Torts Final Multiple Choice Questions

Question 1

Seth invited his new girlfriend Karen to a fancy destination wedding in Boone, NC. After the ceremony they made their way to the reception space and found their table. Once they were seated they talked about how beautiful the table decor was and then they had some champagne. When the servers arrived to deliver dinner Karen began shifting the table decor around to make room for her plate. In doing this she relocated her name tag closer to the center piece. The centerpiece consisted of an arrangement of flowers surrounded by a few candles. Unfortunately for Karen, and the other guests at the table, when she moved the name tag it touched one of the candles and set the centerpiece on fire. In a split second Seth grabbed his water glass and threw water on the fire to put it out before the centerpiece was completely destroyed.
In an action for trespass to chattels who will prevail?
A: The owner of the venue because Karen acted for the purpose of moving the name tag which caused the damage to the centerpiece.
B: The owner of the venue because Karen knew to a substantial certainty that moving the name card would cause a fire.
C: Karen because the centerpiece was not completely damaged as a result of her actions.
D: Karen because she did not intend to cause the fire.

Answer 1

D: Karen because she did not intend to cause the fire.
[1]

Question 2

For her 21st birthday party Regina decided she wanted to celebrate by inviting her friends and family over for a backyard barbeque. She asked her boyfriend, Shane Oman to cook hamburgers and hotdogs for everyone since he was a professional chef. Just before the guests arrived Shane Oman fired up the charcoal grill which was located at the edge of their property. As the temperature of the grill rose the smoke cloud got bigger and bigger and eventually drifted into the neighbor’s screened in porch. Mrs. Norbury, Regina’s neighbor, was sitting on her screened in porch attempting to enjoy her afternoon hot tea when she began coughing and wheezing as a result of the smoke from the charcoal grill. Upset about the situation Mrs. Norbury took her water hose and sprayed at Regina’s charcoal grill in attempt to smother the smoke.
In an action for trespass to land against Regina & Shane Oman will Mrs. Norbury be successful?
A: Yes. The smoke from Regina’s charcoal grill drifted on to her property which constitutes a trespass to land.
B: Yes. Because of Shane Oman’s experience as a chef he knew to a substantial certainty that the charcoal grill would produce enough smoke to drift nextdoor which shows he had the requisite intent for trespass.
C: No. The smoke did not cause any damage to Mrs. Norbury’s property.
D: No. The smoke was not a tangible invasion.

Answer 2

D: No. The smoke was not a tangible invasion.
[1]

Question 3

For her 21st birthday party Regina decided she wanted to celebrate by inviting her friends and family over for a backyard barbeque. She asked her boyfriend, Shane Oman to cook hamburgers and hotdogs for everyone since he was a professional chef. Just before the guests arrived Shane Oman fired up the charcoal grill which was located at the edge of their property. As the temperature of the grill rose the smoke cloud got bigger and bigger and eventually drifted into the neighbor’s screened in porch. Mrs. Norbury, Regina’s neighbor, was sitting on her screened in porch attempting to enjoy her afternoon hot tea when she began coughing and wheezing as a result of the smoke from the charcoal grill. Upset about the situation Mrs. Norbury took her water hose and sprayed at Regina’s charcoal grill in attempt to smother the smoke.
In an action for trespass to land against Mrs. Norbury will Regina & Shane Oman be successful?
A: Yes. Mrs. Norbury acted for the purpose of spraying the water into Regina & Shane’s yard.
B: Yes. Mrs. Norbury intended to damage the charcoal grill with the water.
C: No. The water was not a tangible invasion.
D: No. Ms. Norbury intended to spray the water, but she did not intend to trespass into Regina & Shane’s yard.

Answer 3

A: Yes. Mrs. Norbury acted for the purpose of spraying the water into Regina & Shane’s yard.
[1]

Question 4

After Gretchen inherited her father’s Toaster Strudel business she decided to buy a vacation home at the beach. When she moved in she discovered a clan of raccoons living underneath her house, so she called a local exterminator. The exterminator said he was booked until next month, but if there was a cancellation he would drop by and help her get rid of them. The next morning Gretchen left to run errands. When she returned she noticed that the door to the foundation crawl space was open. In an effort to make sure the raccoons didn’t escape she shut the door and barricaded it with a few bricks. At the same time the exterminator, who she had called the day prior, was underneath the house searching for the raccoons. The exterminator did not have a cell phone and wasn’t discovered until his partner returned with the work van to pick him up an hour later.
In his action for False Imprisonment will the exterminator be successful?
A: Yes. The exterminator was confined to the space underneath the house with no reasonable means of escape.
B: Yes. Gretchen knew the exterminator would be coming by if he got an opening and she intended to close the door and barricade it with the bricks.
C: No. Gretchen did not know the exterminator was under the house.
D: No. The exterminator was only under the house for one hour which is not long enough to be falsely imprisoned.

Answer 4

C: No. Gretchen did not know the exterminator was under the house.
[1]

Question 5

Janice Ian decided that she was obsessed with Caddy Herring and wanted to be close to her all the time. While Caddy was sleeping, Janice snuck into her room and handcuffed her wrist to Caddy’s so that her very best friend would never leave her side. Unfortunately, Caddy was deathly allergic to an ingredient in Janice’s perfume. Only minutes after Janice had secured the handcuffs, Caddy went into anaphylactic shock and lost consciousness. Janice noticed that Caddy seemed to be struggling to breathe so she immediately called 911. The ambulance came and EMTs cut the handcuffs immediately upon arrival. When Caddy woke up in the hospital the next day, she had no idea how she got there, and had no memory of the handcuffing incident.
If Caddy’s claim for false imprisonment fails what is the most likely the reason?
(a) Janice did not intend to cause Caddy any harm.
(b) Janice was not attached to Caddy long enough for there to be sufficient evidence of false imprisonment.
(c) Janice and Caddy are in a jurisdiction that requires conscious knowledge
(d) Janice and Caddy are in a jurisdiction that allows harm instead of conscious knowledge.

Answer 5

(c) Janice and Caddy are in a jurisdiction that requires conscious knowledge
[1]

Question 6

When it came time for intermission during Hamilton the musical, Janice decided to use the restroom. Naturally the line for the restroom was incredibly long, so to pass the time Janice struck up conversation with the woman waiting in line front of her. It turns out they were both staying at the same hotel and had plans to go to the same restaurant after the show. During their conversation Janice noticed a stray hair on the woman’s shoulder and decided to help her new friend out. She reached for the hair and said “let me get that for you.” It wasn’t until she had pinched the hair in an attempt to remove it when she realized the hair was still attached to the woman. While the interaction was incredibly awkward her hair removal attempt did not hurt the woman and the two just waited in silence until they were able to use the restroom.
In an action for battery against Janice will the woman be successful?
A: No. Janice was trying to help the woman and didn’t intend to hurt her.
B: No. The the contact did not cause the woman any pain or injury.
C: Yes. Janice intended to make contact with the woman and the contact was offensive.
D: Yes. The hair was an object intimately attached to the woman.

Answer 6

C: Yes. Janice intended to make contact with the woman and the contact was offensive.
[1]

Question 7

Regina George found out that Caddy Herring had planned to steal Regina’s hunky boyfriend and ruin her reputation. One day, in the school parking lot, Regina drives her silver beamer right up to where Caddy is standing. The front of her car is directly facing Caddy, and it is so close to her that Caddy can feel the heat from the car exhaust against her skin. Regina leaves the car on, but gets out to approach Caddy. She whispers in her ear “you ruined my life, so I am going to run you over with my car.” Caddy screams and turns and runs into the school truly believing that Regina would follow through on her promise. Regina doesn’t move, but instead remains standing and laughing maniacally.
If Caddy makes a claim for assault against Regina, who would prevail?
(a) Caddy will prevail because Regina threatened her with a harmful bodily contact.
(b) Caddy will prevail only if she actually feared that Regina would hit her with the car.
(c) Regina will prevail if she did not intend to actually hit Caddy with her car.
(d) Regina will prevail because the threat of harmful bodily contact was not imminent.

Answer 7

(d) Regina will prevail because the threat of harmful bodily contact was not imminent.
[1]

Question 8

Karen, who had just recently returned from a stint in the mental hospital for anxiety that she had about her violent stomach issues, decided to celebrate her release with a trip to Barnes and Noble with her bff Gretchen. While in Barnes and Noble, Karen got explosive diarrhea. Karen begged Gretchen not to tell anyone about it. Karen told Gretchen that she was so embarrassed by her stomach issues, she would undoubtedly become sick with anxiety if anyone found out about this incident. Gretchen, while she did not intend to hurt Karen, decided it would be hilarious to tell the school about Karen’s diarrhea on stage at the assembly that afternoon. As promised, Karen became physically sick with embarrassment and had to go home immediately.
If Karen’s claim for IIED fails, what is the most likely reason why?
(a) Karen’s claim will most likely fail because Gretchen did not intend to hurt Karen.
(b) Karen’s claim will most likely fail because her emotional distress she suffered was not severe enough.
(c) Karen’s claim will most likely fail because Gretchen’s conduct was not extreme and outrageous enough.
(d) Karen’s claim will most likely fail because getting diarrhea at Barnes and Noble is not that embarrassing.

Answer 8

(b) Karen’s claim will most likely fail because her emotional distress she suffered was not severe enough.
[1]

Question 9

Kevin G, a helicopter pilot, was flying his helicopter roughly 100 feet above the ground to check out an authorized landing zone when he noticed some vacationers relaxing on a nearby beach. The landing zone and the beach were separated by a chain linked fence. He and his crew, in an effort to get the vacationers to relocate, signaled for them to move to a safer location. The vacationers, however, did not recognize that the crew was warning them to move and instead got out their phones to record the landing. After two approaches without the vacationers moving, Kevin G decided to land the helicopter. As he landed, the blades on the helicopter caused the sand to lift off the ground and fly towards the vacationers. The vacationers were pelted with sand, an umbrella flew down the beach and impaled a snow cone cart and, a woman with two small children was so distraught she had to seek medical treatment for PTSD.
Who has a valid claim?
A: The vacationers for assault & battery; the snow cone cart owner for trespass to chattels; and the woman for intentional infliction of emotional distress
B: The vacationers for battery; the snow cone cart owner for trespass to chattels; and the woman for intentional infliction of emotional distress
C: The vacationers for assault & battery; and the snow cone cart owner for trespass to chattels
D: The vacationers for battery; and the snow cone cart owner for trespass to chattels
E: The vacationers for battery only

Answer 9

C: The vacationers for assault & battery; and the snow cone cart owner for trespass to chattels
[1]

Question 10

Regina’s prized possession was a crystal-beaded vintage Chanel purse that she kept in a glass display case in her room. One day Caddy came over and asked Regina if she could see the purse. Regina showed Caddy the glass display case, but she specifically asked her not to touch it. The moment Regina’s back was turned, Caddy reached into the glass case, and gently stroked the crystal-beaded material. Just as she was removing her hand from the case Regina turns around and yells “AHA! I knew you wouldn’t be able to keep your hands to yourself!” Caddy yells back, “Don’t have a cow Regina! The purse is completely fine.”
If Regina files a claim against Caddy for trespass to chattels who will prevail?
A: Regina will prevail because Caddy’s conduct amounts to dispossessing her of the purse.
B: Regina will prevail because Caddy intermeddled with the bag.
C: Caddy will win because the bag was not damaged.
D: Caddy will win because Regina was being unreasonable.

Answer 10

C: Caddy will win because the bag was not damaged.
[1]

Question 11

Regina’s prized possession was a crystal-beaded vintage Chanel purse that she kept in a glass display case in her room. One day Caddy came over and asked Regina if she could see the purse. Regina showed Caddy the glass display case, but she specifically asked her not to touch it. The moment Regina’s back was turned, Caddy reached into the glass case, and gently stroked the crystal-beaded material. Just as she was removing her hand from the case, a charm from her bracelet snagegd onto the purse removing a strand of the crystal beads. Regina turns around and yells “AHA! I knew you wouldn’t be able to keep your hands to yourself!” Caddy yells back, “Don’t worry Regina, my mom who is the best seamstress in town, and she will fix it no problem.”
If Regina files a claim against Caddy for trespass to chattels who will prevail?
A: This is a trespass to chattel because Caddy has intermeddled with the chattel and impaired its condition.
B: This is a trespass to chattel because Caddy has now dispossessed Regina of her purse in its original authentic condition.
C: This is not a trespass to chattel because Caddy did not intend to damage the purse.
D: This is not a trespass to chattel because the purse was fixable.

Answer 11

A: This is a trespass to chattel because Caddy has intermeddled with the chattel and impaired its condition.
[1]

Question 12

Regina’s prized possession was a crystal-beaded vintage Chanel purse that she kept in a glass display case in her room. One day Caddy came over and asked Regina if she could see the purse. Regina showed Caddy the glass display case, but she specifically asked her not to touch it. The moment Regina’s back was turned, Caddy reached into the glass case, and gently stroked the crystal-beaded material. Just as she was removing her hand from the case, a charm from her bracelet snagged onto the purse removing a strand of the crystal beads. Regina turns around and yells “AHA! I knew you wouldn’t be able to keep your hands to yourself!” Caddy yells back, “But it was an accident! Don’t worry Regina, my mom is the best seamstress in town, and she will fix it no problem.”
If Regina files a claim against Caddy for conversion what change in the fact pattern will make her claim valid?
A: Regina had planned on bringing the handbag to prom that very night and was unable to do so.
B: The cost to repair the bag was equivalent to the value of the bag itself.
C: The crystal beads which were no longer being made broke, and so the handbag would never be restored to its original condition
D: None of these facts make this a valid cause of action for conversion.

Answer 12

D: None of these facts make this a valid cause of action for conversion.
[1]

Question 13

While vacationing in the Florida, Glen CoCo and his family decided to take a trip to an alligator farm. They spent the whole day driving around in a golf cart watching the alligators swim and sunbathe. Before leaving the farm they stopped by the souvenir store. Glen CoCo always collected magnets while he was on vacation so he went straight for them once they got inside. His grandma got distracted at the entrance by the taxidermy alligators and spent a few minutes looking at them. She saw Glen CoCo browsing the magnets and decided to scare him with an alligator claw she found. She walked up behind him and rested the alligator claw on his shoulder and made a growling noise. It turns out, however, that the person she pranked was not Glen CoCo at all! It was actually another young man who was wearing the same Cowboys jersey as him! He saw the alligator claw and screamed at the top of his lungs. Glen CoCo’s grandma was incredibly embarrassed. She never meant to alarm anyone and only wanted to prank her grandson.
In a single intent jurisdiction, who would prevail?
A: The grandma because she did not intend to harm or offend the young man
B: The grandma because her contact was not offensive
C: The young man because the contact was offensive
D: The young man because the grandma intended to make contact

Answer 13

D: The young man because the grandma intended to make contact
[1]

Question 14

While vacationing in the Florida, Glen CoCo and his family decided to take a trip to an alligator farm. They spent the whole day driving around in a golf cart watching the alligators swim and sunbathe. Before leaving the farm they stopped by the souvenir store. Glen CoCo always collected magnets while he was on vacation so he went straight for them once they got inside. His grandma got distracted at the entrance by the taxidermy alligators and spent a few minutes looking at them. She saw Glen CoCo browsing the magnets and decided to scare him with an alligator claw she found. She walked up behind him and rested the alligator claw on his shoulder and made a growling noise. It turns out, however, that the person she pranked was not Glen CoCo at all! It was actually another young man who was wearing the same Cowboys jersey as him! He saw the alligator claw and screamed at the top of his lungs. Glen CoCo’s grandma was incredibly embarrassed. She never meant to alarm anyone and only wanted to prank her grandson.
In a dual intent jurisdiction, who would prevail?
A: The grandma because she did not intend to harm or offend the young man
B: The grandma because her contact was not offensive
C: The young man because the contact was offensive
D: The young man because the grandma intended to make contact

Answer 14

A: The grandma because she did not intend to harm or offend the young man
[1]

Question 15

Rose sees Dorothy holding Blanche in a headlock. Rose should have realized they were just joking around, but Rose hits Dorothy on the back, and Dorothy screams “OUCH.” Dorothy sues Rose for battery, and Rose raises defense of others.
Which of the following is not an argument Dorothy can make against Rose’s affirmative defense?
A. Rose acted unreasonably in believing Blanche was really under attack.
B. Rose used disproportionate force in repelling Dorothy
C. Rose could not have acted in defense of Blanche because Blanche was not privileged under these circumstances to use force in self-defense against Dorothy
D. Only the person under attack, and not a third party, may use force against an attacker

Answer 15

D. Only the person under attack, and not a third party, may use force against an attacker
[2]

Question 16

Dorothy underwent heart bypass surgery at Miami Memorial Hospital. Sophia had donated blood to be used during the operation. When Dr. Do performed the surgery, he requisitioned blood from the hospital’s blood bank for Dorothy’s transfusion instead of using Sophia’s donated blood. It was later determined that the hospital blood given to Dorothy was tainted with the Chikungunya virus.
If Dorothy asserts an action against Dr. Do for tortious battery, she will:
A: Prevail, if consent to the operation was based upon the use of Sophia’s blood
B: Prevail, if the hospital failed to properly screen the blood to detect its contamination
C: Not prevail, unless Dorothy actually contracted Chikungunya or a disease related to the blood contamination.
D: Not prevail, if it was the customary practice of doctors in the community to use blood from the hospital’s blood bank during surgery

Answer 16

A: Prevail, if consent to the operation was based upon the use of Sophia’s blood
[2]

Question 17

Stan entered a subway car at the 42nd Street Station. Because all of the seats were occupied, Stan stood in the subway car and grabbed a pole to secure his balance. As the subway car was proceeding crosstown, Sophia stood beside him. Suddenly, the subway car made an unexpected stop. Stan momentarily lost his balance, and grabbed Sophia around the arm (to avoid falling). Once Stan regained his balance, he removed his hands from Sophia’s arm and grasped the pole again.
In a civil action instituted by Sophia against Stan, he will most likely be found:
A: Liable for battery
B: Liable, if Stan mistakenly believed that Sophia consented to the contact
C: Not liable, because Stan’s conduct was customary in sudden stops
D: Not liable, because Sophia was not harmed by the contact

Answer 17

C: Not liable, because Stan’s conduct was customary in sudden stops
[2]

Question 18

While relaxing by the pool one Sunday afternoon, Blanche was struck by a golf ball driven by Marty, a 14-year old boy, who was playing the 9th hole at the Miami Golf Club. The fairway for the 9th hole was 65 feet wide and 437 yards long, with a dogleg in an easterly direction. Between the fairway and Blanche’s property was a “rough” containing low lying trees.
As Marty was approaching the green, he hit a towering shoot which deflected off a tree, struck Blanche, bounced of her head and knocked a straw hat off of Sophia’s head. Although the ball did not strike Sophia herself, she became startled and fell from her beach chair, thus breaking her arm.
At trial Blanche offered uncontested evidence that golf balls from the Club’s links regularly traversed onto her property two to three times a day.
Which of the following statements is most accurate regarding the liability of Miami Golf Club/Marty for trespass?
A: Defendants are not liable, since they did not intentionally cause the golf balls to traverse onto the plaintiff’s property
B: Defendants would remain liable for the unpermitted intrusion of the golf ball(s) onto the plaintiff’s property
C: Because the plaintiff should have reasonably anticipated that living next to a golf course would result in stray golf balls landing on her property, defendants would not be held liable
D: Because the golf balls did not substantially interfere with the plaintiff’s use of her land, defendants are not liable.

Answer 18

A: Defendants are not liable, since they did not intentionally cause the golf balls to traverse onto the plaintiff’s property
[2]

Question 19

Batman’s son, Batboy is 13 years old. One night, while Batman is playing poker with the Commissioner, Batboy sneaks into the Batcave and takes off in the Batmobile. Robin is walking his bike across the street at a crosswalk, and Batboy negligently hits him, destroying the bike and injuring Robin. This is not a rule of 7s jurisdiction.
When Robin sues Batboy for negligence, what standard of care will Batboy be held to?

Answer 19

RPP
[2]

Question 20

Little Tommy had been looking forward to his 6th birthday ever since his older brother, Timmy, turned 6. It was tradition in their family to give the young boys a .410 Shotgun on their 6th birthday so they could go duck hunting in Hyde County NC where they lived. Finally the day arrived. Tommy turned 6 and was given his gun. He was so excited to finally go duck hunting with his Dad, his older brother, and his Dad’s hunting buddy Mr. Earl. While walking to the impoundment Little Tommy was holding his gun over his shoulder when out of nowhere BAM the shotgun accidentally went off and blew right through Mr. Earl’s hand.
In Mr. Earl’s action for negligence against little Tommy will he prevail?
A: No. b/c Mr. Earl’s injury was the result of an accident.
B: No. b/c in NC children under the age of 7 are incapable of negligence as a matter of law in NC
C: No. The RPP standard would not apply b/c it is customary for children of his age to operate firearms and as such the RPC standard would apply. Under the RPC standard Tommy was acting reasonably.
D: Yes. Tommy was operating a firearm and so RPP standard will apply and he was not acting reasonably in accordance with the adult standard.
E: Yes. b/c Tommy was not acting as a reasonable person of his age, experience, and intelligence would have

Answer 20

B: No. b/c in NC children under the age of 7 are incapable of negligence as a matter of law in NC
[2]

Question 21

Little Tommy had been looking forward to his 6th birthday ever since his older brother, Timmy, turned 6. It was tradition in their family to give the young boys a .410 Shotgun on their 6th birthday so they could go duck hunting. Finally the day arrived. Tommy turned 6 and was given his gun. He was so excited to finally go duck hunting with his Dad, his older brother, and his Dad’s hunting buddy Mr. Earl. While walking to the impoundment Little Tommy was holding his gun over his shoulder when out of nowhere BAM the shotgun accidentally went off and blew right through Mr. Earl’s hand.
In a majority jurisdiction, will Mr. Earl’s action for negligence against little Tommy be successful?
A: No. b/c Mr. Earl’s injury was the result of an accident.
B: No. b/c children under the age of 7 are incapable of negligence as a matter of law
C: No.. The RPP standard would not apply b/c it is customary for children of his age to operate firearms and as such the RPC standard would apply. Under the RPC standard Tommy was acting as a reasonably prudent child of his age, experience, and expertise would have under the circumstances.
D: Yes. Since Tommy was operating a firearm and the RPP standard, instead of the RPC, standard would apply. Under the RPP Standard Tommy was not acting as a reasonably prudent person.

Answer 21

C: No.. The RPP standard would not apply b/c it is customary for children of his age to operate firearms and as such the RPC standard would apply. Under the RPC standard Tommy was acting as a reasonably prudent child of his age, experience, and expertise would have under the circumstances.
[2]

Question 22

A 15-year-old boy who lives on a farm with his parents in a rural area had learned to drive the family’s tractor when he was 11, and has operated it regularly since then. A state statute permitted persons without a driver’s license to operate farm vehicles on public roads for short distances. One morning the boy took the tractor onto a public road to reach one of the outlying fields a few hundred yards away. As he neared the field he was distracted by a cow, and cut in front of a milk delivery truck that was starting to pass him. The truck swerved off the road, injuring the driver. This jurisdiction recognizes the Rule of 7s. Which standard of care should be applied?

Answer 22

RPC presumed capable of negligence
[2]

Question 23

A 13-year-old was the youngest licensed pilot in the state. On a foggy day when pilots were being advised to fly only if necessary, the pilot took his plane out to fly low over the baseball field where her friends were practicing. When she attempted to land on her return to the airport, she ran off the runway due to the fog and damaged a mayor’s airplane, which was in the parking area.The mayor will likely prevail on the following reason:
A: A reasonable pilot would not have flown that day
B: A pilot with the same age, education, intelligence, and experience would not have flown that day.
C: It was not necessary for the pilot to fly that day.
D: The flying of a plane by a 13-year-old is an inherently dangerous activity, and the pilot is strictly liable for the damage.

Answer 23

A: A reasonable pilot would not have flown that day
[2]

Question 24

Professor Lukasik asked Jenna to hang Christmas lights on the Campbell University roof in hopes of spreading cheer to the burnt-out 1L’s who appeared to be sad and stressed about their upcoming finals. Jenna went into the Campbell maintenance closet and found a ladder tall enough to reach the roof. Unfortunately, on her way up, one of the ladder rungs snapped. Both Jenna and the ladder fell into the street below. Jenna was horribly injured, and the ladder was destroyed by oncoming traffic. Will Jenna be able to use Res Ipsa Loquitor to plead negligence against Campbell University in this case if we are in a minority jurisdiction?
A: No because there ladder might not be under Campbell University’s exclusive control.
B: No because Jenna cannot possibly prove a lack of negligence on her part.
C: No because ladders break all the time for lots of reasons that could have nothing to do with Campbell being negligent.
D: Yes since there is no direct evidence showing why the ladder rung broke.

Answer 24

D: Yes since there is no direct evidence showing why the ladder rung broke.
[3]

Question 25

The Ulta in Raleigh has a driveway entrance off of Main Street into the parking lot for the store. Ulta has several employees, and it is one employee’s duty to collect shopping carts that have been left in the parking lot. Most stores in Raleigh have stalls where customers can place their empty shopping carts. To save on costs, and direct their funds to promoting the new Naked eyeshadow palette, The Raleigh Ulta has not built such stalls. On Monday, the employee whose duty it is to collect shopping carts called in sick. As a result, shopping carts became piled up in the parking lot. That Monday, there was a freak windstorm in Raleigh, and the wind carried one of the carts into the middle of Main Street. Jenna was driving down Main Street toward the Ulta to buy some nyx epic ink liquid eyeliner. She was checking out her own perfectly executed cat-winged eyeliner in the rearview mirror when, at the last minute, she saw the shopping cart flying into the middle of her lane. In order to avoid hitting the cart, Jenna tried to drive around it, but was unable to do so successfully and ended up slamming on her brakes when the shopping cart hit and damaged her car. Marissa, who was driving the car behind Jenna at a safe speed and distance, ran into Jenna’s car causing Jenna to hit her head against the steering wheel. Can Jenna satisfy the factual cause for her prima facie case in negligence against Ulta?
A: Yes if the existence of stalls more likely than not would have kept the carts out of the road.
B: Yes if the stalls would have prevented the accident from happening
C: No because it is possible that the carts could have blown into the street even if they were contained to the stalls.
D: No because the wind storm was unforeseeable as a matter of law.

Answer 25

B: Yes if the stalls would have prevented the accident from happening
[3]

Question 26

The Ulta in Raleigh has a driveway entrance off of Main Street into the parking lot for the store. Ulta has several employees, and it is one employee’s duty to collect shopping carts that have been left in the parking lot. Most stores in Raleigh have stalls where customers can place their empty shopping carts. To save on costs, and direct their funds to promoting the new Naked eyeshadow palette, The Raleigh Ulta has not built such stalls. On Monday, the employee whose duty it is to collect shopping carts called in sick. As a result, shopping carts became piled up in the parking lot. That Monday, there was a freak windstorm in Raleigh, and the wind carried one of the carts into the middle of Main Street. Jenna was driving down Main Street toward the Ulta to buy some nyx epic ink liquid eyeliner. She was checking out her own perfectly executed cat-winged eyeliner in the rearview mirror when, at the last minute, she saw the shopping cart flying into the middle of her lane. In order to avoid hitting the cart, Jenna tried to drive around it, but was unable to do so successfully and ended up slamming on her brakes when the shopping cart hit and damaged her car. Marissa, who was driving the car behind Jenna at a safe speed and distance, ran into Jenna’s car causing Jenna to hit her head against the steering wheel. Can Jenna satisfy the proximate cause element for her prima facie case in negligence against Ulta?
A. No because the windstorm was unforeseeable.
B. No because Jenna’s driving maneuvers probably contributed to the accident.
C. Yes because Jenna’s driving maneuvers were not superseding intervening causes.
D. Yes because Jenna was already a bad driver and Ulta must take the plaintiff as she finds them according to the eggshell skull principle.

Answer 26

A. No because the windstorm was unforeseeable.
[3]

Question 27

Marie owns a beautiful home in North Carolina. Marie is a recluse and keeps the blinds always closed. She even has blackout curtains on the windows. When she has been outside, she has seen the trodden path across the backyard. Sierra, a 16-year-old, lives in Marie’s neighborhood. Sierra and her neighborhood friends, walk across Marie’s backyard to go to the lake in the summer. A horrible storm passed the night before and left the wooden trellis in Marie’s backyard weak. Next day, Sierra and her friends decided to go to the lake because it was a sunny day. Sierra walked across Marie’s backyard and under Marie’s white, wooden trellis. The trellis had become unstable because of the storm and collapsed on Sierra when her picnic bag hit it. Sierra sustained injuries. This jurisdiction follows the traditional approach. What duty applies to Marie, if any?

Answer 27

No duty

Question 28

Jamal, a 14-year-old teenager, is obsessed with finding the Sir Walter Raleigh’s treasured yellow diamond. (valued at 4 million dollars) Allegedly his descendant Bob inherited the diamond. Bob died from old age and Jamal saw his obituary in the newspaper. The rumor was that Bob asked to be buried with his inherited diamond. He was buried in the neighborhood cemetery. Jamal grabs gloves, flashlight, and a shovel and heads to the cemetery at midnight. He locates Bob’s resting place and starts digging up his grave. Two hours later, Jamal has reached Bob’s tomb and opens it up. As he is standing in the tomb, his hands searching for the treasure, Bob’s late wife, Patricia, walks up. Since Bob’s passing Patricia has visited him every night at 2 am. Patricia sees Jamal standing on top of Bob’s corpse and starts crying.
What standard of duty would apply to Jamal, if any?

Answer 28

NIED Special Duty Standard

Question 29

Shelly knew that her brakes were in poor shape but continued to drive on them for months. One day, as she was driving down a residential street with proper attention and care, Alice, a 9-year old, jumped out from behind a parked car right in front of Shelly’s car. Shelly slammed on her brakes but was unable to stop in time. Consequently, Shelly ended up running over Alice causing her personal injuries. Although Shelly ran over Alice, Alice jumped out from behind the parked car so suddenly and so close to Shelly’s car that she would have suffered the same injuries even if Shelly’s brakes been properly working.
Will Alice be successful in establishing a claim for negligence against Shelly?
A: Yes, because Shelly breached her duty as an RPP by driving with faulty brakes
B: No, because Alice was contributorily negligent with respect to her own safety.
C: No, because Shelly’s failure to keep her brakes properly maintenanced was not the factual cause of Alice’s injuries
D: Yes, because Alice is a child and the law is particularly interested in protecting children.

Answer 29

C: No, because Shelly’s failure to keep her brakes properly maintenanced was not the factual cause of Alice’s injuries
[3]

Question 30

Peggy Plaintiff was in retail store rented by Tommy Tenant. While in the store, Peggy Plaintiff fell on difficult to discern, cracked, and sliding tiles on the store floor and sustained injuries of $50,000. Tommy Tenant was unaware of the dangerous tiles but, in order to avoid litigation, he settled with Peggy Plaintiff for $30,000 in exchange for a covenant not to sue.After Peggy Plaintiff accepted the settlement, she brought a civil action against Diane Defendant, the owner and lessor of the store rented by Tommy Tenant. Diane Defendant moved to dismiss the action.
How will the court most likely rule?
A: Grant the motion to dismiss.
B: Deny the motion if Diane knew about the broken tiles before renting the store to Tommy or if she was negligent in making the repairs.
C: Deny the motion because Peggy’s covenant not to sue bars her from suing on this claim.
D: Grant the motion because Diane was not in possession of the property at the time the accident occured.

Answer 30

B: Deny the motion if Diane knew about the broken tiles before renting the store to Tommy or if she was negligent in making the repairs.
[3]

Question 31

Patty was driving home from school when David and Dennis negligently crashed into Patty’s car. David was driving and Dennis was intentionally distracting him as a joke. Patty sustained $100,000 in damages between her car and medical expenses. David was found to be 30% at fault and Dennis was 70% at fault. Patty settled with David for $20,000 and obtained a judgment against Dennis for $100,000.
How much can Patty recover from Dennis in a jurisdiction that retains joint and several liability but provides for settlement offsets on a pro rata basis?
A: $0
B: $80,000
C: $50,000
D: $70,000

Answer 31

C: $50,000
[3]

Question 32

Facts: P’s damages are $100,000. D-1 is 40% at fault. D-2 is 60% at fault.
(1) What is the outcome if P sues D-1 in a common law pro rata J&S liability jurisdiction and D-1 seeks contribution from D-2?
(2) What is the outcome if P sues D-1 in a jurisdiction that retains J&S liability, but allows contribution only on a relative fault basis, and D-1 seeks contribution from D-2?
(3) What is the outcome if P sues D-1 in a jurisdiction that has abolished J&S liability and D-1 seeks contribution from D-2?
(4) What if D-2 has settled with P for $30,000 in exchange for a covenant not to sue and P now sues D-1?

Answer 32

1: D1 liable for full amount; D1 can seek contribution from D2 in amount of $50,000
2: D1 liable for full amount; D1 can seek contribution from D2 in amount of $60,000
3: Depends on jurisdiction
a) Dollar for dollar: $70,000
b) Pro rate: $50,000
c) Percentage relative fault: $40,000
[3]

Question 33

Kevin was 20 % responsible for a 2-person accident with Stacey. Kevin’s actual damages were $60,000.
If Kevin seeks relief from Stacey in a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, how much, if anything, can Kevin recover if he prevails?
A: $48,000
B: $30, 000
C: $12,000
D: $0

Answer 33

A: $48,000
[3]

Question 34

Daisy Driver was injured when she drove her car through a stop sign and was struck by Tom Trucker’s truck. Tom saw Daisy and could have stopped but he failed to do so since he had the right-of-way. Patsy, a passenger in Daisy Driver’s car who was in no way negligent, and Daisy were injured. Tom sustained minor damage to his truck.
In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, under which of the following situations would the doctrine of last clear chance apply?
A: Tom Trucker asserts a claim for relief from Daisy Driver for negligent damage to his truck, and Daisy demonstrates that Patsy passenger saw the truck but never warned about it.
B: Patsy Passenger asserts a claim for relief against Daisy Driver and Tom Trucker for their negligence causing her injuries, and Daisy Driver establishes that Tom Trucker could have avoided the accident
C: Daisy Driver asserts a claim for relief against Tom Trucker for his negligence causing her injuries and establishes that Tom Trucker discovered her car in time to avoid the accident after she had no similar opportunity to avoid it.

Answer 34

C: Daisy Driver asserts a claim for relief against Tom Trucker for his negligence causing her injuries and establishes that Tom Trucker discovered her car in time to avoid the accident after she had no similar opportunity to avoid it.
[3]

Question 35

Greta needed to remove a Fig tree from her backyard. She bought some dynamite, set it in holes under the tree and blasted away. Greta had been trained to use dynamite in the Marine Corps and was an expert in its use. When she was engaged in blasting the tree out, she was extremely careful to follow all of the proper guidelines in the use of dynamite. Even with all of that care, however, the shock wave from the blasting cracked the neighbor’s house foundation. Does the neighbor have a claim for strict liability?
A: No. Greta was very careful, she will not be liable
B: No. The use of dynamite is common for blasting, strict liability will not apply
C: No. Blasting is a common usage for tree removal, strict liability will not apply
D: Yes. Blasting creates a risk that can’t be eliminated and is not of common usage, strict liability will apply

Answer 35

D: Yes. Blasting creates a risk that can’t be eliminated and is not of common usage, strict liability will apply
[4]

Question 36

The Jimenez are landowners and residents in Pittsboro, North Carolina. Their property has been damaged by toxic chemicals Empire Mining & Smelting Company permitted to escape from their property into the surrounding air, soil, and groundwater. Empire operates an open pit copper mine and extraction facility 5 miles from the Jimenez. Empire has extracted approximately 360 million tons of ore and debris from the open pit mine, which now remains as waste in a “pit lake.” The toxic chemicals on the mine site, including arsenic, lead, mercury, uranium, and radium, have contaminated the local groundwater, surface water, soil, and air, leaving the Jimenez exposed to them. The Jimenez sue Empire. Empire files a motion to dismiss the strict liability claim. Will the court grant Empire’s motion to dismiss the strict liability claim?

Answer 36

ANSWER: Strict liability will apply since there was a high degree of risk, a likelihood that harm will occur and the risk cannot be eliminate with the use of utmost care.
Step 1: Identify activity
Open-pit copper mining
Step 2: Is activity abnormally dangerous?
APPLY FACTORS:
OLD RESTATEMENT FACTORS
Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land, or chattel of others;
Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great;
Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;
Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage
Inappropriateness of activity to the place where it is carried on;
Likely appropriate when operations were ongoing
Extent to which its value in the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes
Likely had a great value to the community
CURRENT RESTATEMENT FACTORS
The activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and
Significant risk
open pit mining likely involves the use of many chemicals and the storage of many waste materials that will inevitably seep into the ground when stored in outdoor piles creating a high degree of risk of harm to people and land via heavy metals contamination –> high risk of harm e.g., cancer
Reasonable care
the risk of such seepage cannot be eliminated through reasonable care. In order to be profitable, a mine must presumably create abnormally vast piles of waste that cannot reasonably [*18] be isolated from the surrounding air and soil. Whatever is in these waste piles will inevitably diffuse into the surrounding environment.
The activity is not one of common usage
[4]

Question 37

Bob Builder Company was putting in a new street. In order to prepare the area, it had to run jack hammers and pile drivers for about two weeks. The amount of vibration caused was tremendous. Just beside the new construction was Smart Laboratory. Smart Lab ran experiments, using highly sensitive equipment, on a range of projects. After the two weeks of jack hammers and pile drivers, just outside the building, Smart Lab found that several of their experiments were ruined because the vibrations had disrupted the sensitive equipment. If Smart Lab sues Bob Builder Company for the losses, what is the best answer below?
A: Win. Company’s activity is appropriate for strict liability.
B: Lose. Company’s activity is inappropriate for strict liability.
C: Lose. Lab’s sensitive equipment and not the activity caused the harm
D: Win. Company’s activity created the risk of harm and caused the harm.

Answer 37

C: Lose. Lab’s sensitive equipment and not the activity caused the harm
[4]

Question 38

George Jungle kept a few animals as pets. In addition to the usual dogs and cats, he also had a zebra snake. The zebra snake had been captured as a snakelet. One day, the zebra snake got out of the yard and was slithering through the neighborhood. The zebra snake stopped to sunbathe in the middle of the sidewalk. Betty White was on her daily power walk, didn’t look down, and she tripped over the zebra snake and broke her ankle. Does strict liability apply?

Answer 38

ANSWER: NO. Doesn’t trigger strict liability
Could have tripped over a stuffed zebra snake
Focus on what makes a wild animal subject to strict liability
Is tripping on a power walk over something what makes this wild animal subject to strict liability?
Is this the kind of thing that happens when you keep a wild animal?
[4]

Question 39

Patty was driving home from school when David and Dennis negligently crashed into Patty’s car. David was driving and Dennis was intentionally distracting him as a joke. Patty sustained $100,000 in damages between her car and medical expenses. David was found to be 30% at fault and Dennis was 70% at fault. Patty settled with David for $20,000 and obtained a judgment against Dennis for $100,000. How much can Patty recover from Dennis in a jurisdiction that retains joint and several liability but provides for settlement offsets on a pro rata basis?
A:$0
B: $80,000
C: $50,000
D: $70,000

Answer 39

C: $50,000
[4]

Question 40

Facts: P’s damages are $100,000. D-1 is 40% at fault. D-2 is 60% at fault.
(1) What is the outcome if P sues D-1 in a common law pro rata J&S liability jurisdiction and D-1 seeks contribution from D-2?
(2) What is the outcome if P sues D-1 in a jurisdiction that retains J&S liability, but allows contribution only on a relative fault basis, and D-1 seeks contribution from D-2?
(3) What is the outcome if P sues D-1 in a jurisdiction that has abolished J&S liability and D-1 seeks contribution from D-2?
(4) What if D-2 has settled with P for $30,000 in exchange for a covenant not to sue and P now sues D-1?

Answer 40

(1) D1 liable for full amount. D1 can seek contribution from D2 in amount of $50,000
(2) D1 liable for full amount. D1 can seek contribution from D2 in amount of $60,000 (D2’s % of fault - 60% of $100,000=$60,000)
(3) D1 liable for $40,000.
(4) Depends on the jurisdiction
a. Dollar-for-dollar jurisdiction - $70,000 ($100K - $30K settlement = $70K)
b. Percentage pro-rata - $50,000 ($100K / 2 tortfeasors = $50K)
Percentage relative fault - $40,000 (D2’s percentage of fault - .40 x $100,000 = $40,000K)
[4]

Question 41

Plaintiff Kevin was involved in a 2-person accident with Defendant Stacey. Kevin was 20 % responsible for the accident. Kevin’s actual damages were $60,000.If Kevin seeks relief from Stacey in a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, how much, if anything, can Kevin recover if he prevails?
A: $48,000
B: $30, 000
C: $12,000
D: $0

Answer 41

A: $48,000
[4]

Question 42

Daisy Driver was injured when she drove her car through a stop sign and was struck by Tom Trucker’s truck. Tom saw Daisy and could have stopped but he failed to do so since he had the right-of-way. Patsy, a passenger in Daisy Driver’s car who was in no way negligent, and Daisy were injured. Tom sustained minor damage to his truck.In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, under which of the following situations would the doctrine of last clear chance apply?
A: Tom Trucker asserts a claim for relief from Daisy Driver for negligent damage to his truck, and Daisy demonstrates that Patsy passenger saw the truck but never warned about it.
B: Patsy Passenger asserts a claim for relief against Daisy Driver and Tom Trucker for their negligence causing her injuries, and Daisy Driver establishes that Tom Trucker could have avoided the accident
C: Daisy Driver asserts a claim for relief against Tom Trucker for his negligence causing her injuries and establishes that Tom Trucker discovered her car in time to avoid the accident after she had no similar opportunity to avoid it.

Answer 42

C: Daisy Driver asserts a claim for relief against Tom Trucker for his negligence causing her injuries and establishes that Tom Trucker discovered her car in time to avoid the accident after she had no similar opportunity to avoid it.
[4]