Torts AMP Set - Intentional Torts

Question 1

A prima facie case for intentional tort liability requires proof of _________.

A A volitional act

B Damages

C Malice

D Intent to cause injury

Answer 1

A

A prima facie case for intentional tort liability requires proof of a volitional act by the defendant; i.e., conduct dictated by the actor’s mind. The typical prima facie case for intentional tort liability requires the plaintiff to prove the following: (i) An act by the defendant; (ii) Intent; and (iii) Causation. Some intentional torts also require a showing of damages, but most do not. It is not required that there be proof of malice for intentional tort liability, although a showing of malice may permit the recovery of punitive damages. Nor is it required that the actor intend to cause injury. An intent to do the act that constitutes the tort is sufficient. QUESTION ID: T0027A Additional Learning

Question 2

Which of the following applies to self-defense for an intentional tort?

A One who is the initial aggressor may be able to defend himself

B One must attempt to retreat first

C One must have an actual necessity to defend oneself

Answer 2

A

One who is the initial aggressor may be able to defend himself. Usually, the initial aggressor may not defend himself against the other party’s reasonable use of force in self-defense. However, if the other party uses deadly force against an aggressor who had only used nondeadly force, then the aggressor may defend himself against that deadly force. It is incorrect that one must have an actual necessity to defend oneself. The actor need only have a reasonable belief as to the other party’s actions: i.e., apparent necessity, not actual necessity, is sufficient. Hence, one could make a reasonable mistake as to the existence of the danger and still maintain the defense. Also it is incorrect that one must attempt to retreat first before using self-defense. A substantial majority of the courts hold that one need not attempt to escape, but may stand his ground and even use deadly force when necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm. Some courts impose a duty to retreat before using deadly force when safe to do so, unless the actor is in his home. QUESTION ID: T0037B Additional Learning

Question 3

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof of:

A Physical injury

B Conduct that transcends all bounds of decency

C Offensive or insulting language

D An intent to cause severe emotional distress

Answer 3

B

Question 4

Which of the following must a plaintiff prove to establish intentional infliction of emotional distress from the defendant’s intentional commission of physical harm against a third person?

A The plaintiff came upon the scene within a reasonable time of the incident

B The plaintiff was at least a close friend of the injured party

C The defendant knew that the plaintiff was present

Answer 4

C

To establish intentional infliction of emotional distress for harm caused to another person, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew the plaintiff was present. When a defendant intentionally causes severe physical harm to a third person and the plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress because of her relationship to the injured person, the plaintiff is generally required to show: (i) the plaintiff was present when the injury occurred to the other person; (ii) the plaintiff was a close relative of the injured person; and (iii) the defendant knew that the plaintiff was present and a close relative of the injured person. Proof that the plaintiff was at least a close friend of the injured party is not sufficient. As stated above, the plaintiff must show that he was a close relative of the injured person. It is also insufficient that the plaintiff came upon the scene within a reasonable time of the incident. As stated above, the plaintiff must prove that he was present when the injury occurred to the other person. QUESTION ID: T0033A Additional Learning

Question 5

To assert the defense of property, a defendant using force against another may not:

A Use force without a request to desist

B Use force against one with a privilege to enter the property

C Make a mistake about the right to use force

D Use force that may injure the other

Answer 5

B

A defendant cannot assert the defense of property if she uses force against one with a privilege to enter the property. Whenever an actor has a privilege to enter upon the land of another because of necessity, right of reentry, right to enter upon another’s land to recapture chattels, etc., that privilege supersedes the privilege of the land possessor to defend her property. It is not true that the defendant may not use force that may injure the entrant. The force used must be reasonable and not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. It is incorrect to state that the defendant may not use force without a request to desist. A request to desist must usually precede the use of force, but if the circumstances make it clear that the request would be futile or dangerous, then a request to desist is not required. It is also incorrect to state that the defendant may not make a mistake about the right to use force. A reasonable mistake is allowed as to the property owner’s right to use force in defense of property, where the mistake involves whether an intrusion has occurred or whether a request to desist is required. QUESTION ID: T0039B Additional Learning

Question 6

The most complete statement of the transferred intent doctrine is that an intent to commit a tort against one person can be transferred to:

A The same tort committed against a different person or a different tort committed against the same person

B The same tort committed against a different person

C A different tort committed against the same person, the same tort committed against a different person, or a different tort committed against a different person

D A different tort committed against the same person

Answer 6

C

Transferred intent is defined as intending to commit a tort against one person but the intent is transferred to another tort or person. The transferred intent doctrine applies where the defendant intends to commit a tort against one person but instead (i) commits a different tort against the same person; (ii) commits the same tort as intended but against another person; or (iii) commits a different tort against a different person. QUESTION ID: T0021B Additional Learning

Question 7

The doctrine of transferred intent may not be invoked for which of the following torts?

A Intentional infliction of emotional distress

B Trespass to chattels

C False imprisonment

D Battery

Answer 7

A

The doctrine of transferred intent may not be invoked for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The doctrine of transferred intent permits an intent to commit a tort against one person to be transferred to another tort or person. It may be invoked for battery, false imprisonment, and trespass to chattels. Transferred intent may be invoked only if the tort intended and the tort that results are one of the following: Assault;Battery;False imprisonment;Trespass to land; andTrespass to chattels. QUESTION ID: T0028 Additional Learning

Question 8

What is the rule regarding damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

A Proof of physical injury is required

B Proof of actual damages is required

C Nominal damages may be recovered in the absence of evidence of injury

Answer 8

B

Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof of actual damages. A plaintiff cannot recover nominal damages from this tort. However, proof of physical injuries is not necessary; rather, severe emotional distress must be established. QUESTION ID: T0035 Additional Learning

Question 9

The “shopkeeper’s privilege” allows a shopkeeper to avoid liability for false imprisonment when detaining a suspect that he reasonably believes has committed a theft.
The shopkeeper also must:

A Conduct the detention in a reasonable manner and detain the suspect for only a reasonable time.

B Conduct the detention in a reasonable manner and notify the police in a reasonable amount of time.
Incorrect

C Conduct the detention in a reasonable manner, detain the suspect for only a reasonable time, and notify the police in a reasonable amount of time.

D Detain the suspect for only a reasonable time and notify the police in a reasonable amount of time.

Answer 9

A

In addition to having a reasonable belief as to the fact of theft, a shopkeeper is required to conduct the detention in a reasonable manner and detain the suspect for a reasonable period of time for the privilege to apply. By statute in some states and case law in others, shopkeepers have been given a privilege to detain someone suspected of shoplifting and thus avoid liability for false imprisonment. The following conditions must be satisfied: There must be a reasonable belief as to the fact of theft;The detention must be conducted in a reasonable manner and only nondeadly force can be used; andThe detention must be only for a reasonable period of time and only for the purpose of making an investigation. A shopkeeper is not required to notify the police in a reasonable amount of time to avoid liability for false imprisonment when detaining a suspect for shoplifting.QUESTION ID: T0032 Additional Learning

Question 10

Which of the following is accurate regarding the defense of property?

A A landowner may use deadly force to defend her property.

B A landowner’s right to defend her property supersedes other privileges.

C A landowner usually must make a request to desist before defending her property.

D A landowner cannot make a mistake as to whether an intrusion of her property has occurred.

Answer 10

C

A landowner usually must make a request to desist before defending her property. A request is not required if the circumstances make it clear that the request would be futile or dangerous. A landowner’s right to defend her property does NOT supersede other privileges. If another is privileged to enter upon a landowner’s property, due to necessity, a right of reentry, right to recapture chattels, etc., that privilege supersedes the landowner’s right to defend her property. A landowner CAN make a mistake as to whether an intrusion of her property has occurred. A reasonable mistake is allowed as to the landowner’s right to use force in defense of property, if the mistake involves whether an intrusion has occurred or whether a request to desist is required. A mistake is not allowed, however, if the entrant has a privilege to enter the property that supersedes the landowner’s right to defend her property. Then the landowner is liable for her mistake, unless the entrant intentionally or negligently caused the mistake. A landowner may NOT use deadly force to defend her property. One can only use reasonable force to defend her property, not force that will cause death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force can be employed only if the landowner or another on the property is physically threatened, such that she may act in self-defense or defense of others. QUESTION ID: T0039 Additional Learning

Question 11

Which of the following is required for a trespass to land?

A The plaintiff must request that the defendant leave the land
Incorrect

B The defendant must unlawfully enter onto the land

C The plaintiff’s land must be physically invaded

Answer 11

C

For a trespass to land, the plaintiff’s land must be physically invaded. The interest protected by this tort is exclusive possession of realty. A prima facie case for trespass to land requires proof of: (i) An act of physical invasion of the plaintiff’s real property by the defendant; (ii) Intent on the defendant’s part to bring about a physical invasion of the plaintiff’s real property; and (iii) Causation. All that is necessary to satisfy the first element is a physical invasion of the plaintiff’s land. It is not necessary that the defendant unlawfully enter onto the land. Thus, a trespass exists when a defendant floods a plaintiff’s land, throws a rock onto it, or chases a third person onto it. Furthermore, a trespass to land also exists when a defendant remains on the plaintiff’s land after an otherwise lawful right of entry has lapsed. It is also not necessary for the plaintiff to request that the defendant leave his land. The tort is complete as soon as the defendant, with the requisite intent, has caused the invasion. QUESTION ID: T0034A Additional Learning

Question 12

Which of the following is not an element of the prima facie case of false imprisonment?

A Intent to confine or restrain the plaintiff to a

B An act or omission to act on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area

C Causation

D Damages

Answer 12

D

Damages is not an element of the prima facie case of false imprisonment. That tort requires proof of the following elements: (i) An act or omission to act on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area; (ii) Intent on the part of the defendant to confine or restrain the plaintiff to a bounded area; and (iii) Causation. As indicated above, an act or omission to act on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area, intent to confine or restrain the plaintiff to a bounded area, and causation are required elements of the prima facie case for false imprisonment. QUESTION ID: T0022 Additional Learning

Question 13

Damages for conversion typically are calculated by:

A Fair market value of the chattel when converted

B Cost of replacing the chattel

C Cost of repairing the chattel

D Either cost of repair or cost of replacement of the chattel

Answer 13

A

Damages for conversion typically are calculated by the fair market value of the chattel at the time and place of conversion. In effect, the conversion is treated as a forced sale of the chattel. Damages for conversion generally are not calculated by the cost of repairing the chattel or the cost of replacing the chattel. The cost of replacement may be higher or lower than fair market value, depending on the chattel’s fluctuations in value. QUESTION ID: T0026A Additional Learning

Question 14

For defense of others, which of the following is correct regarding a defender aiding another person?

A The other person must actually need assistance

B The defender may be able to use deadly force

C The other person must not be able to escape

Answer 14

B

As to a defender aiding another person in defense, the defender may be able to use deadly force. The defender, if justified, may use as much force as he could have used in self-defense if the injury had been threatened to him. Self-defense holds that one may use only the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the harm threatened. Thus, one may use force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if he reasonably believes he is in danger of death or serious bodily injury. The right of a defender to aid another person does not depend on whether the other person actually needs assistance. The test is whether the defender reasonably believed that the other person needed assistance. Similarly, the defense of others does not depend on whether the other person was able to escape. If the other person has the right of self-defense, the majority rule is that no duty to retreat exists; thus, the other person may be aided even if she was able to escape. QUESTION ID: T0038B Additional Learning

Question 15

Which of the following is not part of the prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

A Physical symptoms caused by the emotional distress.

B Intent to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.

C An act by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct.

D Evidence of severe emotional distress.

Answer 15

A

Physical symptoms caused by the emotional distress are not required. A prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof of: (i) An act by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) Intent on the part of the defendant to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, or recklessness as to the effect of the defendant’s conduct; (iii) Causation; and (iv) Damages ? severe emotional distress. Intent to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress establishes the intent element of the tort. Reckless disregard of a high probability that emotional distress will result also satisfies the intent element of the tort. Evidence of severe emotional distress must be shown; hurt feelings are not sufficient. An act by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct is an element of the tort. QUESTION ID: T0024 Additional Learning

Question 16

Which of the following statements as to assault is correct?

A The plaintiff may apprehend an immediate harmful or offensive contact without feeling fear or intimidation

B A defendant is never liable for the plaintiff’s unreasonable fears

C Transferred intent may not be used for assault

Answer 16

A

In an assault case, the plaintiff may apprehend an immediate harmful or offensive contact without feeling fear or intimidation. Establishing a prima facie case for assault requires proof of an act by the defendant that creates a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact. Apprehension is not the same as fear or intimidation. Apprehension here is used in the sense of expectation. Thus, one may reasonably apprehend an immediate contact although he believes he can defend himself or otherwise avoid it. It is incorrect to state that transferred intent may not be used for assault. The doctrine of transferred intent does apply to assault cases. It is also incorrect to state that a defendant is never liable for the plaintiff’s unreasonable fears. Although typically the plaintiff’s apprehension of harmful or offensive contact must be reasonable, and courts generally will not protect a plaintiff against exaggerated fears, a defendant will be liable if he knows of the plaintiff’s unreasonable fear and uses it to put the plaintiff in apprehension. QUESTION ID: T0030B Additional Learning

Question 17

Which of the following is correct for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

A The plaintiff’s emotional distress must be severe

B Nominal damages are recoverable

C A physical injury must be established

D Punitive damages are not permitted

Answer 17

A

For intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff’s emotional distress must be severe, meaning more than a reasonable person could be expected to endure. Actual damages are required for this tort; nominal damages are NOT recoverable. In addition, a physical injury does NOT need to be established. Severe emotional distress is sufficient damages. Finally, punitive damages ARE permitted when the defendant’s conduct was improperly motivated. QUESTION ID: T0035A Additional Learning

Question 18

Which of the following is correct with regard to false imprisonment?

A The length of the confinement is immaterial

B The doctrine of transferred intent does not apply to false imprisonment

C The plaintiff is obligated to resist any physical force being applied to confine him

Answer 18

A

With regard to false imprisonment, the length of the confinement is immaterial. It does not matter how short the time period of the confinement is for the cause of action (it may affect the extent of damages). It is not true that the plaintiff is obligated to resist any physical force that is being applied to confine him. There is no need to resist to be able to maintain a false imprisonment claim. Similarly, where there is a threat of force, the plaintiff is not obligated to test the threat when the defendant has the apparent ability to carry it out. The doctrine of transferred intent DOES apply to false imprisonment. Under that doctrine, an intent to commit a tort against one person is transferred to another tort or person. False imprisonment is one of the torts to which the doctrine applies. QUESTION ID: T0022C Additional Learning

Question 19

How are damages generally computed for conversion?

A The cost of repairing or replacing the chattel at the time of trial.

B The difference between the value of the chattel before and after the conversion.
Incorrect

C The cost of replacing the chattel at the time and place of conversion.

D The fair market value of the chattel at the time and place of conversion.

Answer 19

D

For conversion, the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the fair market value of the chattel at the time and place of conversion. In effect, there is a forced sale of the chattel. The cost of repairing or replacing the chattel at the time of trial is not the correct measure of damages for conversion. Also, the damages measure is calculated from the time and place of conversion. Nor is the damages remedy for conversion the cost of replacing the chattel at the time and place of conversion; rather, the fair market value of the converted chattel is used, which may produce a different result. The difference between the value of the chattel before and after the conversion is not correct; that may be more appropriate as a measure of damages for trespass to chattels rather than conversion. QUESTION ID: T0026 Additional Learning

Question 20

Deadly force may be used in self-defense to an intentional tort __________.

A Only if actually necessary to prevent serious bodily injury

B Only if the person using deadly force was not the initial aggressor

C If it reasonably appears necessary to prevent serious bodily injury

D Under no circumstances

Answer 20

C

Deadly force may be used in self-defense to an intentional tort if it reasonably appears necessary to prevent serious bodily injury. When a person has reasonable grounds to believe that he is being, or is about to be, attacked, he may use such force as is reasonably necessary for protection against that potential injury. The person may only use that force that reasonably appears necessary to prevent the harm. Deadly force may be used if he reasonably believes that he is in danger of serious bodily injury. Thus, it is not true that deadly force may be used in self-defense under no circumstances. It is also not true that deadly force may be used only if actually necessary to prevent serious bodily injury. The person need only have a reasonable belief as to the other party’s actions; i.e., apparent necessity, not actual necessity, is sufficient. It is not correct that deadly force may be used only if the person using deadly force was not the initial aggressor. Usually, the initial aggressor may not defend himself against the other party’s reasonable use of force in self-defense. However, if the other party uses deadly force against an aggressor who had used only nondeadly force, then the aggressor may defend himself, even with deadly force if necessary. QUESTION ID: T0037A Additional Learning

Question 21

Which of the following is not a sufficient method of confinement or restraint with regard to false

A Invalid use of legal authority

B Indirect threats of force

C Future threats

Answer 21

C

Future threats are not sufficient methods of confinement or restraint with regard to false imprisonment. A prima facie case of false imprisonment requires proof of an act of omission to act on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area. A cause of action will not be sustained for restraint or confinement based on future threats, whereby a person remains in an area in response to future threats against person or property (but immediate threats may suffice). Invalid use of legal authority is a sufficient method of confinement or restraint. A defendant may falsely imprison a plaintiff by confining him through an unlawful arrest. Indirect threats of force are sufficient methods of confinement or restraint. False imprisonment can arise not only from direct threats of force but also from indirect threats of force, i.e., acts or words that reasonably imply (rather than directly state) that the defendant will use force against the plaintiff’s person, property, or immediate family. QUESTION ID: T0022B Additional Learning

Question 22

Which of the following is required to prove the act element of battery?

A Harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s body

B Direct harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person

C Contact that is harmful or offensive to the plaintiff’s person

Answer 22

C

Contact that is harmful or offensive to the plaintiff’s person is required to prove battery. To establish a prima facie case for battery, an act by the defendant that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person must be proved. Contact is harmful if it causes actual injury, pain, or disfigurement. Contact is offensive if it would be considered offensive by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. Contact is deemed offensive if the plaintiff has not expressly or impliedly consented to it. Battery does not require proof of harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s BODY. For purposes of a battery, anything connected to the plaintiff’s person is viewed as part of his person (e.g., a cane that the plaintiff is holding). Battery also does not require proof of direct contact with the plaintiff’s person. The defendant is liable not only for “direct” contact, but also for “indirect” contact: i.e., it will be sufficient if he sets in motion a force that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person. QUESTION ID: T0029B Additional Learning

Question 23

For a prima facie case of assault, _________ will satisfy the element of apprehension.

A An apparent ability to act

B Words alone

C Threat of future contact

Answer 23

A

An apparent ability to act will satisfy the element of apprehension in a prima facie case of assault. To establish a prima facie case of assault, the plaintiff must prove there was an act by the defendant that created a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact. A person may be placed in reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact even though the defendant is not actually capable of causing injury to the plaintiff’s person (e.g., pointing an unloaded gun at the plaintiff). For such apprehension to be reasonable, however, it is necessary that the defendant have the apparent ability to bring about such contact. Words alone will not satisfy the element of apprehension in a prima facie case of assault. Some overt act is necessary. Words alone, however violent, generally do not constitute an assault because they cannot create a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. A different result might occur when such words are accompanied by some overt act, e.g., a clenched fist. Threat of future contact also will not satisfy the element of apprehension. The apprehension must be of immediate harmful or offensive contact. Threats of future contact are insufficient. Similarly, there is no assault if the defendant is too far away to do any harm or is merely preparing for a future harmful act. QUESTION ID: T0031A Additional Learning

Question 24

For a prima facie case of assault, the element of apprehension may not be established by __________.

A an apparent ability to act

B words alone

C an expectation of contact

D a conditional threat

Answer 24

B

Words alone may not establish the element of apprehension in a prima facie case of assault. Words alone, no matter how violent, do not constitute an assault; they cannot create a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. Some overt act is required. If the words are accompanied by an overt act, like clenching a fist, then apprehension may be proved. A conditional threat may establish the element of apprehension in a prima facie case of assault. For example, if a gunman, while pointing a gun at a plaintiff, states, “Your money or your life,” then an assault has occurred. An apparent ability to act may establish the element of apprehension. A plaintiff may be placed in apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact, even if the defendant is not actually able to cause harm to the plaintiff. Apprehension will be established if the defendant appears to be able to cause harm to the plaintiff. The element of apprehension may be established by an expectation of contact. If a plaintiff expects that an immediate contact on her person will occur, then the element of apprehension has been established. QUESTION ID: T0031 Additional Learning

Question 25

Which of the following is not a form of implied consent?

A Apparent consent

B Consent by mistake

C Consent from custom

Answer 25

B

Consent by mistake is not a form of implied consent. Where a plaintiff expressly consents due to a mistake, the mistake is disregarded and the expressed consent is valid (unless the defendant caused the mistake or knew of it and took advantage). Apparent consent is a kind of implied consent. Apparent consent is that which a reasonable person would infer from the plaintiff’s consent. Thus, for example, somebody who voluntarily engages in a body contact sport impliedly consents to the normal contact inherent in playing it. Consent from custom is also a kind of implied consent. It is a form of apparent consent that may be inferred as a matter of usage or custom. Thus, for example, a person is presumed to consent to the ordinary contacts of daily life, e.g., minor bumping in a crowd. QUESTION ID: T0036B Additional Learning

Question 26

What is the key difference between trespass to chattels and conversion?

A The means by which the defendant interferes with the plaintiff’s possession.

B The seriousness of the interference with the plaintiff’s possession.

C The nature of the intent on the part of the defendant.

D The value of the chattels that are subject to the defendant’s interference.

Answer 26

B

The key difference between trespass to chattels and conversion is the seriousness of the interference with the plaintiff’s possession. An act by the defendant interfering with the plaintiff’s right of possession in the chattel that is serious enough in nature or consequence to warrant that the defendant pay the full value of the chattel constitutes conversion. On the other hand, a less serious interference with the plaintiff’s right of possession will constitute trespass to chattels (as long as the plaintiff suffered some damage). No specific rule can be stated for these situations; however, the longer the withholding period and the more extensive the use of the chattel during this time, the more likely it is that conversion has resulted. The value of the chattels that are subject to the defendant’s interference is not determinative. The defendant may interfere with the plaintiff’s possession of a valuable chattel but only briefly or in a minor way, and the defendant is liable only for trespass to chattels. The nature of the intent on the part of the defendant is essentially the same for both torts: the intent to perform the act that interferes with the plaintiff’s right of possession. The defendant need not have intended to cause a serious interference to be liable for conversion. The means by which the defendant interferes with the plaintiff’s possession need not be different for the two torts; it may be the consequences of the interference that make the difference. For example, a short joyride may amount to only trespass to chattels, but if the defendant accidentally totals the car while doing so, he will be liable for conversion. QUESTION ID: T0025 Additional Learning

Question 27

Which of the following statements regarding trespass to land is true?

A Only the owner of the property has a cause of action

B The trespass may occur below the surface of the land or in the air space above it

C Mistake as to the lawfulness of entry is a defense

D Damages must be established by the plaintiff

Answer 27

B

The trespass may occur below the surface of the land or in the air space above it. Courts generally construe plaintiff’s “land” to include air space and subsurface space to the height or depth plaintiff can make beneficial use of such space. Thus, for example, one could commit a trespass by stringing wires over the land, flying an airplane at low altitudes over it, tunneling under it, etc. The owner of the property is NOT the only party that potentially has a cause of action. An action for trespass may be maintained by anyone in actual or constructive possession of the land, even if that possession is without title. If no one is in possession, the true owner is presumed in possession and may maintain the action. In addition, it is not correct that damages must be established by the plaintiff. As with most other intentional torts, damages are presumed with a trespass to land: i.e., actual injury to the land is not an essential element of the cause of action. Also, mistake as to the lawfulness of entry is NOT a defense. A prima facie case for trespass to land requires intent on the defendant’s part to bring about a physical invasion of the plaintiff’s real property. As long as the defendant intended entry upon a particular piece of land, mistake as to the lawfulness of the entry is no defense. Intent to trespass is not required; rather, intent to enter onto the land is sufficient. QUESTION ID: T0034B Additional Learning

Question 28

Which of the following is correct regarding self-defense?

A Actual necessity is required.

B Deadly force may be permissible.

C Retreat is required.

D Retaliation may be permissible.

Answer 28

B

Deadly force may be permissible for self-defense. A person may use deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily injury to herself. Self-defense requires use of force that reasonably appears necessary to prevent harm. A person may use deadly force if she reasonably believes that she is in danger of serious bodily injury. Retaliation is NOT permissible for self-defense. Self-defense is only permitted to prevent the commission of a tort. A person cannot retaliate by using force when there is no longer a threat of injury. Retreat is NOT required for self-defense. A majority of courts hold that a person may stand her ground and need not attempt an escape. Actual necessity is NOT required for self-defense. A person need only have an apparent necessity to defend oneself, i.e., a reasonable belief that he is being, or is about to be, attacked. Thus, a reasonable mistake as to the need for self-defense does not eliminate this defense. QUESTION ID: T0037 Additional Learning

Question 29

A prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof of:

A Physical symptoms from the emotional distress
Incorrect

B A specific purpose by the defendant to cause distress

C Extreme and outrageous conduct

Answer 29

C

A prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof of extreme and outrageous conduct. The following elements must be proved: (i) An act by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) Intent on the part of the defendant to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress or recklessness as to the effect of the defendant’s conduct; (iii) Causation; and (iv) Damages in the form of severe emotional distress. As such, a specific purpose by the defendant to cause distress is not an element required to be proved. Reckless conduct is sufficient for the intent element. Similarly, proof of physical symptoms from the emotional distress is not a requirement. Severe emotional distress must be proved. QUESTION ID: T0024A Additional Learning

Question 30

Which of the following is never permitted in defense of property?

A The use of deadly force

B The use of force without a prior request to desist

C The use of force to recapture property

Answer 30

A

One may use reasonable force to defend property, but not force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. (Note, though, that the invasion of property may also raise a threat of serious bodily harm to the owner, who could use deadly force in self-defense, but that is not defense of property.) It is not correct that the use of force without a prior request to desist is never permitted. A request to desist usually must precede the use of force, but it is not necessary when the circumstances make it clear that the request would be futile or dangerous. Similarly, it is incorrect that the use of force to recapture property is never permitted. The general rule is that, once the defendant has been permanently dispossessed of the property and the commission of the tort is complete, she may not use force to recapture it. However, when the defendant is in hot pursuit of someone who has wrongfully dispossessed her of her property, the other is still viewed as being in the process of committing the tort against the defendant’s property, so she may use force to reclaim that property. QUESTION ID: T0039A Additional Learning

Question 31

To establish a prima facie case of battery, which of the following must a plaintiff prove?

A Apprehension by the plaintiff

B Harmful contact or offensive contact as judged by a reasonable person

C Actual damages

D Direct contact with the plaintiff’s body from the defendant

Answer 31

B

Harmful contact or offensive contact as judged by a reasonable person must be proved by a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of battery. The elements that must be proved to establish a prima facie case for battery are: (i) An act by the defendant that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person; (ii) Intent by the defendant to bring about the harmful or offensive contact; and (iii) Causation. Contact is harmful if it causes actual injury, pain, or disfigurement. Contact is offensive if it would be considered offensive to a reasonable person. Direct contact with the plaintiff’s body from the defendant need not be proved by a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of battery. For battery purposes, anything connected to the plaintiff’s person is viewed as part of the person, such as a purse. Indirect contact also will suffice (e.g., the defendant puts something across the plaintiff’s path to cause her to trip). Apprehension by the plaintiff need not be proved by a plaintiff for battery. A plaintiff may recover even if she was not conscious of the harmful or offensive contact when it occurred. For example, a plaintiff could suffer a battery while under sedation for a surgery. Actual damages also need not be proved by a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of battery. A plaintiff may recover nominal damages even if she suffered no actual damages. QUESTION ID: T0029 Additional Learning

Question 32

Which of the following is required for a shopkeeper who detains someone suspected of shoplifting to avoid liability for false imprisonment?

A The detention must be for a reasonable amount of time

B The shopkeeper cannot use force

C A theft in fact must have occurred

Answer 32

A

The detention must be for a reasonable amount of time for a shopkeeper who detains someone suspected of shoplifting to avoid liability for false imprisonment. The detention also must be only for the purpose of making an investigation. It is not necessary that a theft in fact have occurred. The privilege applies as long as the shopkeeper reasonably believed a theft had occurred, even if mistaken. It is not correct that the shopkeeper cannot use force. While the shopkeeper cannot use deadly force during the shoplifting detention, he may use reasonable nondeadly force. QUESTION ID: T0032A Additional Learning

Question 33

Which of the following is required to establish a prima facie case for false imprisonment?

A A bounded area

B Resistance by the plaintiff

C Injury

Answer 33

A

The following elements must be proved to establish a prima facie case for false imprisonment: (i) An act or omission on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area; (ii) intent on the part of the defendant to confine or restrain the plaintiff to a bounded area; and (iii) causation. Neither injury to the plaintiff nor resistance by the plaintiff is a necessary element of the tort. QUESTION ID: T0022A Additional Learning

Question 34

To establish a prima facie case of assault, a plaintiff must prove the __________.

A plaintiff had fear or intimidation

B defendant had the actual ability to cause injury to the plaintiff

C plaintiff had a reasonable apprehension

D plaintiff had knowledge of the defendant’s identity

Answer 34

C

To establish a prima facie case of assault, the plaintiff must prove she had a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires proof of: (i) An act by the defendant creating a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person; (ii) Intent by the defendant to cause apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person; and (iii) Causation. The plaintiff’s apprehension must be reasonable; courts will generally not protect a plaintiff’s exaggerated fears of contact, unless the defendant knew of an unreasonable fear in the plaintiff and exploited it. The plaintiff does not need to prove that she had fear or intimidation. Fear or intimidation is not the same as apprehension. Apprehension means a sense of expectation in the plaintiff. Thus, a plaintiff could meet the apprehension requirement by expecting contact from the defendant, but not being in fear of the contact. The plaintiff also does not need to prove that she had knowledge of the defendant’s identity. The plaintiff need only apprehend a harmful or offensive contact; she does not need to know the source or identity of the contact. Furthermore, the plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant had the actual ability to cause injury to the plaintiff. An apparent ability to cause injury is sufficient. Thus, a plaintiff could be assaulted with an unloaded gun, if she did not know that the gun was unloaded. QUESTION ID: T0030 Additional Learning

Question 35

When is an arrest for a felony without a warrant by a private citizen permitted without liability for false imprisonment?

A When the citizen has reasonable grounds for believing that a felony has been committed, and in fact the person arrested has committed it.

B When the citizen has reasonable grounds for believing both that a felony has been committed and that the person arrested has committed it.

C When a felony has in fact been committed, and the citizen has reasonable grounds for believing that the person arrested has committed it.

D When the citizen has reasonable grounds for believing that a felony has been committed, but in fact only a misdemeanor has been committed.

Answer 35

C

When a felony has in fact been committed and the citizen has reasonable grounds for believing that the person arrested has committed it, the citizen may make an arrest for a felony without a warrant. No liability for false imprisonment arises in that scenario because the arrest is privileged. It is not sufficient that the citizen has reasonable grounds for believing that a felony has been committed; the felony must in fact have been committed for the privilege of arrest to apply. Nor is it necessary that the person arrested has in fact committed the felony for the privilege of arrest to apply; the citizen need only reasonably believe that the person arrested has committed the felony. Even if a misdemeanor has in fact been committed, it is still not enough that the citizen has reasonable grounds for believing that a felony has been committed; a felony must in fact have been committed. QUESTION ID: T0023 Additional Learning

Question 36

A prima facie case for assault requires __________:

A Harmful or offensive contact

B Damages

C Apprehension of future contact

D Awareness of the force set in motion by the defendant’s act

Answer 36

D

A prima facie case for assault requires an awareness of the force set in motion by the defendant’s act. To establish a prima facie case for assault, the following elements must be proved: (i) An act by the defendant creating a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person; (ii) Intent on the part of the defendant to bring about in the plaintiff apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person; and (iii) Causation. For there to be an apprehension, the plaintiff must have been aware of the threat from the defendant’s act. In contrast, it is not necessary that the plaintiff know who the defendant is at the time of the act; i.e., one only need apprehend an immediate harmful or offensive contact, not the identity of the person who is directing this unpermitted force at him. Harmful or offensive contact is not required for assault; that is an element of battery. An assault can be committed without contact occurring. Apprehension of future contact is not an element of assault. Rather, the plaintiff’s apprehension must be of immediate harmful or offensive contact. Also, a prima facie case for assault does not require proof of damages. If the three elements necessary to establish a prima facie case for assault are shown, the plaintiff can recover nominal damages if no evidence of injury is shown. QUESTION ID: T0030A Additional Learning

Question 37

Which of the following is required to establish the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

A A special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant

B Knowledge on the defendant’s part of the plaintiff’s sensitivity

C Actual damages

D The extreme and outrageous conduct must be directed at the plaintiff

Answer 37

C

Actual damages are required to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress. To establish a prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress, there must be proof of: (i) an act by the defendant that amounts to extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent on the part of the defendant to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress or recklessness as to the effect of the defendant’s conduct; (iii) causation; and (iv) severe emotional distress. While proof of physical injury is not required, the plaintiff must present some evidence of severe emotional distress. A special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is not required to establish intentional infliction of emotional distress. Note, however, that the existence of a special relationship may lower the bar for what constitutes outrageous conduct. Similarly, knowledge on the defendant’s part of the plaintiff’s sensitivity is not a required element, but it also may make it easier for the plaintiff to establish the tort. If the defendant knows that the plaintiff is more sensitive and thus more susceptible to emotional distress than the average person, liability will follow if the defendant uses extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally to cause such distress and succeeds. It is also not always required that the extreme and outrageous conduct be directed at the plaintiff. If a defendant intentionally causes severe physical harm to a third person and the plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress because of her relationship to the injured person, the plaintiff can establish the tort if: (i) the plaintiff was present when the injury occurred to the other person; (ii) the plaintiff was a close relative of the injured person; and (iii) the defendant knew that the plaintiff was present and a close relative of the injured person. QUESTION ID: T0033B Additional Learning

Question 38

For the defense of reentry onto land, which of the following is true?

A Force may never be used to regain possession

B One can use force to regain possession only if she acts promptly

C One who has been dispossessed by fraud or force may use force to regain possession

Answer 38

A

For the defense of reentry onto land, force may never be used to regain possession. In former years, one who had been tortiously dispossessed from her land by fraud or force could use reasonable force if, upon discovering the dispossession, she acted promptly to regain possession. Most states today do not allow resort to “self-help”; one who has been wrongfully excluded from possession of real property may bring an ejectment action or other summary procedure to recover possession. Hence, the owner who uses force to retake possession is liable for whatever injury she inflicts. QUESTION ID: T0040B Additional Learning

Question 39

Which of the following types of arrests without a warrant may constitute an invalid use of legal authority for false imprisonment purposes?

A A misdemeanor arrest by a private citizen for a breach of the peace committed in her presence

B A felony arrest by a private citizen if she has reasonable grounds for believing that a felony has been committed

C A felony arrest by a private citizen if she has reasonable grounds for believing that the person arrested has committed the felony that took place

D A felony arrest by a police officer if she has reasonable grounds for believing that the person arrested has committed a felony

Answer 39

B

A felony arrest by a private citizen with reasonable grounds to believe that a felony has been committed may constitute an invalid use of legal authority for false imprisonment purposes. A felony must in fact have been committed for the arrest to be valid; if the private citizen was mistaken in her belief, even though reasonable, she may be liable for false imprisonment. When an arrest by a police officer or private citizen for a criminal offense is made without a warrant, it may constitute a false imprisonment unless it is privileged. Slightly different rules apply to police officers than to private citizens in this situation. In contrast to the rule for private citizens, a felony arrest by a police officer is valid if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person arrested has committed a felony, even if a felony in fact has not been committed or the person arrested did not commit it. Another arrest that is privileged is a felony arrest by a private citizen if she has reasonable grounds for believing that the person arrested has committed the felony that took place, even if it turns out that the person arrested did not in fact commit the felony that took place. A misdemeanor arrest by a private citizen for a breach of the peace committed in her presence is also privileged. Both police officers and private citizens are privileged for misdemeanor arrests without a warrant if the misdemeanor was a breach of the peace and was committed in the presence of the arresting party. QUESTION ID: T0023A Additional Learning

Question 40

Defense of others is available as a defense if the defender:

A Has a reasonable belief that the person being aided has the right of self-defense

B Uses only as much force as the person being aided has a right to use

C Has no opportunity to help the person being aided to retreat

Answer 40

A

Defense of others is available as a defense if the defender has a reasonable belief that the person being aided has the right of self-defense. Thus, even if the person being aided has no defense, the defender is not liable as long as he reasonably believed that the person aided could have used force to protect himself. The right to assert the defense of others as a defense does not require that the defender have no opportunity to help the person being aided to retreat. The rules applicable to the person being aided apply to the defender; hence, one need not attempt to help the person aided retreat before acting to defend the person. The right to assert the defense of others as a defense also does not depend on whether the defender uses only as much force as the person being aided has a right to use. The defender may use as much force as he could have used in self-defense if the injury were threatened to him. The focus is not on how much force the person being aided has a right to use, but on how much force the defender reasonably believes that the person being aided has a right to use. QUESTION ID: T0038A Additional Learning

Question 41

Which of the following intentional conduct by the defendant is least likely to constitute a trespass to land?

A Chasing someone from his own land onto the plaintiff’s land which causes no damage.

B Exploding a mine on his own land which causes concussion damage to the plaintiff’s land.

C Flooding his own land which causes water damage to the plaintiff’s land from the overflow.

D Throwing a rock onto a plaintiff’s driveway which causes no damage.

Answer 41

B

If a defendant explodes a mine on his land which causes only concussion damage to a plaintiff’s land, this will likely not constitute a trespass to land. A trespass to land requires a physical invasion of a plaintiff’s real property by a defendant. If no physical object enters onto the plaintiff’s land due to the defendant’s actions, courts will generally not treat the defendant’s conduct as a trespass to land. Instead, this will constitute a case of nuisance or strict liability (if ultrahazardous activities are involved). If a defendant throws a rock onto the plaintiff’s driveway, causes water to flow onto the plaintiff’s land, or chases someone onto the plaintiff’s land, this will likely constitute a trespass to land. Although in none of these scenarios does the defendant actually enter upon the plaintiff’s land, a trespass to land does not require that the defendant personally come onto the land. The tort of trespass to land protects a plaintiff’s exclusive possession of realty from physical invasion, and all that is required to satisfy this element is a physical invasion of the plaintiff’s land. Furthermore, damages are not required for this tort. The defendant has committed a trespass even if the property was not damaged. QUESTION ID: T0034 Additional Learning

Question 42

Which of the following torts permits use of the transferred intent doctrine?

A Nuisance

B Intentional misrepresentation (fraud)

C Intentional infliction of emotional distress

D False imprisonment

Answer 42

D

Under the transferred intent doctrine, an intent to commit a tort against one person is transferred to another tort or person. Transferred intent may be invoked only when the tort intended and the tort that results are both within the following: assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, or trespass to chattels. The torts of nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional misrepresentation do not permit use of the transferred intent doctrine. QUESTION ID: T0028B Additional Learning

Question 43

A prima facie case for battery requires proof of:

A Direct or indirect contact to the plaintiff’s person

B Apprehension of imminent contact with the plaintiff’s person

C Contact that is harmful to the plaintiff’s person

Answer 43

A

A prima facie case for battery requires proof of direct or indirect contact to the plaintiff’s person. To establish a prima facie case for battery, the following elements must be proved: (i) An act by the defendant that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person; (ii) Intent on the part of the defendant to bring about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person; and (iii) Causation. For causation, there must be direct or indirect contact to the plaintiff’s person. Thus, there is causation if the defendant sets in motion a force that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person (e.g., setting a trap). A prima facie case for battery does not require proof of contact that is harmful to the plaintiff’s person; as stated above, the contact may be either harmful or offensive to satisfy the act element of the tort. A prima facie case for battery also does not require proof of apprehension of imminent contact with the plaintiff’s person. A plaintiff may recover even if she was not conscious of the harmful or offensive contact when it occurred. QUESTION ID: T0029A Additional Learning

Question 44

Which of the following is generally true with regard to intentional tort liability?

A The prima facie case requires proof of damages

B The prima facie case requires a volitional movement by the defendant

C Minors and incompetents are not liable for their intentional torts

D The prima facie case requires specific intent

Answer 44

B

A prima facie case of intentional tort liability requires a volitional movement by the defendant. To establish a prima facie case for intentional tort liability, it is generally necessary that the plaintiff prove: (i) An act by the defendant; (ii) Intent; and (iii) Causation. The “act” requirement for intentional tort liability refers to a volitional movement on the defendant’s part. In general, a prima facie case of intentional tort liability does NOT require proof of damages. For most intentional torts, nominal damages may be awarded if the plaintiff does not establish actual damages. A prima facie case of intentional tort liability also does NOT require specific intent. Although intent is one of the necessary elements that must be proved for intentional tort liability, the requisite intent is satisfied not just when the actor has the specific purpose to bring about a particular consequence but also when the actor knows with substantial certainty that the tortious consequences would result. Minors and incompetents ARE liable for their intentional torts; i.e., they may be found to possess the required intent. QUESTION ID: T0027B Additional Learning

Question 45

A defendant intended to commit an assault on A, but his conduct only constituted a battery on B.
Under the transferred intent doctrine, the defendant is liable for __________.

A an attempted assault of A and an assault of B

B an assault of B

C an attempted assault of A and a battery of B

D a battery of B

Answer 45

D

The defendant has committed a battery of B when he acts with the intent to commit an assault on A, but his conduct constitutes a battery on B. The transferred intent doctrine allows an intent to commit a tort against one person to be transferred to the committed tort or to the injured person. It applies to (i) assault, (ii) battery, (iii) false imprisonment, (iv) trespass to land, and (v) trespass to chattels. The defendant is not liable for an assault of B. The committed tort was a battery, and the intent transfers from the assault to the battery. Nor is the defendant liable for an attempted assault of A. There is no tort liability for an attempted assault standing alone. The defendant is liable only because of the transferred intent doctrine, and only to the person harmed. Hence, there is no liability to A here. QUESTION ID: T0021 Additional Learning