Torts

Question 1

Where multiple forces combined to cause the plaintiff’s harm and any one alone would have been sufficient to cause the harm, what is the test for ACTUAL CAUSATION? i

Answer 1

Whether the defendant’s conduct was a SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR in causing the harm.

Question 2

Are service providers like dentists or barbers subject to strict product liability?

Answer 2

No. Strict products liability claims can be brought against COMMERCIAL suppliers or sellers—i.e., those in the business of manufacturing, selling, or otherwise distributing products of the type that harmed the plaintiff. However, service providers are not subject to strict products liability.

Question 3

Is the owner of a wild animal strictly liable for a plaintiff’s FEARFUL REACTION to the sight of an unrestrained wild animal?

Answer 3

YES. The owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm that is caused by a plaintiff’s fearful reaction to the sight of an unrestrained wild animal or directly results from the wild animal’s abnormally dangerous characteristics.

Question 4

Under pure severability, can a negligent plaintiff recover from another negligent plaintiff?

Answer 4

NO. Under pure comparative negligence, a negligent plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by his/her proportionate share of fault. And if multiple defendants cause the plaintiff indivisible harm, several liability limits the plaintiff to recovering from each defendant the portion of damages that corresponds to his/her proportionate share of fault.

Question 5

What are the recovery rules under partial/modified comparative negligence?

Answer 5

Under modified (or partial) comparative negligence, recovery is reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault and barred if it exceeds 50%. If multiple defendants cause the plaintiff indivisible harm, then several liability limits the plaintiff to recovering the portion of damages that corresponds to each defendant’s share of fault.

Question 6

When can a public figure recover for defamation?

Answer 6

A plaintiff who is public figure or official can recover for defamation ONLY if the plaintiff proves that the defendant made a false statement about the plaintiff with actual malice—i.e., with KNOWLEDGE or reckless disregard of the statement’s falsity.

Question 7

Must a plaintiff show ACTUAL DAMAGES to recover for assault?

Answer 7

Nope.

Question 8

Must a plaintiff show ACTUAL DAMAGES to recover for trespass?

Answer 8

Nope.

Question 9

For lawyers and other professionals, what is dispositive to show duty of care?

Answer 9

evidence of custom.

Question 10

When there are multiple defendants who are liable for a single and indivisible harm to the plaintiff, each defendant is liable for. . .

Answer 10

. . . the ENTIRE AMOUNT of the harm

Question 11

What kind of damages can a plaintiff recover for assault?

Answer 11

Nominal (if no actual loss or harm) and actual (or compensatory) damages. If no physical harm or actual damages, a plaintiff can still recover nominal damages (usu not awarded if also receiving actual damages).

Question 12

What are a land possessor’s duties to an INVITEE?

Answer 12

–inspect for unknown dangers
–make safe or warn
–prevent harm from active operations

Question 13

What are a land possessor’s duties to an LICENSEE?

Answer 13

–warn of known latent defects
–use reasonable care in active operations

Question 14

What are a land possessor’s duties to an ANTICIPATED or KNOWN TRESPASSER?

Answer 14

–warn or known artificial dangers
– use reasonable care in active operations

Question 15

What are a land possessor’s duties to an UNKNOWN or UNANTICIPATED TRESPASSER?

Answer 15

No duty.

Question 16

When does RES IPSA LOQUITUR permit an inference of neglience?

Answer 16

–harm was the type usu. caused by negligence, AND
–evidence tends to eliminate other potential sources of that harm

Question 17

When is the owner of a domestic animal STRICTLY LIABLE for any physical harm caused by the animal?

Answer 17

When the owner KNEW or had REASON TO KNOW about the animal’s dangerous propensities
AND
the plaintiff’s harm arose from those dangerous propensities.

Note: because this is strict liability, it does not matter what precautions the owner took to lock up the vicious guard dog or whatever. Still liable.

Question 18

In a pure comparative-fault jurisdiction, when the plaintiff and the defendant are both entitled to recover damages, what can reduce/offset the plaintiff’s recovery?

Answer 18

The defendant’s recovery (and vice versa).

Question 19

How does a plaintiff prove CAUSATION in a negligence action?

Answer 19

To prove causation in a negligence action, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions were the actual (but for) and proximate (forseeable) cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Proximate cause occurs when the plaintiff’s harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.

Question 20

What is the LEARNED INTERMEDIARY rule?

Answer 20

Under the learned-intermediary rule, a manufacturer of a prescription drug or medical device will NOT be held strictly liable for inadequate warnings or instructions if the manufacturer warned the prescribing physician about the risk of harm associated with that product. (Manufacturer need not warn consumer if they warned the doc.)

Question 21

What duty of care does a driver owe her passenger?

Answer 21

In most jurisdictions, automobile drivers owe a duty of ordinary care to guests (who ride free) and passengers (who pay money for the ride).

But a minority of jurisdictions have enacted “guest statutes,” under which an automobile driver’s only duty to guests is to refrain from gross or wanton and willful misconduct.

Question 22

When is a commercial supplier of a part of a defective product subject to STRICT LIABILITY?

Answer 22

The commercial supplier of a component that is integrated into a defective product is subject to strict liability when (1) the component is defective or (2) the supplier substantially participated in the process of integrating the component into the product’s design and the component’s integration caused that product to be defective.

Question 23

How does negligence per se work?

Answer 23

Under the doctrine of negligence per se, the majority approach is that duty and breach can be CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED if:
- the defendant violated a statute or ordinance
- that statute or ordinance was intended to prevent the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff and
- the plaintiff is within a class of persons that the statute or ordinance was intended to protect.

Under the minority approach for negligence per se, a defendant’s violation of a statute or ordinance creates a REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION (as opposed to a conclusive presumption) that the defendant breached a duty of care.

Question 24

When is a commercial seller subject to STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY?

Answer 24

A commercial seller is subject to strict products liability when (1) a defective product harms a foreseeable plaintiff when it was used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way and (2) the defect existed at the time the product left the commercial seller’s control.

Question 25

Under respondat superior, is an employer liable if an employee disobeys instructions?

Answer 25

Could be. An employer may be vicariously liable for a tort committed by its employee acting within the scope of employment, EVEN IF the employee did not follow the employer's instructions.

Question 26

Under modern rules, does a land possessor owe a duty of care to trespassers?

Answer 26

Under the modern approach, land possessors owe all land entrants—except flagrant trespassers—a duty of reasonable care to protect them from foreseeable risk of harm. A flagrant trespasser is one who enters another's land without permission and whose entry is particularly egregious—e.g., entry that results in commission of a crime.

Question 27

In negligence, what standard of care is an INVOLUNTARILY intoxicated plaintiff held to?

Answer 27

In negligence cases, a voluntarily intoxicated person is held to the same standard as a reasonably prudent sober person. In contrast, the conduct of an involuntarily intoxicated person will be measured by the standard of a reasonably careful person with the same level of intoxication.

Question 28

How is a plaintiff's contributory negligence treated in a traditional common-law jurisdiction?

Answer 28

Under traditional common-law rules, the plaintiff's contributory negligence (i.e., failure to exercise reasonable care for his/her own safety) is a complete defense to negligence and bars the plaintiff's recovery of damages.

Question 29

Explain the informed consent doctrine.

Answer 29

Under the informed-consent doctrine, a physician who fails to disclose the risks of a medical treatment or procedure to a patient is liable for negligence if (1) the failure to disclose caused the patient to consent and (2) the undisclosed risk materialized and resulted in physical harm. NOTE: if a dr fails to warn but the side effect doesn't occur, no negligence. Even if the patient would've refused the treatment if they had known about the side effect.

Question 30

When can a bystander recover in Intentional Infliction of Emotional Damages?

Answer 30

A defendant whose extreme and outrageous conduct has harmed a third party may be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress if (1) the plaintiff contemporaneously perceived that conduct, (2) the plaintiff was CLOSELY RELATED to the third party, and (3) the defendant knew of the plaintiff's presence and that relationship.

Question 31

In a negligence action, are steps taken by the plaintiff prior to the injury relevant?

Answer 31

NO. In a negligence action, a plaintiff can recover compensatory damages based on: (1) the plaintiff's initial physical harm, (2) any subsequent harm traceable to that initial harm, and (3) steps taken to mitigate the initial harm. But the plaintiff's actions prior to the defendant's negligent act are not a factor in determining damages.

Question 32

What is the general duty of care?

Answer 32

In general, a duty of care is owed to all foreseeable persons who may foreseeably be injured by the defendant’s failure to act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under the circumstances.

Question 33

What duty does a landowner owe to someone near but not on her property?

Answer 33

A landowner generally does not owe a duty to a person not on the premises, such as a passerby, who is harmed by a natural condition on the landowner’s premises. An exception exists, however, with respect to trees in urban areas. With respect to an artificial condition, the landowner generally owes a duty to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to persons who are not on the premises. Similarly, with respect to an activity conducted on the premises by the owner or by someone subject to the owner’s control, the landowner generally owes a duty of reasonable care to persons who are not on the premises.

Question 34

Explain proximate causation, with VA distinctions.

Answer 34

Proximate cause is a legal limitation on actual cause, focusing on foreseeability. In Virginia, an action will be the proximate cause of an injury if the injury is the natural and probable consequence of the act, and was foreseeable. Most courts hold that an unforeseeable intervening cause is a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant and the plaintiff. In Virginia, to be superseding, an intervening cause must completely supersede the defendant’s actions so that the INTERVENING CAUSE ALONE produced the injury, without the defendant’s contributing negligence.

Question 35

Does VA have a Good Samaritan law?

Answer 35

Yes. Virginia’s Good Samaritan law protects people rendering emergency care, in good faith, without compensation, even if they are negligent in rendering that care.

Question 36

How does contributory negligence work?

Answer 36

Contributory fault occurs when a plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable care for her own safety and thereby contributes to her own injury. Under the traditional rule, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is a complete bar to recovery, regardless of the percentage that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the harm. Although Virginia follows the doctrine of traditional contributory negligence, the plaintiff’s negligence must be a SUBSTANTIAL cause of the injury.

Question 37

What is libel per quod?

Answer 37

Libel per quod, as opposed to libel per se, refers to a statement that is not defamatory on its face, meaning that the statement does not immediately appear harmful to a person's reputation. However, due to certain external circumstances or facts that are not widely known, the statement is rendered defamatory. An example might be if someone wrote, "I saw John Doe at the clinic today." This statement seems innocuous on its face. However, if it's known within a certain group that the clinic is a mental health facility or a treatment center for a stigmatized disease, then the statement could be considered defamatory to those who understand the reference.

Question 38

In VA, is a waiver against defendent's negligence enforceable?

Answer 38

Only a waiver against future damage to personal property. A waiver against damage to personal injury because of D's future negligence is VOID, as it is against VA public policy.

Question 39

What is a parent's liability if their child commits a tort?

Answer 39

Parent is liable for failure to prevent minor child from causing forseeable harm to others

Question 40

When may a public figure recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Answer 40

A public figure may recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the defendant's publication if the defendant (1) acted in an extreme and outrageous manner, (2) intentionally or recklessly caused the public figure severe emotional distress, and (3) published a false statement of fact with actual malice.

Question 41

When is assumption of the risk a defense in regards to wild or abnormally dangerous pets?

Answer 41

Assumption of the risk is a defense to strict liability claims based on injuries caused by wild or abnormally dangerous domestic animals when the plaintiff voluntarily engaged the animal despite knowing of its dangerous propensities.

Question 42

How does the last clear chance doctrine work>?

Answer 42

In VA, this mitigates the harshness of the contributory negligence rule. The last-clear-chance rule allows a plaintiff to recover despite his/her contributory negligence if the defendant (1) had the last clear chance to avoid the plaintiff's injury and (2) failed to use reasonable care to do so. Helpless plaintiff Plaintiff, due to contributory negligence, is in peril from which plaintiff cannot escape Defendant is liable if defendant knew or should have known of plaintiff's peril & harm could have been avoided but for defendant's negligence

Question 43

Do negligent intervening acts excuse the defendant's from liability?

Answer 43

No. Superseding causes—i.e., unforeseeable, intervening acts that occur after the defendant's negligence and contribute to the plaintiff's harm—break the chain of proximate causation. But negligent intervening acts are typically regarded as foreseeable and therefore do not cut off the defendant's liability.

Question 44

Can a homeowner sue for a neighbor's nuisance even if the homeowner herself is not personally bothered by the nuisance?

Answer 44

Yes, possibly. Private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff's property. An interference is substantial if a normal person in the community would find the interference offensive, annoying, or intolerable—even if the plaintiff is not personally bothered by it.

Question 45

P is suing multiple Ds for harm caused by one of them, but P can't prove which D behaved negligently. Can P recover?

Answer 45

No. If multiple defendants were negligent and any one of them could have caused the plaintiff's harm, joint and several liability allows the plaintiff to recover even if it is impossible to prove which defendant actually caused the harm. But the plaintiff must first show that each of the defendants was negligent.

Question 46

In a jurisdiction with pure comparative negligence, if a P's negligence contributed 60% to her injury, may she still recover?

Answer 46

YES. Under pure comparative negligence, a negligent plaintiff's recovery is reduced by his/her proportionate share of fault. And if multiple defendants cause the plaintiff indivisible harm, joint and several liability allows the plaintiff to recover the total amount of damages from any defendant. note: she would NOT be able to recover in a comparative fault regime, because her fault exceeds the other defendants'

Question 47

If an employer is found vicariously liable for an employee's tort (including negligence), can the employer recover from the employee?

Answer 47

Yes. An employer who is vicariously liable for a tort committed by its employee may be liable to the plaintiff for the harm caused by the employee's tortious conduct. When the employee's liability has been discharged by the employer, the employer can seek full compensation (i.e., indemnity) from the employee for its loss.

Question 48

Does trespass to chattels require proof of harm?

Answer 48

Yes. Trespass to chattels by intentional use of or intermeddling with the plaintiff's chattel requires proof of actual damages through (1) actual harm to the chattel, (2) substantial loss of use of the chattel, or (3) bodily harm to the plaintiff.

Question 49

Can a firefighter recover for injuries incurred while fighting a harm negligently caused by the D?

Answer 49

No. Under the firefighter's rule, professional rescuers are barred from recovering in negligence for harm that resulted from the special dangers of their jobs. But that rule does not bar professional rescuers from recovering for harm that resulted from a land possessor's failure to warn them about concealed dangers known to the land possessor.

Question 50

Is a storeowner vicariously liable for its independent contractor's torts?

Answer 50

A principal is generally not vicariously liable for its independent contractor's torts. However, vicarious liability will be imposed when the independent contractor breaches a nondelegable duty of care owed by the principal—e.g., a land possessor's duty to keep the premises safe for business visitors. So a storekeeper always has a duty to keep premises safe.

Question 51

Do you owe damages if you trespass in an emergency?

Answer 51

Although a trespass is excused when it arises from private necessity—i.e., an intrusion that is, or reasonably appears to be, necessary to protect oneself, third parties, or property—the trespasser is still liable for actual damages caused by the trespass unless the entry was for the landowner's benefit. There's no punitive damages though. Note: if it's for a public necessity (i.e. a big group of people) then no one is liable for actual damages.

Question 52

When must a commercial seller include warnings on their products?

Answer 52

To avoid strict products liability based on a failure to warn, a commercial seller must provide reasonable warnings or instructions regarding any nonobvious, foreseeable risk of harm posed by its product if doing so will reduce that risk. Failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions renders the product defective.

Question 53

Against what standard is a private nuisance judged?

Answer 53

For private nuisance, interference with a plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his/her property is not substantial if the plaintiff's abnormal or special sensitivity causes the plaintiff to find the interference offensive, annoying, or intolerable when a normal person in the community would not. (No eggshell plaintiff!)

Question 54

What does joint and several liability mean?

Answer 54

Under the doctrine of joint and several liability, when multiple tortfeasors cause the plaintiff indivisible harm, each tortfeasor is liable for the total amount of the plaintiff's damages.

Question 55

What kind of loss is required for a showing of intentional interference with contract?

Answer 55

A plaintiff's pecuniary loss need not be substantial for it to prevail on an intentional interference with contract claim. A showing of ANY pecuniary loss is sufficient.

Question 56

Is medical malpractice is foreseeable?

Answer 56

When an intervening cause is unforeseeable, it may become a superseding cause and cut off the defendant’s liability. Medical malpractice is foreseeable, however. Thus, the doctor’s actions were not a superseding cause.

Question 57

If someone defames all Apple employees, eg, may Bob Smith, an Apple employee, recover?

Answer 57

No. If the defamatory language applies to a group, then a member of the group can maintain a defamation action only if the group is so small that the matter can reasonably be understood to refer to that member, unless there is other evidence that the language refers to that particular member.

Question 58

Is a third party's negligence foreseeable?

Answer 58

Yes. negligence by a third party is generally considered foreseeable, and will not be considered an intervening cause that protects a defendant from liability.

Question 59

What's different between a joint and several jurisdiction vs a pure several jurisdiction?

Answer 59

Unlike in a joint and several liability jurisdiction, in which each tortfeasor who causes a single indivisible harm is jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff, in a pure several liability jurisdiction, such a tortfeasor is only liable for that tortfeasor’s comparative share of the plaintiff’s damages.

Question 60

If you're in a comparative negligence jurisdiction and you injure yourself misusing a defective product, under what theory should you sue the manufacturer: negligence or strict liability?

Answer 60

Negligence! Cause your misuse might not qualify you for strict liability. A negligence case might also have higher damages, if the manufacturer was really naughty. A used goods seller or service provider would also be liable under negligence, but not strict liability.

Question 61

Is emotional harm enough to recover for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress?

Answer 61

NO. Generally, a plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress only if the defendant’s action causes a threat of physical impact that results in some kind of bodily harm (e.g., a heart attack) EXCEPTION: if someone is misinformed a loved one has died, in which case emotional suffering is enough.

Question 62

What do you recover in an intentional misinformation claim?

Answer 62

The benefit of the bargain. I.e. you told me the used car was worth 50K but you'd sell it to me for 10K, I reasonably relied on you. I can recover all 50K. (This is intended to deter misinformation which is why it is so extreme.) Note: In a small minority of jurisdictions, recovery in intentional misrepresentation claims is limited to the plaintiff's out-of-pocket expenses in the transaction. This is measured by calculating the difference between the actual value received in the transaction and the value given by the plaintiff.

Question 63

Can a thick-skinned neighbor recover for private nuisance, even if their use of their property is not impaired.

Answer 63

YES. A plaintiff who is not bothered by an interference with the use and enjoyment of his/her property (i.e., a "thick-skinned plaintiff") can still prevail—so long as a normal, reasonable person in the community would find the interference offensive, inconvenient, or annoying (i.e., the interference is still substantial).

Question 64

When is a landowner not liable under attractive nuisance?

Answer 64

When she exercises reasonable care. (IT"S NOT STRICT LIABILITY FOLKS)

Question 65

Difference between invasion of privacy and presenting in a false light?

Answer 65

Invasion of privacy based on publicity in a false light requires that the defendant publicized false information about the plaintiff. Conversely, invasion of privacy based on public disclosure of private facts requires that the defendant publicly disclosed truthful information about the plaintiff.

Question 66

Is economic harm enough to recover under a negligence action?

Answer 66

NO. The plaintiff must prove actual physical harm, i.e., bodily harm or property damage. Unlike actions for intentional torts, nominal damages are not recoverable in negligence actions. In addition, a plaintiff who suffers only economic loss without any related personal injury or property damage cannot recover such loss through a negligence action because a defendant does not have general duty to avoid the unintentional infliction of economic loss on a defendant.

Question 67

When can someone recover under NIED when they have not suffered physical impact?

Answer 67

the duty to avoid infliction of emotional distress also exists without any threat of physical impact in cases in which there is a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, such as when a common carrier mistakenly reports the death of a relative.

Question 68

Does battery include gross negligence without intent?

Answer 68

Yes, if it is a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the same situation, thus constituting criminal negligence.

Question 69

If you, accomplice, have participated in one overt act in furtherance of the crime but then get cold feet and run away before actual larceny/whatever is committed, are you still guilty of the crime?

Answer 69

Yes. A mere change of heart after the crime is put into motion is ineffective to avoid guilty as an accomplice.

Question 70

Can the police enter your friend's house if they have a warrant to arrest you and have probably cause to think you're at the friend's house?

Answer 70

No. An officer cannot rely on an arrest warrant to effect the arrest in the home of a third party. The officer may enter the home only with a warrant to search for the person named in the arrest warrant or under a valid warrant exception, such as consent or exigent circumstances. Probable cause alone is not sufficient justification for an officer to search for a person in the home of another.

Question 71

What is imperfect self-defense?

Answer 71

Imperfect self-defense occurs when the person claiming self-defense unjustifiably kills her attacker, such as when she honestly but unreasonably believes self-defense is required. The rule reduces the charge from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

Question 72

If you're forced into a robbery because of duress and during the robbery your co-felon kills someone, what's your best defense?

Answer 72

Showing innocent of robbery because of duress. One way to defend against a felony-murder charge successfully is to establish a valid defense to the underlying felony.

Question 73

Your friend loaned you something and you accidentally damaged it. Are you liable for conversion?

Answer 73

NO. A defendant is liable for conversion if he intentionally commits an act depriving the plaintiff of possession of her chattel or interfering with the plaintiff’s chattel in a manner so serious as to deprive the plaintiff of the use of the chattel. The defendant must have intended to exercise control over the particular chattel. The defendant need only intend to commit the act that interferes; intent to cause damage is not necessary. But accidentally damaging the plaintiff's chattel is not conversion if the defendant had permission to use the property.

Question 74

What's the default for negligence standards and joint and several liability on the MBE?

Answer 74

In jurisdictions that have adopted the doctrine of pure comparative negligence (which is the default on the MBE, unless you are told otherwise), a plaintiff’s contributory negligence is not a complete bar to recovery. Instead, the plaintiff’s full damages are calculated by the trier of fact and then reduced by the proportion that the plaintiff’s fault bears to the total harm. Joint and several liability is also the MBE default.

Question 75

What are expectation damages?

Answer 75

Think: EXPECTING a delivery. Also known as "benefit of the bargain" damages, these are damages that are intended to cover what the injured party expected to receive from the contract. They are designed to put the injured party in the position they would have been in if the contract had been fully performed. For example, if you paid for a custom painting that was never delivered, your expectation damages would be the value of the painting you expected to receive.

Question 76

What are reliance damages?

Answer 76

Think: About to sit on a stool when it gets out from under you. These damages are intended to compensate the injured party for expenses incurred or losses suffered in reliance on the promise of the other party. They aim to put the injured party back in the position they were in before the contract was made. For instance, if you were hired to build a house, bought materials, and then the homeowner decided to cancel the contract, your reliance damages would cover the cost of the materials you purchased in anticipation of completing the project. You're left holding the bag.

Question 77

What are consequential damages?

Answer 77

Think: line of dominos. These are damages that are not caused directly and immediately by the breach of contract, but are a consequence of the breach. They are typically recoverable if they were foreseeable at the time of contract formation. For instance, if a contractor fails to complete a shop renovation on time, and as a result, the shop owner loses profits because they had to remain closed for longer, those lost profits would be consequential damages. These damages are not the direct result of the contractor's work but are a consequence of the delay.

Question 78

In VA, when can joint tortfeasors seek contribution>

Answer 78

When more than one party is at fault (joint tortfeasors), and one party pays more than their fair share of the damages, that party has a right to seek contribution from the other at-fault parties. In Virginia, joint tortfeasors can seek contribution when the wrong results from negligence and does not involve moral turpitude (i.e. in a robbery, a tortfeasor can't lessen their own liability through contribution. Both are presumed completely at fault.)

Question 79

VA def petit larceny

Answer 79

petit larceny if she commits larceny from the person of another of money or thing of value of less than $5, or simple larceny not from the person of another of goods and chattels (not firearms) of the value of less than $1,000.

Question 80

In VA, define conspiracy.

Answer 80

A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons by concerted action to commit a criminal offense.

Question 81

In VA, may a party withdraw from the conspiracy if they get cold feet the morning of?

Answer 81

Not if the conspiracy was complete when the agreement was made and no further act was required to effect it.

Question 82

In VA, how can you withdraw from a conspiracy?

Answer 82

A co-conspirator may effectively withdraw from the conspiracy if he affirmatively informs the other conspirators of his withdrawal from the conspiracy. However, if the crime of conspiracy itself is already committed, then withdrawl won't change that. But it WILL get you out of liability for your criminal buddies' "reasonably forseeable acts in furtherance of the crime." NOTE: going to the police is not enough. You have to tell you co-conspirators

Question 83

In VA: IIED is. . .

Answer 83

he tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) consists of the following elements: (1) a voluntary act amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) committed intentionally or recklessly by the defendant; (3) causing emotional distress that was severe. The conduct must transcend all bounds of decency and be utterly intolerable in a civilized society. The distress must be such that no reasonable person could endure it. The transferred intent doctrine generally does not apply to IIED. However, the Restatement (Second) of Torts recognizes that a close relative of the victim who is present at the scene of the outrageous conduct may recover for IIED if the defendant knows the plaintiff is a close relative and all other elements are met.

Question 84

VA what does a bailee do to accept a bailment?

Answer 84

the bailee must: (i) physically possess the property with the intent to exercise control over it; (ii) consent to the bailment (mere custody of the property is insufficient); and (iii) be aware that the article exists. You’d want to mention as well that bailees are absolutely liable if the stray from the conditions of the bailment.