Torts Flashcards
A college student was asleep in his bed in a college dormitory when his roommate, in a drunken fury, entered their room intending to attack the student with an ice pick while he slept. Fortunately, the phone rang and awakened the student. The roommate retreated quickly and threw the ice pick under his own bed in the same room. The next day, the student heard from friends about the roommate’s murderous plans and later found the ice pick under the roommate’s bed. Even though the college expelled his roommate, the student remained extremely upset and afraid to sleep.
In a suit against the roommate for assault, will the student prevail?
(A) Yes, because it was reasonable for the student to feel afraid of sleeping in his room afterward.
(B) Yes, because the roommate intended to inflict serious harm.
(C) No, because the roommate did not touch the student.
(D) No, because the student was not awake when the roommate entered the room and was unaware until later that the roommate was intending to attack him.
D
A smoker and a nonsmoker were seated at adjoining tables in a small restaurant. The smoker’s table was in the smoking section, and the nonsmoker’s table was in the nonsmoking section. When the smoker lit a cigarette, the nonsmoker politely requested that he not smoke, explaining that she had a severe allergy to cigarette smoke. The smoker ignored the nonsmoker’s request and continued to smoke. As a result, the nonsmoker was hospitalized with a severe allergic reaction to the smoke. The nonsmoker brought a battery action against the smoker.
Which of the following questions will NOT be an issue in the battery action?
(A) Did the smoker intend to cause the nonsmoker’s contact with the cigarette smoke?
(B) Does smoke have the physical properties necessary for making the kind of contact required for battery?
(C) Is contact with cigarette smoke from a lawful smoking section in a restaurant the kind of contact one must endure as a voluntary restaurant patron?
(D) Was the smoker’s conduct unreasonable under the circumstances?
D
Athlete, a professional football player, signed a written consent for his team’s physician, Doctor, to perform a knee operation. After Athlete was under a general anesthetic, Doctor asked Surgeon, a world famous orthopedic surgeon, to perform the operation. Surgeon’s skills were superior to Doctor’s, and the operation was successful.
In an action for battery by Athlete against Surgeon, Athlete will
(A) prevail, because Athlete did not agree to allow Surgeon to perform the operation.
(B) prevail, because the consent form was in writing.
(C) not prevail, because Surgeon’s skills were superior to Doctor’s.
(D) not prevail, because the operation was successful.
A
Perry suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game at a public park. The injury occurred when Perry and Dever, on opposing teams, each tried to obtain possession of the ball when it rebounded from the backboard after a missed shot at the basket. During that encounter, Perry was struck and injured by Dever’s elbow. Perry now seeks compensation from Dever.
At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been rough from the beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to discourage interference by opposing players, and that Perry had been one of those making liberal use of such tactics.
In this action, will Perry prevail?
(A) Yes, if Dever intended to strike Perry with his elbow.
(B) Yes, if Dever intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Perry.
(C) No, because Perry impliedly consented to rough play.
(D) No, unless Dever intentionally used force that exceeded the players’ consent.
D
Al and Bill are identical twins. Al, angry at David, said, “You’d better stay out of my way. The next time I find you around here, I’ll beat you up.” Two days later, while in the neighborhood, David saw Bill coming toward him. As Bill came up to David, Bill raised his hand. Thinking Bill was Al and fearing bodily harm, David struck Bill.
If Bill asserts a claim against David and David relies on the privilege of self-defense, David will
(A) Prevail if David honestly believed that Bill would attack him.
(B) Prevail only if a reasonable person under the circumstances would have believed that Bill would attack him.
(C) Not prevail, because Bill was not an aggressor.
(D) Not prevail unless Bill intended his gesture as a threat.
B
A boater, caught in a sudden storm and reasonably fearing that her boat would capsize, drove the boat up to a pier, exited the boat, and tied the boat to the pier. The pier was clearly marked with “NO TRESPASSING” signs. The owner of the pier ran up to the boater and told her that the boat could not remain tied to the pier. The boater offered to pay the owner for the use of the pier. Regardless, over the boater’s protest, the owner untied the boat and pushed it away from the pier. The boat was lost at sea.
Is the boater likely to prevail in an action against the owner to recover the value of the boat?
(A) No, because the owner told the boater that she could not tie the boat to the pier.
(B) No, because there was a possibility that the boat would not be damaged by the storm.
(C) Yes, because the boater offered to pay the owner for the use of the pier.
(D) Yes, because the boater was privileged to enter the owner’s property to save her boat.
D
The police notified local gas station attendants that a criminal recently had committed armed robberies at five gas stations. The police said that the criminal was approximately 75 years old, had white hair, and drove a vintage, cream-colored Ford Thunderbird. Attendants were advised to call police if they saw her, but not to attempt to apprehend her. Armed robbery is a felony under state law. A woman was passing through on a cross-country journey. The woman was a 75-year-old woman who had white hair and drove a vintage, cream-colored Ford Thunderbird. When the woman drove into a gas station, the owner thought the woman must be the robber wanted by the police. After checking the oil at woman’s request, the owner falsely informed the woman that she had a broken fan belt, that her car could not be driven without a new belt, that it would take him about an hour to replace it, and that she should stay in his office for consultation about the repair. The woman was greatly annoyed that her journey was delayed, but she stayed in the owner’s office while she waited for her car. The owner telephoned the police and, within the hour, the police came and questioned the woman. The police immediately determined that she was not the criminal, and she resumed her journey without further delay.
In the woman’s action for false imprisonment against the owner, the woman will
(A) prevail, if the woman reasonably believed she could not leave gas station.
(B) prevail, because the owner lied to the woman about the condition of her car.
(C) not prevail, if the owner reasonably believed that the woman was the criminal.
(D) not prevail, because the woman suffered no physical or mental harm.
C
A man owned a much-loved cat, worth about $25, that frequently trespassed on a neighbor’s property. The neighbor repeatedly asked the man to keep the cat on his own property, but the trespasses did not diminish. Aware of the man’s attachment to the cat, the neighbor killed the cat with a shotgun in full view of the man. As a consequence, the man suffered great emotional distress.
In an action by the man against the neighbor, which of the following claims would be likely to result in the greatest monetary recovery?
(A) Battery
(B) Intentional infliction of mental suffering.
(C) Trespass to a chattel.
(D) Conversion.
B
A recently established law school constructed its building in a quiet residential neighborhood. The law school had obtained all of the necessary municipal permits for the construction of the building, which included a large clock tower whose clock chimed every hour. The chimes disturbed only one homeowner in the neighborhood, who had purchased her house prior to the construction of the building. The homeowner was abnormally sensitive to ringing sounds, such as bells and sirens, and found the chimes to be extremely annoying.
In a nuisance action by the homeowner against the law school, will the homeowner prevail?
(A) Yes, because the chimes interfere with the homeowner’s us e and enjoyment of her property.
(B) Yes, because the homeowner purchased her house prior to th e construction of the building.
(C) No, because the law school had the requisite municipal permits to erect the clock tower.
(D) No, because the chimes do not disturb the other residents of the neighborhood.
D
A four-year-old child sustained serious injuries when a playmate pushed him from between two parked cars into the street, where he was struck by a car. The child, by his representative, sued the driver of the car, the playmate’s parents, and his own parents. At trial, the child’s total injuries were determined to be $100,000. The playmate’s parents were determined to be 20% at fault because they had failed to adequately supervise her. The driver was found to be 50% at fault. The child’s own parents were determined to be 30% at fault for failure to adequately supervise him. The court has adopted the pure comparative negligence doctrine, with joint and several liability, in place of the commonlaw rules relating to plaintiff’s fault. In addition, the common-law doctrines relating to intrafamily liability have been abrogated.
How much, if anything, is the child’s representative entitled to recover from the driver?
(A) $30,000
(B) $50,000
(C) $100,000
(D) Nothing.
C
A manufacturing plant located near a busy highway uses and stores highly volatile explosives. The owner of the plant has imposed strict safety measures to prevent an explosion at the plant. During an unusually heavy windstorm, a large tile was blown off the roof of the plant and crashed into the windshield of a passing car, damaging it. The driver of the car brought a strict liability action against the owner of the plant to recover for the damage to the car’s windshield.
Is the driver likely to prevail?
(A) No, because the damage to the windshield did not result from the abnormally dangerous aspect of the plant’s activity.
(B) No, because the severity of the windstorm was unusual.
(C) Yes, because the plant’s activity was abnormally dangerous.
(D) Yes, because the plant’s location near a busy highway was abnormally dangerous.
A
A company manufactured metal stamping presses that were usually sold with an installed safety device that made it impossible for a press to close on a worker’s hands. The company strongly recommended that its presses be purchased with the safety device installed, but would sell a press without the safety device at a slightly reduced price. Rejecting the company’s advice, a worker’s employer purchased a stamping press without the safety device. The press closed on the worker’s hand, crushing it.
In an action brought by the worker against the company, will the worker prevail?
(A) Yes, because the company’s press was the cause in fact of the worker’s injury.
(B) Yes, because the company sold the press to the worker’s employer without an installed safety device.
(C) No, because the failure of the worker’s employer to purchase the press with a safety device was a superseding intervening cause of the worker’s injury.
(D) No, because the company strongly recommended that the worker’s employer purchase the press with the safety device.
B
A mother and her six-year-old child were on a walk when the mother stopped to talk with an elderly neighbor. Because the child resented having his mother’s attention diverted by the neighbor, the child angrily threw himself against the neighbor and knocked her to the ground. The neighbor suffered a broken wrist as a result of the fall.
In an action for battery by the neighbor against the child, what is the strongest argument for liability?
(A) The child intended to throw himself against the neighbor.
(B) The child was old enough to appreciate that causing a fall could inflict serious injury.
(C) The child was old enough to appreciate the riskiness of his conduct.
(D) The child was not justified in his anger.
A
A landowner who owned a large tract of land in the mountains sought to protect a herd of wild deer that frequented the area. Although the landowner had posted signs that said, “No Hunting—No Trespassing,” hunters frequently intruded to kill the deer. Recently, the landowner built an eight-foot chain-link fence, topped by three strands of barbed wire, across a gully on her land that provided the only access to the area frequented by the deer.
A wildlife photographer asked the landowner for permission to enter the property to photograph the deer. Because the landowner feared that any publicity would encourage further intrusions, she denied the photographer’s request. Frustrated, the photographer attempted to climb the fence. He became entangled in the barbed wire and suffered extensive lacerations. The wounds became infected and ultimately caused his death. The photographer’s personal representative brought an action against the landowner.
Will the plaintiff prevail?
D(A) Yes, because the landowner may not use deadly force to protect her land from intrusion.
(B) Yes, because the landowner had no property interest in the deer that entitled her to use force to protect them.
(C) No, because the photographer entered the landowner’s land after the landowner had refused him permission to do so.
(D) No, because the potential for harm created by the presence of the barbed wire was apparent.
D
A mother purchased an expensive television from an appliance store for her adult son. Two years after the purchase, a fire started in the son’s living room in the middle of the night. The fire department concluded that the fire had started in the television. No other facts are known.
The son sued the appliance store for negligence. The store has moved for summary judgment. Should the court grant the store’s motion?
(A) No, because televisions do not catch fire in the absence of negligence.
(B) No, because the store sold the television.
(C) Yes, because the son is not in privity with the store.
(D) Yes, because there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the store.
D`
