could find that but for the doorman’s negligence, the worker would not have been injured.
D. Deny the motion, because the jury could find that the doorman’s negligence was a foreseeable concurring cause of the worker’s injury.
B. Grant the motion, because the car was an unforeseeable intervening force.
The court should grant the motion because the evidence establishes that the car was a superseding force that cut off the doorman’s liability for his negligence under proximate cause principles. The general rule of proximate cause is that the defendant is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of, and within the increased risk caused by, his acts. An indirect cause case is one where the facts indicate that a force came into motion after the time of defendant’s negligent act and combined with the negligent act to cause injury to the plaintiff. Whether an intervening force will cut off the defendant’s liability for the plaintiff’s injury and be deemed superseding is determined by foreseeability. Here, nothing in the facts suggests that a car jumping the curb was a foreseeable consequence of the doorman’s negligently locking the door. Hence, the judge should grant the motion because the worker has failed to establish the proximate cause element of his prima facie case.
A man on his bike was run off the road when the driver of a car, who was not paying attention to the road, drifted into the bicycle lane. The man ran into the guardrail, pinning his leg against his bike, but did
not fall. After the incident, the man chose not to go to a doctor, as he was a little shaken and sore, but otherwise did not appear injured. The next week, as the man was delivering a package as part of his job, his legs suddenly gave way, causing him to tumble down several flights of stairs. He was then rushed to the hospital, where he was treated for two broken legs and a shattered hip.
If the man now sues the driver of the car, which of the following statements is the most accurate?
(A) The driver is responsible for all injuries sustained by the man, because the driver must take the victim as he finds him.
(C) The driver is not responsible for all injuries sustained by the man, because the man failed to go to the doctor, who may have warned him to stay off of his feet.
(D) The driver is not responsible for all injuries sustained by the man, under the doctrine of avoidable consequences.
(B) The driver is responsible for all injuries sustained by the man, because the man’s conduct after the accident was reasonable.
(B) The driver is responsible for all injuries sustained by the man, because the man’s conduct after the accident was reasonable.
Two law students ranked high in their class were competing for one opening at a prestigious law firm. During the interview with the hiring partner, one student was asked what he thought of the other’s work as an editor of the law review. The student responded that there was a rumor around the school that the editor got outside help on her law review comment. Based in large part on his statement, that student was chosen over the law review editor, who later accepted a less lucrative position with another firm.
If the law review editor brings a slander action against the other student and establishes the above facts, will she prevail?
A. Yes, because the student’s statement to the hiring partner was defamatory.
B. Yes, because the law review editor suffered special damages.
C. No, because the hiring partner asked the student for his opinion.
D. No, because the law review editor did not establish that the student made the statement with at least negligence.
A. Yes, because the student’s statement to the hiring partner was defamatory.
The student’s statement constitutes slander per se and therefore the student will be liable. To establish a prima facie case for defamation, the following elements must be proved:
(i) defamatory language on the part of the defendant;
(ii) the defamatory language must be “of or concerning” the plaintiff (i.e., it must identify the plaintiff to a reasonable reader, listener, or viewer);
(iii) publication of the defamatory language by the defendant to a third person; and
(iv) damages to the reputation of the plaintiff.
Here, the student’s suggestion that the law review editor received outside help on an article she authored impeaches her integrity and legal skills. The defamatory language directly related to the editor. The publication requirement is satisfied because the student made the statement to the hiring partner. To recover damages for slander, special damages must be pleaded and proved unless the spoken defamation falls within one of four categories, characterized as slander per se. Hence, a defamatory statement adversely reflecting on the plaintiff’s abilities in his business, trade, or profession is actionable without pleading or proof of special damages. The student’s statement adversely reflected on the law review editor’s honesty and capability in her profession, and as such is slander per se.
While driving to the grocery store, a 45-year-old man was hit from behind by a car that was being negligently driven by a woman. At the hospital, the doctor indicated that the accident itself should only have caused minor injuries. However, the doctor determined that due to a childhood condition, the man’s bones did not fully form properly, and as a result, the injuries he suffered were more severe. In fact, it was determined that the man will have to be placed into traction for one year, and that he would never walk again.
To what damages will the man be entitled?
A. He will be entitled to just those damages that can be attributed to the car accident.
B. He will be entitled to all damages he sustained as a result of the accident, because a tortfeasor is liable for the full consequences of the injury she causes.
C. He will be entitled to damages that a normal person would have sustained in a similar accident.
D. He will be entitled to damages for the traction, but not the paralysis, because of the doctrine of avoidable consequences.
B. He will be entitled to all damages he sustained as a result of the accident, because a tortfeasor is liable for the full consequences of the injury she causes.
A ballplayer became ill soon after consuming sunflower seeds marketed by a farm products company. The package of seeds was inspected and foreign matter was discovered on the seeds.
If the ballplayer brings an action against the farm products company on the basis of strict tort liability, which of the following would be most helpful for the company to avoid liability?
A. The foreign matter on the seeds was a rare mold that could not be detected by tests commonly used for establishing that sunflower seeds are safe for human consumption.
B. The seeds were sold in their natural state, and had not been manufactured or processed by the farm products company in any way.
C. In answer to an interrogatory, the ballplayer has acknowledged that he has no evidence that his illness was caused by the foreign matter on the seeds.
D. Although marketed under the label of the farm products company, the seeds had been collected and packaged for distribution by another company and any foreign matter on the seeds was the other company’s fault.
C. In answer to an interrogatory, the ballplayer has acknowledged that he has no evidence that his illness was caused by the foreign matter on the seeds.
A patient needing ankle surgery signed standard consent forms and liability waivers covering the surgeon scheduled to perform the surgery. Two hours before the operation was scheduled to be performed, one of the surgeon’s patients was brought into the emergency room with numerous orthopedic injuries that required immediate attention. The surgeon requested the head of orthopedic surgery, who was the leading authority on ankle surgery, to perform the ankle surgery for him so he could go to the emergency room. By the time the head surgeon arrived in the operating room, the patient was already sedated. He performed the operation with his usual skill and the operation was a complete success.
If the patient sues the head surgeon for battery, will she likely prevail?
A. Yes, but she may be entitled only to nominal damages.
B. Yes, because the head surgeon is vicariously liable for the original surgeon’s obtaining a replacement without the patient’s consent.
C. No, because the head surgeon performed the operation competently and the patient suffered no harm.
D. No, because a reasonable person similarly situated would have consented to the operation.
A. Yes, but she may be entitled only to nominal damages.
The patient can establish a prima facie case for battery. The fact that the operation was a success and that she may not be able to prove actual damages will not bar her recovery.
The prima facie case for battery requires: (i) an act by defendant that brings about a harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff; (ii) intent on the part of defendant to do the act; and (iii) causation.
Here, the head surgeon’s performing the operation on the patient’s ankle would be harmful or offensive contact because the patient had selected another surgeon to perform the operation and did not consent to the head surgeon’s participating in any way. Even if evidence of her distress is not adequate to prove actual damages, she will still be entitled to a judgment in her favor and nominal damages, because damages is not an element of the prima facie case for battery.