Torts Flashcards
A company owned and operated a private golf course. One of the fairways on the course ran parallel to a navigable body of water that is rarely used by boats. The company was aware that golfers frequently but unintentionally hit golf balls into the water when playing that hole because there were no barriers to prevent the balls from going into the water. The golf balls resulted in pollution of the water in violation of a local ordinance that prohibits the pollution of bodies of water in the jurisdiction.
A 12-year-old child was sailing on the water with his family when he was struck by a golf ball that a golfer unintentionally hit from the golf course toward the water. The child suffered a serious physical injury.
The injured child’s parents have filed a public nuisance action against the company, on behalf of their child, to recover for his injuries.
Are the parents precluded from recovery?
A. No, because of the attractive nuisance doctrine.
B. No, because the child suffered harm that was different from that suffered by the public at large.
C. Yes, because the child did not have an ownership interest in land.
D. Yes, because the golfer’s action was unintentional.
A movie theater brought an action against a manufacturer and a retailer based solely on strict products liability for damages suffered when the theater’s $20,000 movie projector caught on fire. While the fire destroyed the projector, it caused no property damage to its surroundings and no bodily harm because the projectionist put out the fire before it could spread. The movie theater sought economic damages based on the cost of the projector, as well as lost profits for the week the theater was closed until a replacement projector could be obtained.
At trial, the court ruled that because the projector had been destroyed, the theater was entitled to an inference that it was defective, which the defendants were free to rebut. The manufacturer presented evidence clearly showing that the only damage sustained by the theater was the destruction of the projector. The manufacturer and the retailer then filed a joint motion for a directed verdict.
Should the court grant the motion?
A. No as to both defendants, because the court must infer that the projector was defective.
B. No as to both defendants, because the theater is entitled to recover economic losses.
C. Yes as to both defendants, because the theater suffered purely economic losses.
D. Yes as to the retailer only, because the retailer was not involved in the manufacture of the projector.
