Torts - Missed Questions

Question 1

A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome when the golfer became very annoyed with critical comments made by the instructor. To show the other golfers in the group how annoyed she was with her instructor, the golfer stood a few yards behind him while the instructor was teeing off and swung a club at him. The instructor, who was focusing on his shot, was not within range of the club but unfortunately the club slipped out of the golfer’s hands and struck the instructor in the head, injuring him.

If the instructor brings a battery action against the golfer, will he recover?

A. Yes, because the golfer acted intentionally and caused harmful contact to her instructor.
B. Yes, because the golfer intended to cause the instructor reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact.
C. No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact.
D. No, unless the golfer acted unreasonably in swinging the club at her instructor.

Answer 1

C. No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact.

Question 2

A teenager and his father were practicing baseball in a sandlot when the teenager hit the ball over his father’s head and onto a landowner’s adjacent property. The landowner had several “beware of dog” signs posted along his fence, but the father did not notice them in his haste to retrieve the ball. The father climbed over the fence into the landowner’s yard and was attacked by the landowner’s vicious guard dog, which was trained to maim intruders. The dog bit the father, causing him to suffer severe lacerations that required numerous stitches.

If the father 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 father was trespassing on the landowner’s property.
D. No, because the landowner had posted signs warning about the dog.

Answer 2

A. Yes, because a landowner may not use a vicious dog to protect only his property.

Question 3

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 dispossed
D. An owner of chattel to recapture the chattel

Answer 3

C. A landowner to regain real property after being tortiously dispossed

Question 4

After enjoying a wonderful meal in a restaurant, a diner went into the kitchen through a door marked “employees only” to personally compliment the chef. However, before he could get the attention of the chef, he slipped on a puddle of bright yellow grease that had congealed on the floor by the stove. He fell, hitting his head and sustaining a severe head injury.

If the diner sues the restaurant for damages in a jurisdiction following the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, is he likely to recover?

A. Yes, because the restaurant is a place of public accomodation and breached its duty of care owed to its patrons.
B. Yes, because a restaurant employee could have discovered the dangerous conditions of the floor by making reasonable inspections.
C. No, because patrons were not allowed in the kitchen.
D. No, because the puddle of grease was visible on the floor.

Answer 4

C. No, because patrons were not allowed in the kitchen.

No evidence to assume that someone in the kitchen knew that he was there –> hence, D is incorrect.

Question 5

A shopper at a grocery store slipped and fell when he stepped in some water that had seeped out from a malfunctioning freezer case. The fall caused the shopper to break an ankle, so he filed suit against the store in a jurisdiction applying the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land. At trial, the shopper presented evidence of the above facts, and testified that the floor around the water appeared dirty.

To survive a motion for summary judgment by the store, what additional evidence must the shopper present?

A. No additional evidence
B. He was planning to make a purchase at the store
C. The store employees knew that the freezer case was leaking
D. His attention was diverted by store displays so that he didn’t notice the water on the floor

Answer 5

A. No additional evidence

Question 6

Which of the following best describes res ipsa loquitur?

A. The fact that a particular injury occurred establishes breach of duty as a matter of law.
B. Proof that a defendant violated a statute establishes the existence of a duty owed and breach thereof.
C. The fact that a particular injury occurred tends to establish the breach of a duty owed.
D. Custom or usage establishes the standard of care in a given case.

Answer 6

C. The fact that a particular injury occurred tends to establish the breach of a duty owed.

Question 7

A fire broke out in a home that had been recently remodeled, destroying the house and injuring the homeowner. An investigation by the fire marshal established that the fire started from a short in some wiring behind a wall. A small section of wiring that ran to an outlet through a narrow gap between a furnace chimney and a hot water pipe had part of its outer sheath cut off. The homeowner filed suit against the electrical company that did the rough wiring.

The parties stipulated for trial that the company had installed the wiring in compliance with the blueprints, and that the wiring had been inspected and approved by the building inspector before the chimney and the water pipe had been installed and the walls put up, all by different contractors. At trial, the homeowner introduced the report of the fire marshal establishing how the fire started, and evidence of his medical expenses and other damages. At the end of the homeowner’s case, the electrical company’s attorney rested her case and moved for a directed verdict. The homeowner’s attorney also moved for a directed verdict.

How should the court rule on the directed verdict motions?

A. Deny the electrical company’s motion and grant the homeowner’s motion for a directed verdict, because a short in the wiring caused he homeowner’s injuries
B. Deny the electrical company’s motion and grant the homeowner’s motion for a directed verdict, because the company failed to rebut the presumption of negligence that the homeowner has established.
C. Deny the homeowner’s motion and grant the electrical company’s motion for a directed verdict, because the wire could have been damaged by another contractor.
D. Deny both the directed verdict motions, because the homeowner has presented enough evidence to submit the case to the jury.

Answer 7

C. Deny the homeowner’s motion and grant the electrical company’s motion for a directed verdict, because the wire could have been damaged by another contractor.

Question 8

Which of the following statements regarding proximate cause is true?

A. In direct cause cases, the unusual manner in which the injury occurred is not relevant.
B. In indirect cause cases, another force comes into play before the defendant’s negligent act and combines with it to cause the injury.
C. A defendant may have proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury even though she did not actually cause it.
D. Negligence of rescuers is not foreseeable.

Answer 8

A. In direct cause cases, the unusual manner in which the injury occurred is not relevant.

Question 9

A passenger suffered a broken arm from an automobile accident caused by his driver’s negligence in running through a red light. The passenger was taken by ambulance to a nearby hospital for treatment. There, the emergency room physician negligently reset the bone in the passenger’s arm. As a result, the passenger never recovered full use of his arm and his earnings as a carpenter were permanently reduced. The jurisdiction retains traditional contribution rules based on equal shares in cases applying joint and several liability.

If the passenger brings suit against the driver for the damage to his arm, the passenger will recover:

A. All of his damages, including the permanent disability, from the driver
B. The portion of his damages attributable to a properly treated broken arm from the driver.
C. Half of his damages from the driver under traditional contribution rules.
D. All of his damages from the driver only if the passenger joins the negligent doctor as a defendant and the doctor fails to satisfy that portion of the judgment attributable to his negligence.

Answer 9

A. All of his damages, including the permanent disability, from the driver

Question 10

A doorman negligently locked a door that an office worker was intending to use to exit an office building, so the worker was forced to use a different exit. As she stepped onto the sidewalk outside the building, a car careened out of control on the street and jumped the curb. The car struck and injured the worker and then drove off. The driver was not found.

The worker brought suit against the doorman, seeking damages for her injuries. At trial, the parties stipulated that the doorman was negligent in locking the door and that the worker suffered injuries when she was struck by the car. The worker also established that if she had exited from the door she was intending to, she would not have been struck by the car. At the end of the worker’s case, the doorman moved for a directed verdict in his favor.

How should the judge rule?

A. Grant the motion, because the driver of the car was the actual cause of the worker’s injuries.
B. Grant the motion, because the car was an unforeseeable intervening force.
C. Deny the motion, because the jury could find that but for the doorman’s negligence, the worker would not have been injured.
D. Deny the motion, because the jury could find that the doorman’s negligence was a foreseeable concurring cause of the worker’s injury.

Answer 10

B. Grant the motion, because the car was an unforeseeable intervening force.

Question 11

When a statutory standard of care replaces the common law duty of care in a negligence case, the defendant’s lack of compliance with the statute will be excused if:

A. The defendant otherwise excercised due care
B. Violation of the statute causes more danger than compliance
C. Compliance with the statute is beyond the defendant’s control
D. Violation of the statute would result in a civil infraction instead of a criminal one

Answer 11

C. Compliance with the statute is beyond the defendant’s control

Question 12

While driving his car down the road, the defendant, who had no history of heart problems, experienced a heart attack. The defendant’s car crossed the center line of the highway, in violation of a motor vehicle statute, and headed directly at a car driven by the plaintiff that was exceeding the speed limit. The plaintiff, seeing the defendant’s car heading toward him, swerved to avoid the collision. In so doing, the plaintiff’s car spun out of control and crashed into a ditch, causing the plaintiff injury. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for the injuries sustained in the accident. The jurisdiction retains traditional contributory negligence rules.

Will the plaintiff prevail?

A. Yes, because the defendant’s act was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s car to swerve.
B. Yes, because the defendant violated a statute by crossing the center line.
C. No, because a defendant had no prior history of heart trouble.
D. No, because the plaintiff was exceeding the speed limit.

Answer 12

C. No, because defendant had no prior history of heart trouble.

For negligence case, (I) duty, (ii) breach, (iii) causation, (iiii) damages.

Drivers ordinarily owe duty of care to other drivers, but this driver would not be deemed to have breached that duty if the heart attack was a surprise and had no history before.

Question 13

On the way home from a nightclub, a passenger began yelling at the designated driver claiming that he was not taking the best route back to her house. The driver disagreed and contended that his route was the quickest. The passenger impulsively grabbed the steering wheel, causing the car to swerve and strike a pedestrian, injuring him. At trial, the pedestrian established that the driver’s license had expired the day before the accident. The driver’s traffic record qualified him for an automatic renewal of his driver’s license, but he had forgotten to submit it in time. A statute in the jurisdiction makes it an offense to drive a vehicle on any public road in the state without a valid driver’s license.

Will the pedestrian prevail?

A. Yes, because the driver violated a statute by driving without a license
B. Yes, because the driver failed to control his passenger
C. No, because the driver did not start the argument
D. No, because the passenger’s action was the proximate cause of the injury.

Answer 13

D. No, because the passenger’s action was the proximate cause of the injury.

Question 14

A state child safety statute required children under eight years of age to be in a government-approved car seat when riding in a motor vehicle. A father was driving to a ballgame with his seven-year-old child, who was buckled in the back seat with a regular seat belt. The father did not notice when the child unbuckled himself and started climbing into the front seat. The child grabbed the steering wheel “to help daddy steer,” causing the car to swerve into the other lane and collide with another motorist’s car. The motorist was seriously injured from the collision; the father and his child were unhurt.

The motorist sued the father to recover damages for her injuries. At trial, the motorist presented evidence of the statute, her injuries, and the facts stated above. At the conclusion of the proofs, both parties moved for a directed verdict.

How should the trial judge proceed?

A. Grant the motorist’s motion, because the father’s violation of the statute constituted negligence per se.
B. Grant the father’s motion, because the motorist offered no evidence that the statute was intended to prevent the harm that occurred.
C. Deny both motions and submit the case to the jury, because the jury could find that the father is liable for his child’s negligent conduct.
D. Deny both motions and submit the case to the jury, because the jury could find that the father breached his duty of care owed to the motorist.

Answer 14

D. Deny both motions and submit the case to the jury, because the jury could find that the father breached his duty of care owed to the motorist

Question 15

A man boarded a plane with his pet rattlesnake hidden in his carry-on bag. The man was not aware that the carry-on bag, which he put under the seat in front of him, had a defective zipper. The snake, which had no teeth or venom and was harmless, escaped from the bag and started slithering down the aisle while the man was using the lavatory. A woman who had just gotten up from her seat saw the snake heading towards her and tried to run in the other direction. She tripped over someone’s foot and broke her ankle.

If the woman sues the man on a theory of strict liability for her broken ankle, will she prevail?

A. No, because the snake was in fact a nondangerous animal.
B. No, because the injury she suffered was not caused by the dangerous propensity of the snake.
C. Yes, because the snake is a wild animal.
D. Yes, because it is not a common activity to bring snakes on a plane.

Answer 15

C. Yes, because the snake is a wild animal.

Question 16

A bolt of lightning struck a tree, causing it to fall on a farmer’s fence which enclosed a pasture containing the farmer’s large bull. The bull escaped through the broken fence and entered the neighbor’s property. It gored a hiker who was crossing the neighbor’s property without permission.

In the hiker’s action against the farmer based on strict liability, is the hiker likely to prevail?

A. Yes, because the bull caused harm while trespassing on another’s property.
B. Yes, because bulls have known dangerous propensities.
C. No, because a bull is a domestic animal.
D. No, because the hiker was a trespasser.

Answer 16

C. No, because the bull is a domestic animal.

Question 17

Which of the following may prevent establishing causation against a manufacturer in a strict products liability action?

A. The retailer’s labeling of the product as it’s own
B. The destruction of the product because of it’s dangerous defect
C. The failure of a retailer to take action after discovering a dangerous defect
D. THe negligent failure of a retailer to discover a dangerous defect

Answer 17

C. The failure of a retailer to take action after discovering a dangerous defect

Question 18

Which of the following statements of law does NOT relate to proving actual cause in a strict products liability case?

A. The defendant cannot avoid liability by showing negligent failure of an intermediary to discover the defect
B. If the defect is difficult to trace, the plaintiff may rely on an inference that such a product failure ordinarily would occur only as a result of a defect
C. If the defect has inadequate warnings, the P is enttiled to a presumption that an adequate warning would have been read and heeded
D. The defect in the product must have existed when the product legt the defendant’s control

Answer 18

A. The defendant cannot avoid liability by showing negligent failure of an intermediary to discover the defect

Question 19

Which of the following is relevant for the defendant in defending a strict products liability claim?

A. It was impossible for the defendant retailer to inspect the product because it was in a sealed container.
B. The defendant retailer made a reasonable inspection of the product before selling it but did no discover the defect.
C. The retailer of the defednant manufacturer’s product discovered the defect during the course of an inspection but failed to warn the buyer
D. The retailer of the defendant manufacturer’s product could have discovered the defect during a reasonable inspection but failed to make an inspection

Answer 19

C. The retailer of the defednant manufacturer’s product discovered the defect during the course of an inspection but failed to warn the buyer

This is beyond ordinary foreseeable negligence. The manufacturer can argue that the retailer’s failure to take action after discovering a defect was NOT foreseeable and therefore cuts off the manufacturer’s liability for the defect.

Question 20

Regarding vicarious liability, which of the following statements is true?

A. A defendant is not vicariously liable for the torts of an indpendent contractor unless the defendant was negligent in selecting the contractor
B. Respondeat superior is not a type of vicarious liability
C. Because of the special relationship between them, an employer is always vicariously liable for her employee’s torts
D. A defendant may be both vicariously liable and directly liable in same action

Answer 20

D. A defendant may be both vicariously liable and directly liable in same action

Question 21

A landlord employed his friend as the on-site manager of one of his apartment buildings despite being aware that he had previously been arrested for criminal battery, disorderly conduct, and driving while intoxicated. The manager did a good job dealing with the general maintenance of the apartment building, although the landlord was aware that he continued to drink heavily.

One night the manager, who was extremely intoxicated, attempted to swat an insect on the ceiling of his apartment and could not do so after several attempts. Enraged, he took a pistol from his drawer and shot at the insect. The bullet missed the insect and passed through the ceiling of his apartment into the apartment above, lodging in the leg of a tenant’s social guest.

Does the guest have a viable cause of action against the landlord?

A. Yes, because the guest had been invited onto the property by the tenant.
B. Yes, because the LL was aware of the manager’s habitual drunkenness and propensity for violence.
C. No, because the LL cannot be held liable for the manager’s intentional torts.
D. No, because shooting an insect was outside the scope of the manager’s employment.

Answer 21

B. Yes, because the LL was aware of the manager’s habitual drunkenness and propensity for violence.

Question 22

A shopper was in a large department store that was remodeling its menswear department and had hired a contractor to do the work. A carpenter employed by the contractor was working on the remodeling job. When the carpenter left the store to take a break, she left a carpenter’s level projecting out into one of the aisles, unbeknownst to any store employees. Shortly before she returned 15 minutes later, the shopper came down that aisle and tripped over the level. He fell and struck his head on the sharp corner of a display case. The shopper required hospitalization and sued the store for his injuries.

Will the shopper prevail in his suit against the store?

A. Yes, because the contractor’s employee left the level in the aisle.
B. Yes, because the store’s employees had a reasonable time to discover the level before the shopper fell.
C. No, because the store’s employees did not leave the level in the aisle.
D. No, because the store’s employees were unaware that the level was in the aisle.

Answer 22

A. Yes, because the contractor’s employee left the level in the aisle.

Question 23

A developer constructed several small stores in a commercial district. She received a bid from a contractor to install awnings on the front windows of the stores. The developer had heard that the contractor did shoddy work, but the price was right and the contractor expressly assumed all of the risk of any liability. The developer subsequently sold one of the stores to a barber. A few months later, an awning collapsed without warning, injuring a customer who was about to enter the barbershop.

An investigation by the building inspector revealed that the awning collapsed because the brackets used by the contractor were cheaper and weaker than the required brackets, although they looked the same. The developer and the contractor are now both bankrupt.

If the customer sues the barber for his injuries, is the customer likely to prevail?

A. Yes, because the barber had a nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe for customers and those passing by.
B. Yes, because the developer did not exercise reasonable care in hiring the contractor to install the awnings.
C. No, because the contractor assumed all of the risks from his work.
D. No, because the barber had no opportunity to oversee the contractor’s actions.

Answer 23

D. No, because the barber had no opportunity to oversee the contractor’s actions.

Question 24

After a sporting event at a stadium, one of the fans sought out the referees to complain about their handling of the game. The fan took out an electronically amplified bullhorn and knocked on the door of the referees’ room. When one of the referees opened it, the fan began yelling and berating the referee through the bullhorn. The referee slammed the door shut, striking the bullhorn and jamming it against the fan’s mouth, knocking out two of his teeth.

If the fan asserts a claim based on battery against the referee and the referee prevails, what is the likely reason?

A. The referee did not foresee that the bullhorn would knock out of the fan’s teeth.
B. The referee did not know that the door was substantially certain to strike the bullhorn.
C. The referee was entitled to use force to protect himself.
D. The fan’s conduct provoked the referee’s response.

Answer 24

B. The referee did not know that the door was substantially certain to strike the bullhorn.

Question 25

A pedestrian walking on the sidewalk was struck by a car backing out of a driveway. The driver did not see the pedestrian because her neighbor’s bushes obscured her view of the sidewalk. The pedestrian was seriously injured and brought suit against the driver and the neighbor. The pedestrian also included the city in his lawsuit, alleging that the city failed to enforce its ordinance requiring homeowners to provide a clear view of sidewalks where they intersect with driveways. The trier of fact determined that the driver was 60% at fault, the neighbor was 30% at fault, and the city was 10% at fault. The jurisdiction has adopted comparative contribution in cases applying joint and several liability.

Which of the following is a correct statement regarding liability?

A. The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage award.
B. Both the driver and the neighbor are liable to the pedestrian for 90% of the damage award.
C. Each of the three defendants are liable to the pedestrian for one-third of the damage award.
D. The driver is liable to the pedestrian for 60% of the damage award, the neighbor is liable for 30% of the damage award, and the city is liable for 10% of the damage award.

Answer 25

A. The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage award.

Question 26

The owner of a boat took two friends out on a lake near his home. One of his friends was driving the boat when it struck a partially submerged rock that the owner of the boat had forgotten to tell him about. The owner of the boat and the other passenger were injured; the driver of the boat was not hurt.

In a jurisdiction that applies joint and several liability with comparative contribution, the passenger brought suit against both the boat owner and the driver, and the boat owner also sued the driver. The jury determined that the boat owner was 55% at fault and suffered $10,000 in damages, the driver of the boat was 45% at fault, and the injured passenger suffered $100,000 in damages. After entry of judgment, the boat owner paid the passenger her total damages of $100,000, while the driver of the boat has paid nothing.

How much, if anything, can the boat owner recover from the driver?

A. $45,000 because the driver was 45% at fault.
B. $49,500 because the driver was 45% at fault and the boat owner suffered $10K in damages.
C. $50K because the boat owner and the driver are jointly liable.
D. Nothing, because the boat owner was more at fault than the driver.

Answer 26

B. $49,500 because the driver was 45% at fault and the boat owner suffered $10K in damages.

Question 27

An attorney came to work on a Saturday. When he signed in, he was advised by the morning security guard employed by the building management that he must be out of the building by 5 p.m., when it closes. However, he stayed past 5 p.m. to complete a brief that had to be filed on Monday morning. At 5:15 p.m., the afternoon security guard set the locks on all the doors of the building and left. Because she was in a hurry, she did not check the sign-in sheet to make sure that everyone had signed out, contrary to mandatory procedures. When the attorney tried to exit 15 minutes later, he discovered that the doors were all locked and could not be opened from the inside. He used his cell phone to call for help, and a supervisor from the building arrived and let him out shortly thereafter.

If the attorney sues the building management for false imprisonment, is he likely to win?

A. Yes, because the guard acted recklessly by locking the doors and leaving without checking that everyone was out of the building.
B. No, because the attorney became a trespasser by staying in the building past 5pm.
C. No, because the guard did not know that the attorney was locked in the building.
D. No, because the attorney suffered no harm from the confinement.

Answer 27

C. No, because the guard did not know that the attorney was locked in the building.

Question 28

A young teenager pointed a squirt gun at an older teenager as if she was going to squirt him, although the younger teenager knew that the gun was empty. The older teenager did not know that the gun was empty and yelled, “A little water isn’t going to hurt me.” The younger teenager pulled the trigger and yelled back, “You’re lucky, it wasn’t even loaded.”

Is the younger teenager liable to the older teenager?

A. Yes, because the younger teenager attempted a battery.
B. Yes, because the younger teenager committed an assault.
C. No, because the squirt gun was not loaded.
D. No, because the older teen was not worried about getting wet.

Answer 28

B. Yes, because the younger teenager committed an assault.

Question 29

A minor league ballplayer hit a fly ball over the wall and out of the park during a game and struck a woman riding along the adjacent street on a bicycle. The woman sued the ballplayer for negligence. The woman alleged that the ballplayer had often hit balls out of the park and was aware that he had previously struck a car driving down the street.
Assuming the woman’s allegations are correct, is she likely to prevail?

Answer 29

D. No, because the ballplayer did not breach a duty of care towards the woman.

Question 30

A hockey player who was playing in the final game of the season before a hostile crowd in the opponent’s packed stadium had an opportunity to get his team into the playoffs, but he missed a shot into an open net as the horn sounded, ending the game. As the crowd cheered and jeered, the puck bounced back to him and he shot it in anger toward the stands. A fan who had been looking the other way turned back toward the rink just in time to be struck in the face by the puck. He suffered a broken nose and a severe gash under his eye. After the game, the league commissioner fined the player for violating league rules by intentionally directing the puck out of the playing area.

If the fan sues the player for battery, will the fan likely prevail?

A. No, because by attending a hockey game, the fan assumed the risk of pucks being shot into the stands.
B. No, because the player did not have the intent to strike the fan with the puck.
C. Yes, because the player knew that it was substantially certain that a fan would be hit by the puck.
D. Yes, because the player violated league rules by inentionally shooting the puck out of the playing area.

Answer 30

C. Yes, because the player knew that it was substantially certain that a fan would be hit by the puck.

The intent element is satisfied as long as the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the harmful or offensive contact would result.

Question 31

A dog owner lived next door to a day care center. Because he had a large yard and there were no applicable zoning restrictions, he installed a kennel and began training attack dogs to sell to businesses. As soon as he opened the business and posted signs in front advertising the exceptional ferocity of the dogs, some parents who had children enrolled in the day care center became alarmed at the prospect of the dogs right next to the yard where the children played, especially because the children could see and hear the dogs being taught to attack people. Within a few months of the dogs’ arrival next door, the owner of the day care lost 10% of her enrollment.

If the day care owner brings a nuisance action against the dog owner, what will be the most critical factual issue that the trier of fact must resolve to determine who should prevail?

A. Whether the day care owner suffered damages in addition to her economic losses
B. Whether the day care owner’s use of her property makes her business abnormally sensitive to the presence of dogs
C. Whether the dog owner conducted his business with reasonable care
D. Whether the dog owner was apprised of the day care owner’s concerns and did nothing to alleviate them

Answer 31

B. Whether the day care owner’s use of her property makes her business abnormally sensitive to the presence of dogs