Torts Learning Questions - Set 2 Flashcards
Force may not be used by __________.
A
a property owner to defend property from tortious interference
B
a citizen in effecting a misdemeanor arrest
C
a landowner to regain real property after being tortiously dispossessed
D
an owner of chattel to recapture the chattel
C
A landowner may not use force to regain real property after being tortiously dispossessed. 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. (In former years, under the common law, a landowner tortiously dispossessed of real property could use reasonable force to regain possession, if she acted promptly upon discovery of the dispossession.)
An owner of chattel may use force to recapture the chattel. An owner may use reasonable force to recapture a chattel when in “hot pursuit” of the tortfeasor. A demand for return of the chattel must be made before force is used, unless the demand would be futile or dangerous. However, force can be used only against the tortfeasor or a third party who knows that the chattel was tortiously obtained. If an innocent third party has obtained the chattel, the owner is no longer privileged to use force to effect a recapture of the chattel.
A citizen may use force to effect a misdemeanor arrest. However, the citizen is allowed to use only the amount of force necessary to effect the arrest and never deadly force.
A property owner may use force to defend the property from tortious interference. Although a property owner may use reasonable force to defend property, she may not use force that will cause death or serious bodily harm. Furthermore, one may not use indirect deadly force such as a trap, spring gun, or vicious dog when such force could not lawfully be directly used, e.g., against a mere trespasser.
To assert the defense of property, a defendant using force against another may not:
A
Use force that may injure the other
B
Make a mistake about the right to use force
C
Use force against one with a privilege to enter the property
D
Use force without a request to desist
C
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.
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, detain the suspect for only a reasonable time, and notify the police in a reasonable amount of time.
B
Detain the suspect for only a reasonable time and notify the police in a reasonable amount of time.
C
Conduct the detention in a reasonable manner and detain the suspect for only a reasonable time.
D
Conduct the detention in a reasonable manner and notify the police in a reasonable amount of time.
C
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: 1. There must be a reasonable belief as to the fact of theft; 2. The detention must be conducted in a reasonable manner and only nondeadly force can be used; and 3. The 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.
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 cannot make a mistake as to whether an intrusion of her property has occurred.
C
A landowner usually must make a request to desist before defending her property.
D
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. 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.
A college student owned a very popular video game system that was out of stock in most stores. He agreed to let his friend use the system for a few days, on condition that he return the system by the weekend because the student was hosting a small party. On the morning of the party, the friend still had not returned the game system, so the student went to the friend’s apartment and demanded it back. The friend refused, so the student grabbed the system and wrestled it out of the friend’s hands.
If the friend sues the student for battery, will he recover on this claim?
A No, because the student used reasonable force in attempting to seize the game system.
B No, unless the student proves that the friend’s delay in the return of the game system was unreasonable.
C Yes, because the student had originally agreed to lend the game system to the friend.
D Yes, because the student had to give the friend a reasonable period of time after demand in which to return the game system.
C
The friend will recover for battery because the student did not have the right to use force. The defense of recapture of chattels is limited by the circumstances of the original dispossession. When another’s possession of the owner’s chattel began lawfully, the owner may use only peaceful means to recover the chattel. Force may be used to recapture a chattel only when in “hot pursuit” of one who has obtained possession wrongfully (e.g., by theft). Here, the friend’s initial possession of the game system was a bailment, because the student consented to his borrowing it. Thus, the student is not entitled to use force to recover it, and his wrestling it away from the friend constituted the requisite harmful or offensive contact to make the student liable for battery. (A) is incorrect. One who is entitled to use force to recapture chattels is only permitted to use reasonable force, but here the student is not entitled to use any force at all because the friend’s initial possession of the game system was lawful. (B) is incorrect because it is not relevant whether the friend’s delay in returning the game system was unreasonable; the student is not entitled to use force because he lent the system to the friend originally. (D) is incorrect because the requirement that a timely demand to return the chattel must precede the use of force applies only if the owner of the chattel is entitled to use force. Here, as discussed above, the student did not have the right to use force.
A shopper headed out of a store at the same time as a shoplifter, whose stolen items triggered the store’s inventory control alarm. A security guard at the exit requested that the shopper stop so that his bags could be checked, but the shopper said he was in a hurry and did not want to wait. The guard then requested that the shopper immediately step to the side, and pulled out a pair of handcuffs as she reached for his arm. On seeing the handcuffs, the shopper agreed to step over to the side and wait.
If the shopper is not successful in an assault action against the store, it will be because:
A The shopper suffered no injury from the guard’s actions.
B The guard did not intend to injure the shopper when she pulled out the handcuffs and reached for the shopper’s arm.
C The guard acted reasonably in dealing with a suspected shoplifter.
D A reasonable person would have complied with the guard’s initial request.
C
If the shopper brings an action for assault against the store and does not prevail, it will be because the security guard acted reasonably under the shopkeeper’s privilege. To make out a prima facie case for assault, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff to be in reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact, and that the defendant intended to cause this reaction. The shopper here can establish a prima facie case because the guard’s pulling out the handcuffs and reaching for the shopper’s arm created a reasonable apprehension of an immediate offensive contact, and the guard intended to create this apprehension so that the shopper would willingly step to the side to allow his bags to be checked. However, the store could raise the defense of recapture of chattels if the guard reasonably believed that the shopper was a shoplifter. This defense, which allows the property owner (or his agent) to use reasonable force or the threat of force to recapture his chattels from a tortfeasor who has stolen them, has a specialized application in the shopkeepers’ privilege to reasonably detain individuals whom they reasonably believe to be in possession of shoplifted goods. Although the privilege usually applies as a defense to a false imprisonment action, it is equally applicable as a defense to other intentional torts. Hence, if the security guard’s belief that the shopper was a shoplifter was reasonable, the defense would be available and the store would not be liable for the assault. (A) is incorrect because assault is actionable without alleging a specific injury or damages. (B) is incorrect because the only intent required for assault is the intent to place someone in apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact, and the guard had the requisite intent here. The plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant intended to harm him. (D) would be the best answer if (C) were not available, because it suggests that the guard was justified in acting because the shopper acted unreasonably. However, (C) is a better answer because it directly addresses the reasonableness of the guard’s actions.
A 16-year-old teenager was playing baseball in a sandlot when the ball was hit over his head and onto a landowner’s adjacent property. Ignoring “beware of dog” signs, the teenager climbed over the fence into the landowner’s yard to retrieve the ball and was attacked by a vicious guard dog belonging to the landowner. The dog bit the teenager, causing him to suffer severe lacerations that required numerous stitches.
If the teenager brings an action against the landowner to recover damages for his injuries, will he likely prevail?
A Yes, because the landowner may not use a vicious dog to protect only his property.
B Yes, because the landowner is strictly liable for injuries caused by the vicious dog.
C No, because the teenager was trespassing on the landowner’s property.
D No, because the landowner had posted signs warning about the dog.
A
The teenager will prevail because the landowner may not intentionally use a vicious dog to protect only his property. One may use only reasonable force to defend property. A landowner may not use force that will cause death or serious bodily harm. Furthermore, one may not use indirect deadly force such as a trap, spring gun, or vicious dog when such force could not lawfully be directly used, e.g., against a mere trespasser. (B) is incorrect because strict liability in such cases generally is not imposed in favor of undiscovered trespassers against landowners. Trespassers cannot recover for injuries inflicted by the landowner’s abnormally dangerous domestic animals in the absence of negligence. (C) is incorrect because a landowner who protects his property from intruders by keeping a vicious watchdog he knows is likely to cause serious bodily harm may be liable even to trespassers for injuries caused by the animal. The liability is based on intentional tort principles: Because the landowner is not entitled to use deadly force in person to protect only property, he also may not use such force indirectly. (D) is incorrect because even though the landowner posted warning signs, he can still be liable under intentional tort principles because he intentionally used the dog to protect his property, knowing that the dog is likely to cause serious bodily harm.
A motorist was driving along a narrow, winding road when his car ran out of gas. Because the road had no shoulders, the motorist pushed his car onto the driveway of a landowner. Finding no one home at the house, the motorist started walking toward a gas station he had passed a mile back. While he was gone, the landowner returned and found the car in his driveway, with two of its wheels partially on his flower garden. Although the landowner had not posted any “no trespassing” signs, he believed he had the right to remove the car from his property. The car was unlocked, so he released the parking brake and pushed the car back onto the edge of the road, and then reset the brake. Before the motorist could return, a truck had sideswiped the car, damaging it.
Can the motorist recover against the landowner for the damage to his car?
A Yes, because the landowner had not posted any “no trespassing” signs on his property.
B Yes, because the motorist was privileged to leave his car there.
C No, because the motorist’s car damaged the landowner’s property.
D No, because the landowner reasonably believed that he had a right to remove the car from his property.
B
The motorist can recover against the landowner because the privilege of private necessity applied. A person may interfere with the real or personal property of another when the interference is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid threatened injury from a natural or other force and the threatened injury is substantially more serious than the invasion that is undertaken to avert it. Here, it was necessary for the motorist to push the car into the landowner’s driveway to avoid the threat of other vehicles colliding with it on the narrow road, which would be a substantially more serious harm than any damage to the landowner’s property. Hence, the landowner was not entitled to move the car back into the road, and the motorist can recover from the landowner the damages that resulted from doing so. (A) is wrong because the absence of “no trespassing” signs is irrelevant. Even if the landowner had posted “no trespassing” signs and the motorist saw them, the signs do not negate the privilege, which supersedes any right of the landowner to protect his property. (C) is similarly incorrect; the fact that the motorist’s car damaged the landowner’s property does not extinguish the privilege. The motorist will be required to pay for the damage to the landowner’s flower bed because the privilege of private necessity is not absolute, but the landowner was not entitled to move the car off of his land and back into danger. (D) is incorrect. A landowner’s reasonable belief that he had a right to defend his property generally is not a defense to the entrant’s exercise of a privilege, such as necessity, that supersedes the defense of property right. Here, the landowner’s reasonable mistake that he had a right to remove the car is no defense.
