Torts MCQs 1

Question 1

What is the doctrine of transferred intent?

Answer 1

Under the doctrine of transferred intent, an actor’s intent to commit an intentional tort against one person transfers to the actor’s commission of (1) a different intentional tort against that same person, (2) the intended tort against a different person, or (3) a different intentional tort against a different person.

Question 2

What is apparent consent?

Answer 2

Apparent consent is a defense to battery when consent can be reasonably implied from the plaintiff’s conduct or from custom. However, consent is only a defense where the defendant’s conduct falls within the scope of the plaintiff’s consent.

Question 3

What is conversion?

Answer 3

A defendant who has permission to use the plaintiff’s chattel commits conversion when he/she (1) intentionally uses the chattel in a way that exceeds the scope of permission and (2) seriously violates the plaintiff’s right to control the chattel. The defendant is liable for the fair market value of the chattel at the time of the conversion.

Question 4

What does “Please Help Eliminate Safety Concerns Causing Injuries” stand for?

Answer 4

Special relationships imposing duty to protect others

-Parent/child
-Hospital/patient
-Employer/employees
-Shopkeeper/business invitees
-Common carrier/passengers
-Custodian/person in custody
Innkeeper/guests

Question 5

What is a land possessor’s duty to a known or anticipated trespasser?

Answer 5

A land possessor owes a duty to known or anticipated trespassers to (1) warn them about hidden, artificial dangers that are known to the land possessor but unlikely to be discovered by trespassers and (2) use reasonable care in active operations.

Question 6

What is the attractive nuisance doctrine?

Answer 6

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, land possessors have a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect CHILD trespassers from artificial conditions on their land.

Question 7

What is the traditional approach/majority view to res ipsa loquitur?

Answer 7

Under the traditional standard for res ipsa loquitur, negligence is inferred if (1) the plaintiff’s harm would not normally occur unless someone was negligent, (2) the defendant had exclusive control over the thing that caused the harm, and (3) the plaintiff did nothing to cause the harm.

Question 8

Who can you sue for strict product liability?

Answer 8

Strict products liability claims can be brought against commercial suppliers or sellers—i.e., those in the business of manufacturing, selling, or otherwise distributing products of the type that harmed the plaintiff. However, service providers are not subject to strict products liability.

Question 9

What is strict animal liability?

Answer 9

The owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm that is caused by a plaintiff’s fearful reaction to the sight of an unrestrained wild animal or directly results from the wild animal’s abnormally dangerous characteristics.

Question 10

How can you prove defamation for a public figure?

Answer 10

A plaintiff who is public figure or official can recover for defamation only if the plaintiff proves that the defendant made a false statement about the plaintiff with actual malice—i.e., with knowledge or reckless disregard of the statement’s falsity.

Question 11

Does strict liability require proof of fault?

Answer 11

No. D can still be liable regardless of having taken proper precautions

Question 12

When is D liable under strict liability for a domestic animal?

Answer 12

The owner of a domestic animal is strictly liable for any physical harm caused by the animal when (1) the owner knew or had reason to know about the animal’s dangerous propensities and (2) the plaintiff’s harm arose from those dangerous propensities.

Question 13

What is the majority rule on the duty of care?

Answer 13

Under the majority rule, a duty of care is owed only to persons who might be foreseeably harmed by the defendant’s negligent conduct.

Question 14

How does modified comparative negligence work in a jx?

Answer 14

In a modified comparative negligence jx (just like in a pure comparative negligence jx), the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s recovery is reduced by that party’s percentage of fault. Except that the plaintiff or the defendant is barred from recovery if his/her percentage of fault exceeds 50%.

Question 15

What are the 3 theories of recovery under NIED?

Answer 15

-Zone of danger
-Bystander
-Special situation

Question 16

What is the “zone of danger” theory under NIED?

Answer 16

Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) liability arises under the zone-of-danger theory when (1) the defendant negligently placed the plaintiff at risk of immediate bodily injury and (2) that risk caused the plaintiff serious emotional harm.

Question 17

What is the learned-intermediary rule?

Answer 17

Under the learned-intermediary rule, a manufacturer of a prescription drug or medical device will not be held strictly liable for inadequate warnings or instructions if the manufacturer warned the prescribing physician about the risk of harm associated with that product.

Question 18

How do you successfully assert the shop-keepers privilege as a defense to false imprisonment?

Answer 18

To successfully assert the shopkeeper’s privilege as a defense to false imprisonment, the plaintiff’s detention must have been conducted for a reasonable amount of time and in a reasonable manner—e.g., did not cause the plaintiff unnecessary humiliation, embarrassment, or discomfort.

Question 19

When does an affirmative duty to act arises?

Answer 19

Although a defendant generally has no affirmative duty to act, such a duty arises when (1) the defendant’s conduct creates a foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff or (2) the defendant voluntarily aids or rescues the plaintiff. When this occurs, the defendant must use reasonable care to prevent further harm to the plaintiff.

Question 20

What is the duty of care for automobile drivers?

Answer 20

In most jurisdictions, automobile drivers owe a duty of ordinary care to guests (who ride free) and passengers (who pay money for the ride). But a minority of jurisdictions have enacted “guest statutes,” under which an automobile driver’s only duty to guests is to refrain from gross or wanton and willful misconduct.

Question 21

What is the doctrine of negligence per se?

Answer 21

Under the doctrine of negligence per se, duty and breach are presumed if (1) the defendant violated a statute, (2) that statute was intended to prevent the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff, and (3) the plaintiff is within a class of persons that the statute was intended to protect.

Question 22

What is the minority approach to negligence per se?

Answer 22

Under the minority approach for negligence per se, a defendant’s violation of a statute or ordinance creates a rebuttable presumption (as opposed to a conclusive presumption) that the defendant breached a duty of care.

Question 23

How do you prevail in a claim for intentional interference with a contract?

Answer 23

Intentional interference with a contract requires proof that (1) a valid contract existed between the plaintiff and a third party, (2) the defendant knew of that contractual relationship, (3) the defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with the contract’s performance, and (4) that interference caused the plaintiff pecuniary loss.

Question 24

When is physical injury a required element of false imprisonment?

Answer 24

Physical injury is only a required element of false imprisonment if the plaintiff is unaware of her confinement.

Question 25

Is an employer generally liable for his employee’s intentional torts?

Answer 25

An employer is generally not liable for an intentional tort (e.g., battery) committed by its employee because that conduct typically falls outside the scope of employment.

Question 26

When is an employer liable for his employee’s intentional torts under the doctrine of respondeat superior?

Answer 26

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for its employee’s intentional torts only when (1) reasonable force is inherent in and committed during the employee’s job or (2) the employee is authorized to act on the employer’s behalf and has a position that provides an opportunity to commit the tort.
(e.g. bodyguard to a celebrity)

Question 27

What is the modern approach to land-possessor liability?

Answer 27

Under the modern approach to land-possessor liability, land possessors owe a duty of reasonable care to all land entrants (except flagrant trespassers).

Question 28

What is the standard of care for voluntarily intoxicated person?

Answer 28

In negligence cases, a voluntarily intoxicated person is held to the same standard as a reasonably prudent sober person.

Question 29

What is the standard of care for an involuntarily intoxicated person?

Answer 29

The conduct of an involuntarily intoxicated person will be measured by the standard of a reasonably careful person with the same level of intoxication.

Question 30

What is the informed consent doctrine?

Answer 30

Under the informed-consent doctrine, a physician who fails to disclose the risks of a medical treatment or procedure to a patient is liable for negligence if (1) the failure to disclose caused the patient to consent and (2) the undisclosed risk materialized and resulted in physical harm.

Question 31

Does the doctrine of transferred intent apply to IIED?

Answer 31

No

Question 32

What is the bystander theory under IIED?

Answer 32

A defendant whose extreme and outrageous conduct has harmed a third party may be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress if (1) the plaintiff contemporaneously perceived that conduct, (2) the plaintiff was closely related to the third party, and (3) the defendant knew of the plaintiff’s presence and that relationship.

Question 33

What is intrusion upon seclusion?

Answer 33

Intrusion upon seclusion is an invasion of privacy that occurs when a defendant intentionally intrudes on a plaintiff’s private affairs in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person—e.g., hacking into an email account.

Question 34

Are the plaintiff’s actions prior to the defendant’s negligent act a factor in determining compensatory damages?

Answer 34

NO

Question 35

How is recovery of compensatory damages determined?

Answer 35

(initial harm + normal consequences)
These include:
1. subsequent physical harm
2. Subsequent economic harm
3. Subsequent emotional harm

Remember: The plaintiff’s actions prior to the defendant’s negligent act are NOT a factor to be considered.