Torts Quiz

1. 1Xeni and Lana are at a concert where there is a lot of pushing to get closer to the stage. Someone shoves Xeni into Lana. Lana gets very angry and says to Xeni, "If I weren't such a nice person, I'd push you to the ground and watch you get trampled." In response to the comment, Xeni pushes Lana to the ground and watches her get trampled. Assuming Lana can prove all the elements of battery, can Xeni successfully raise the affirmative defense of self-defense?

   1. ANo, because Xeni used disproportionate force.
   2. BNo, because Xeni was not justified in using any force.
   3. CYes, because Lana assaulted Xeni first.
   4. DYes, because Xeni did not use deadly force.
2. 2Sally is riding her snowmobile on public land when she unexpectedly sees a family of deer crossing her path. If she had continued going straight, she would have crashed right into them, hurting or killing one of the deer as well as injuring herself and destroying her snowmobile. Sally deliberately turns her snowmobile toward Gary's land, crashing into Gary's fence and thereby allowing Gary's sheep to escape. Gary sues Sally for trespass to land. Can Gary make out the prima facie case for trespass to land?

   1. AYes.
   2. BNo, because by entering Gary's land Sally averted a greater loss to herself and others.
   3. CNo, because Sally did not intend to enter Gary's land.
   4. DNo, because Sally did not intend to cause harm.
3. 3John owns a bookstore, which used to be a Victorian mansion. It has a lot of small rooms, and there are books for sale in each room. Usually around closing time, John makes his way to the top of the mansion and then moves his way down, making sure there are no customers left in the store. But one night, John is lazy, and doesn't bother to check if there are any customers left in the store when he locks it up at 8 pm. Tom is up in one of the rooms and cannot get out. Tom is a diabetic who needs insulin. He suffers physical injuries because he cannot get out until John opens the bookstore the next morning. If Tom sues John for false imprisonment:

   1. ATom's claim will fail, because John did not act.
   2. BTom's claim will fail, because John lacked the intention to confine Tom.
   3. CTom's claim will succeed, because John was harmed by the conflict.
   4. DTom's claim will succeed, if he can prove he was actually confined.
4. 4It was one week before the class' torts midterm. Kira is very competitive and is worried that Marco is going to outperform her on the test. When Marco isn't looking, Kira takes Marco's laptop, which has all of his torts notes. Marco looks everywhere for the laptop and cannot find it. Without his notes, he does poorly on the midterm. Right after his exam, Kira returns his laptop in perfect condition. Can Marco prove the prima facie case for conversion against Kira?

   1. AYes, if the court believes that Kira's actions were a serious interference with Marco's property rights.
   2. BYes, because any intentional intermeddling with another's chattels is actionable as conversion.
   3. CNo, because Kira intended to return the laptop.
   4. DNo, unless the laptop was damaged by Kira.
5. 5Dennis works as a clown at a children's pizza restaurant. All day he hears kids screaming as they jump in the ball pit and play games around the restaurant. He hates it. Two particularly obnoxious seven-year-olds keep coming over and hitting Dennis with soft toy swords they won as prizes at the restaurant. When Dennis sees the two boys, Sam and Max, enter the bathroom, he locks them in. They bang on the door, crying to get out and pleading for help. After 15 minutes, Dennis lets them out on the condition that they behave. The boys tell their parents, who are very upset. If Max sues Dennis for false imprisonment:

   1. AMax cannot prove the prima facie case because Max did not suffer any harm.
   2. BMax cannot prove the prima facie case because children are not aware of confinement.
   3. CMax can prove the prima facie case, only if his parent's distress counts as harm.
   4. DMax can prove the prima facie case, whether or not crying counts as physical harm.
6. 6Cary is walking down the street late at night when Larry jumps out of nowhere. Larry holds a knife in front of Cary
   and yells, "Give me your wallet or else!" Cary reaches into his pocket, and pulls out a gun. Cary shoots Larry in
   the leg, an injury that eventually causes Larry to lose the use of his leg. If Larry sues Cary for battery:

   1. ACary will lose, because he used disproportionate force.
   2. BCary will win, because he used proportionate force.
   3. CCary will lose, because he did not act in self-defense.
   4. DCary will win, because one has the right to use deadly force to protect property.
7. 7
   It was one week before the class's Torts midterm. Kira is very competitive and is worried that Marco is going to
   outperform her on the midterm. When Marco isn't looking, Kira takes Marco's laptop, which has all of his Torts
   notes. Marco looks everywhere for the laptop and cannot find it. Without his notes, he does poorly on the
   examination. Right after the exam, Kira returns the laptop in perfect condition. Can Marco prove the prima facie
   case for trespass to chattels against Kira?

   1. AYes, if the court believes that by Kira's actions Marco was deprived of possession for a substantial period of time.
   2. BYes, because any intentional intermeddling with another's chattel is actionable as trespass to chattels.
   3. CNo, because Kira intended to return the laptop.
   4. DNo, unless the laptop was damaged by Kira.
8. 8Sally is riding her snowmobile on public land when she unexpectedly sees a family of deer crossing in her path. If
   she would have continued going straight, she would have crashed right into them, hurting or killing one or more
   of the deer, as well as injuring herself and damaging her snowmobile. Sally deliberately turns her snowmobile
   toward Gary's land, crashing into Gary's fence and thereby allowing Gary's flock of sheep to escape. Gary sues
   Sally for trespass to land. Can Gary recover damages for trespass to land?

   1. AYes.
   2. BNo, because by entering Gary's land Sally averted a greater loss to others.
   3. CNo, because Sally did not intend to enter Gary's land.
   4. DNo, because Sally did not intend to cause harm.
9. 9Phil has a heart attack while sitting on a park bench. Jane is passing by and starts to perform CPR on Phil while
   Phil is unable to talk or otherwise communicate his wishes. Phil is okay, but Jane broke one of Phil's ribs trying
   to perform CPR. If Phil sues Jane for battery:

   1. APhil will win, because he did not give express consent to being touched.
   2. BPhil will win, because he did not give consent in fact to being touched.
   3. CPhil will lose, because he consented to being touched.
   4. DPhil will lose, even though he gave neither express consent nor consented in fact.
10. 10Frank and Stein met in the park with a bunch of other people interested in playing touch football. In order to stop
    a play under the usual touch football rules in the park, a defensive player must get both hands on an offensive
    player while that offensive player is in the possession of the football. Stein had just caught the ball when Frank,
    on defense, touches him with both hands consistent with the rules, thereby ending the play. Stein is unhappy that
    Frank stopped the play, so he pushes him to the ground as hard as he can, breaking three of Frank's ribs. If Frank
    sues Stein for battery:

    1. AFrank will lose, because Frank touched Stein first.
    2. BFrank will lose, because he consented to play football
    3. CFrank will win, because no one can ever consent to sharp physical contact
    4. DFrank will win, because Stein exceeded the scope of Frank's consent.

11. 11Felice detests her classmate Penelope. Every day for a month Felice leaves a flaming bag of dog poop on the
    front door of Penelope's apartment. A security camera shows Felice in the act. Penelope confronts Felice, who
    says that she will keep doing it until police drag her away in handcuffs. Penelope sues Felice for intentional
    infliction of emotional distress. Penelope has not gone to therapy or missed any class, but she's understandably
    angry with Felice. Can Penelope prove the prima facie case for IIED?

    1. ANo, because she did not have any objectively verifiable proof that she suffered severe emotional distress.
    2. BNo, because she did not suffer severe emotional distress.
    3. CYes, if the jury concludes Felice's actions were outrageous.
    4. DYes, so long as Penelope was angry.
12. 12Robert is obsessed with superstar actor Jodi. He sends her notes about how one day he will take her away and
    they will spend the rest of their lives together. Because of these letters, as well as disturbing communications
    from others, Jodi is surrounded by bodyguards. One day, when Jodi was coming out of a movie premiere, Robert
    jumped out of a crowd to try to grab Jodi and kiss her. As he lunges, Jodi's bodyguards tackle Robert before he
    can make any contact with Jodi. Jodi sees the whole thing and is very shaken up. If Jodi sues Robert for assault:

    1. AJodi should lose, because her bodyguards were able to take evasive action to avoid harmful or offensive contact
    2. BJodi should lose, because she was not afraid of Robert's attempted contact.
    3. CJodi should win, because she was put in imminent apprehension of offensive contact.
    4. DJodi should win, if she can prove she was actually afraid of being touched.
13. 13Tina is very excited to take part in a Civil War reenactment taking place in Patriot Park next weekend. She takes
    her antique gun, unloaded, to the park for practice. She practices marching with the gun and pointing it at ³the
    enemy.´When Tina practices, she picks a secluded place in the park. Carlos suddenly rides on his bicycle right
    in front of Tina as Tina picks up the gun and holds it out for practice against her imaginary opponent. Carlos
    becomes very afraid he was going to be shot and he nearly crashes his bike. Carlos sues Tina for the tort of
    assault. Can Carlos make out the the prima facie case for assault?

    1. AYes, because contact is not required for an assault.
    2. BYes, unless Carlos's bike actually crashed.
    3. CNo, because Tina did not act.
    4. DNo, because Tina did not have the requisite intent.
14. 14Tom and Jerry are friends who often play practical jokes on one another. Sometimes the jokes get out of hand.
    One day, Tom goes to a novelty store and buys a toy rat. Tom douses the toy rat in gasoline, lights it on fire,
    picks it up and puts it in Jerry's face. Tom wants Jerry to think Tom will touch him with the rat, but actually he
    does not intend to touch Jerry. Jerry backs up to get out of the way and trips over a chair, breaking his nose. Can
    Tom make out the intent element in a battery claim against Jerry?

    1. ANo, because Tom did not intend contact with Jerry.
    2. BNo, unless Jerry feared the rat would cause him physical harm.
    3. CYes, even though Tom did not intend that Jerry have a harmful contact with the rat
    4. DYes, because Tom intended that Jerry have an offensive or harmful contact with the rat.
15. 15Bill and Jennifer start arguing in a bar over a football game on television. Their tempers flare. Jennifer tries to
    punch Bill in the face. Bill gets out of the way and Jennifer's fist almost hits Phil, who sees the whole thing.
    Though Jennifer's fist does not touch Phil, it comes within an inch of his face, upsetting Phil greatly. Can Phil
    make out the the prima facie case for assault against Jennifer?

    1. ANo, because Jennifer did not make contact with Phil.
    2. BNo, because Jennifer did not intend to make contact with Phil.
    3. CYes, even though Jennifer did not intend to make contact with Phil
    4. DYes, unless Jennifer's fist actually made contact with Phil.
16. 16Alice is at a party having a conversation with Betty and Crissandra. Crissandra accidentally spills her drink on
    Betty and Betty gets angry. Betty pushes Alice into Crissandra. Crissandra falls to the ground and breaks her
    tooth. Both Betty and Crissandra sue Alice for battery. Will the lawsuits be successful?

    1. AYes as to Crissandra's suit against Alice, because Betty was the aggressor.
    2. BYes as to Betty's suit against Alice, if Crissandra provoked Betty.
    3. CYes as to both Betty's and Crissandra's suits against Alice.
    4. DNo as to both suits against Alice.
17. 17Eleven-year-old Harry is at a nursing home visiting his grandmother. He and his grandmother are in the facility's
    social hall. Harry sees a piano, which he has just started learning to play, and he gets very excited about playing
    for his grandmother. He walks over to the piano and grabs the piano bench out from under another resident,
    Frank, who is about to sit down to play the piano. Harry saw Frank starting to sit down, but Harry really wanted to
    play the piano. Harry sits down at the bench. Frank falls to the ground when Harry pulls the bench out from under
    him. Frank breaks his hip and sues Harry for battery. Can Frank prove that Harry had the requisite intent for
    battery?

    1. AYes, because Harry acted with the knowledge that Frank was substantially certain to hit the floor
    2. BYes, but only if Harry could fully appreciate how harmful a fall can be to an old person.
    3. CNo, because Harry did not act.
    4. DNo, because Harry did not have the purpose to cause Frank to hit the floor.
18. 18Patient agreed to an operation on his left ear. After he was placed under anesthesia, Doctor examined the left ear
    and determined that it did not need the operation after all. The doctor then examined the right ear and determined
    that it was diseased and needed an operation. The doctor operated. The operation was successful, and the
    condition of the ear was improved as a result of the operation. If Patient sues Doctor for battery, Patient will:

    1. AWin, only if doctor intended to operate on the right ear before putting Patient to sleep and failed to ask permission.
    2. BWin, because Patient did not consent to the operation on his right ear.
    3. CLose, because Patient impliedly consented that Doctor could extend the operation to remedy any abnormal or diseased
    4. DLose because the touching was beneficial, not harmful.
19. 19A discovered an automobile accident involving very serious injuries as she drove along the highway. She
    immediately went to the only nearby residence in order to use the phone to report the accident and call
    ambulances for the victims. She found that no one was home at the house, and decided to forcefully enter the
    house in order to gain access to the phone. In the course of doing so she damaged the door to the house. A dog
    inside the house bit A. B owns the house and the dog that was kept in the Can A make out a prima facie case for
    battery against B for the harm caused by the dog?

    1. AYes, because it is foreseeable that a dog would bite an intruder.
    2. BYes, if the dog did not have its rabies vaccination as required by statute.
    3. CNo, because A had no permission to enter the house.
    4. DNo, unless B kept the dog for the purpose of attacking intruders.
20. 20Alice is robbing Bill at gunpoint. Cindy, who is walking by, sees the robbery. Cindy yells at Alice to put the gun
    down. Alice ignores Cindy and cocks the trigger to shoot Bill. Cindy takes out her own gun and shoots at Alice,
    but Cindy misses Alice and shoots Bill as Bill suddenly runs in front of Alice to get away. If Bill sues Cindy for
    battery:

    1. ABill will lose, because Cindy acted reasonably while defending Bill
    2. BBill will lose, because Cindy acted in self-defense.
    3. CBill will win, because Cindy shot him.
    4. DBill will win, because one cannot use deadly force to defend another
21. 21Logan owns a boat that he uses to take people on international boating vacations. Logan does not own a satellite phone, which could be used to reach someone in the event of an emergency out at sea and far from shore. Logan takes a group of vacationers including Carrie on a trip around the world. While out at sea, Carrie has a medical emergency requiring immediate advice from a doctor. But far out at sea, and without a satellite phone, they cannot get advice from a doctor. As a result, Carrie's injuries are much worse. In assessing whether Logan is negligent in not having a satellite phone on board:

    1. AThe jury should consider the cost of the satellite phone, balanced against the increased risk of injury from not having the phone.
    2. BThe jury should consider only the cost of the phone in evaluating Logan's negligence.
    3. CThe jury should consider only the risk of injury in not having the phone in evaluating Logan's negligence.
    4. DThe jury should consider only whether other boats carry satellite phones, not the costs or benefits of having one.
22. 22Erica was on a flight on Cheapo Airlines when she had a heart attack. The plane made an emergency landing, but Erica suffered serious permanent damage to her heart. Doctors agree that if the plane had a defibrillator on board and flight attendants trained to use it, Erica's injuries would have been much less severe. Cheapo Airlines did not have defibrillators onboard; only two of the top ten airlines in the country do. What is the relevance, if any, of the fact that eight of the top ten airlines do not travel with defibrillators onboard?

    1. AThe lack of defibrillators is conclusive proof of negligence.
    2. BThe custom of not having defibrillators is conclusive proof of no negligence.
    3. CThe fact that two airlines had defibrillators proves Cheapo is negligent.
    4. DThe custom of not having defibrillators is relevant to whether Cheapo is negligent.
23. 23Ava gets into an elevator at the train station to go down to the station's passenger lounge. Suddenly the elevator 3 loses control and goes crashing to the bottom of the building, causing Ava to fall over and break her arm. The
    train station performs all of its own maintenance. The train station argues that the negligence case cannot go to the jury because Ava presented no proof of breach. How should the court rule on the train station's argument?

    1. AThe court should accept the argument, because a plaintiff must show how a defendant failed to use ordinary care to avoid a reasonably foreseeable risk to the plaintiff.
    2. BThe court should accept the argument, because Ava fell and no one pushed her.
    3. CThe court should reject the argument if the jury could decide that this kind of elevator malfunction ordinarily does not occur in the absence of the negligence of the entity in charge of keeping the elevator in good repair.
    4. DThe court should reject the argument, because it is the defendant, not the plaintiff, that bears the burden of proof in all negligence cases.
24. 24Oliver is driving 75 miles per hour on Oak Street, taking his mother, who he suspects is having a heart attack, to the hospital. Unfortunately, in speeding Oliver crashes into Penny, who is crossing the street. A state statute sets the speed limit on streets including Oak Street at 35 miles per hour. Which statement is true about Penny's suit for negligence against Oliver?

    1. AA jury may find Oliver not negligent even though he violated the statute.
    2. BA jury must find Oliver negligent, because he violated the statute.
    3. CA jury may not consider the speed limit in evaluating Oliver's negligence.
    4. DA jury may not consider the speed limit in evaluating Oliver's negligence as applied to Penny, because Penny is a pedestrian, not another driver.
25. 25David is driving 60 miles per hour down Main Street and gets into an accident, injuring his friend and passenger, Harry. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour, and an ordinance in the jurisdiction provides that going twice the speed limit is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and up to six months in prison. In proving whether David was negligent in speeding:

    1. AViolation of the statute is relevant to the question of negligence
    2. BViolation of the statute is inadmissible on the question of negligence.
    3. CViolation of the statute is conclusive proof of negligence, unless excused.
    4. DViolation of the statute is the best evidence of negligence.
26. 26Shortly after Juan's mother died, Juan goes with his best friend Carmen and Juan's father Ernesto to see a lawyer 6 about Juan's mother's will. Juan had not seen Ernesto for many years, and they were not close. At the lawyer's office, a paralegal, Phil, brought them into the waiting area. Phil was carrying a gun, which accidentally went off, killing Juan. Both Carmen and Ernesto sue Phil for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Phil argues that he does not owe either Carmen or Ernesto a duty of care in such circumstances. In a majority of jurisdictions, how would the court rule?

    1. ACarmen can recover, if he experienced serious emotional distress.
    2. BErnesto can recover, if he experienced serious emotional distress.
    3. CBoth Carmen and Ernesto can recover, if each experienced serious emotional distress.
    4. DNeither Carmen nor Ernesto can recover because Phil owes a duty only to those in the zone of physical danger.
27. 27Alexis was attending the funeral of her father at Jimmy's Funeral Home. Unfortunately, Jimmy mishandled her father's body, causing the body to fall out of the casket in the middle of the service. Alexis has been very distraught about the incident and has had trouble sleeping at night. Alexis sues Jimmy's Funeral Home for negligence. Can she successfully bring her case?

    1. ANo in any jurisdiction, because Alexis was not in the zone of physical danger from Jimmy's conduct.
    2. BNo in any jurisdiction, unless Jimmy at some point touched Alexis.
    3. CYes in some jurisdictions, because emotional distress in such circumstances is particularly foreseeable.
    4. DYes in all jurisdictions, because persons are always liable for emotional distress they negligently cause.
28. 28Farah invites Sam over for dinner. Farah cleans up her house before Sam arrives and waxes the floor of the kitchen so that it shines. The floor is very slippery, although it is impossible to tell that just by looking at it. Sam walks into the kitchen, slips and breaks his collar bone. Sam sues Farah for negligence in a jurisdiction which has abandoned the trichotomy status category approach to landowner/land occupier liability. Farah argues she owes no duty to Sam. How should the court rule?

    1. AFarah owes Sam no duty of reasonable care, because he is a social guest.
    2. BFarah owes a duty of reasonable care to Sam, if the danger from the slippery floor was not easily seen.
    3. CFarah owes Sam a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances.
    4. DFarah owes Sam a duty only to avoid engaging in willful and wanton misconduct.
29. 29Farah invites Sam over for dinner. Farah cleans up the house before Sam arrives and waxes the floor of the kitchen so that it shines. The floor is very slippery, although it is impossible to tell that just by looking at it. Sam walks into the kitchen, slips and breaks his collar bone. Sam sues Farah for negligence in a jurisdiction that uses the traditional trichotomy status category approach to landowner/land occupier liability. Farah argues she owes no duty to Sam. How should the court rule?

    1. AFarah owes Sam no duty of care because he is a social guest.
    2. BFarah owes a duty of care to Sam, if the danger from the slippery floor was not easily seen.
    3. CFarah owes the normal negligence duty of care to Sam, because he is a foreseeable plaintiff and she was engaged in risk creation.
    4. DFarah owes Sam a duty only to avoid engaging in willful and wanton misconduct.
30. 30Fran works as a therapist. One of her patients, Quincy, tells her he is having fantasies of killing a stranger. Fran works with Quincy to help him with his mental problems, but she does not go to the police or tell anyone else. The next day Quincy kills Tom. Tom's family sues Fran, alleging she was negligent in not going to the police. Under the famous case of Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, could Fran be liable for failing to go to the police?

    1. ANo, because therapists have an absolute privilege of confidentiality.
    2. BNo, because Quincy did not mention the names of an identifiable victim or victims.
    3. CYes, because therapists must warn the police when it is reasonably likely a patient will commit an act of violence.
    4. DYes, because Tarasoff eliminated the privilege of confidentiality.
31. 31
    Sonia works as a jail guard with the county jail. One day Sonia takes three prisoners, including Mike, to work picking up trash on the side of the highway. Sonia sits in the jail van while the prisoners work. Sonia is supposed to be guarding the prisoners, but she falls asleep. Mike stops a car on the highway. Mike beats up Al, who was driving the car. If Al sues Sonia for negligence:

    1. AAl will win, because Sonia breached a duty of care to him.
    2. BAl will win, because prison guards are strictly liable for the torts of their prisoners.
    3. CAl will lose, because Sonia had no duty of care to him.
    4. DAl will lose, because Mike, not Sonia, battered him.
32. 32Felicia is biking through the park with a box of bananas to bring to her smoothie shop. A huge gust of wind suddenly comes through the park and blows some bananas off of the back of the bike and onto the path runners use. Felicia does not notice the bananas falling. Lance is sitting nearby and sees the bananas fall. Even though it would be quite easy for Lance to pick up the bananas, and even though Lance knows that if he does not pick up the bananas, someone, including his 15-year-old daughter Selena, could slip, he does nothing. Selena is out on a run in the park, doesn't see the bananas in time and slips, breaking her leg. If Selena sues Lance for negligence:

    1. ASelena will lose, because Felicia, not Lance, dropped the bananas.
    2. BSelena will lose, because Lance acted reasonably in not picking up the bananas.
    3. CSelena will win, because Lance owed her a duty to come to her aid if he could do so easily.
    4. DSelena will lose, because Lance owed her no duty to come to her aid even if he could do so easily.
33. 33Felicia is biking through the park with a box of bananas to bring to her smoothie shop. A huge gust of wind
    suddenly comes through the park and blows some bananas off of the back of the bike and onto the path runners
    use. This happened even though Felicia acted reasonably. Oh well, Felicia says, as she leaves the bananas right on the park's running path as runners come by. It would have been very easy for her to pick them up. Jane, out on a run in the park, doesn't see the bananas in time and slips, breaking her leg. If Jane sues Felicia for negligence:

    1. AJane will lose, because Felicia owed her no duty to come to her aid even if she could do so easily.
    2. BJane will win, because Felicia was negligent in dropping the bananas.
    3. CJane may win, even though Felicia was not negligent in dropping the bananas.
    4. DJane will lose, because Felicia was not negligent.
34. 34Felicia is biking through the park with a box of bananas to bring to her smoothie shop. A huge gust of wind suddenly comes through the park and blows some bananas off of the back of the bike and onto the path runners use. Felicia does not notice the bananas falling. Lance is sitting nearby and sees the bananas fall. Even though it would be quite easy for Lance to pick up the bananas, and even though Lance knows that if he does not pick up the bananas someone will likely slip, he does nothing. Jane, out on a run in the park, doesn't see the bananas in time and slips, breaking her leg. If Jane sues Lance for negligence:

    1. AJane will win, because Lance acted negligently in not picking up the bananas.
    2. BJane will lose, because Lance acted reasonably in not picking up the bananas.
    3. CJane will win, because Lance owed her a duty to come to her aid if he could do so easily.
    4. DJane will lose, because Lance owed her no duty to come to her aid even if he could do so easily.
35. 35Faith starts her new job as a certified auto mechanic, after going to the best training program in the state. Unfortunately, Faith botches her first brake job on Molly's car. Soon after Molly leaves Faith's garage after the repair, Molly's brakes fail, causing Molly's car to crash. Molly suffers serious personal injuries and property damage. In determining whether Faith breached in the repair, she should be judged under which standard?

    1. AA reasonably prudent novice mechanic.
    2. BA reasonably prudent person.
    3. CA reasonably prudent mechanic.
    4. DAn honest mechanic.
36. 36Dolly is driving down the street when, because of mental illness, she has a delusion she is being chased by aliens. She comes up too quickly upon Walid, who is in a wheelchair crossing the street. Although the traffic signal had already turned red, Walid was still in the intersection trying to cross the street. Dolly crashes into Walid, seriously injuring him. Walid sues Dolly for negligence. Dolly defends, in part, by arguing that Walid was negligent in crossing the street. In assessing the reasonableness of each party's conduct:

    1. AThe jury should be instructed to take into account Dolly's disability
    2. BThe jury should be instructed to take into account Walid's disability.
    3. CThe jury should be instructed to take into account both Dolly's disability and Walid's disability.
    4. DThe jury should not be instructed to take into account either Dolly's or Walid's disability.
37. 37Gene loves to garden, though he's not very smart or good at gardening. He bought a lot of chemicals to kill weeds in his garden, and even though the labels on the chemicals explain that they should be stored in locations in which the temperature is below 90 degrees, Gene puts the chemicals in his unventilated shed, which gets well above 100 degrees during the summer. Gene's neighbor Mary sees Gene putting the chemicals in the shed. She warns him that this is dangerous, especially in the summer. Gene tells Mary that he will chance it. He honestly believes the chemicals would be okay in the shed. Unfortunately, the chemicals heat up in the shed and explode, killing Mary's dog. Mary sues Gene for negligence. Should the jury find that Gene breached his duty to Mary?

    1. ANo, if the jury believes Gene honestly was as careful as he could be.
    2. BNo, if the jury believes Gene acted like a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
    3. CYes, if the jury finds that Gene was telling the truth.
    4. DYes, if the jury finds that Gene acted reasonably.
38. 38Bob is driving carefully, but nonetheless runs over Carol's foot, causing her medical bills and lost work. Carol sues Bob for negligence, but concedes she cannot prove that Bob breached any duty to her. Can Carol successfully make out the prima facie case for negligence against Bob?

    1. AYes, because Carol can prove a preponderance of the elements: duty, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages.
    2. BYes, because Bob caused Carol's damages.
    3. CNo, because Carol cannot prove all of the elements of the tort of negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.
    4. DNo, because Carol may also have been at fault.
39. 39A worker in a commercial amusement park backed a truck over a park visitor who was lying unconscious on the ground. The worker did not see the visitor because he did not look behind him prior to backing up. If he had looked, he would have seen the visitor lying on the ground. In an action by the visitor against the amusement park in a jurisdiction that maintains the traditional common-law entrant status distinctions, the visitor will:

    1. ARecover only if the visitor paid for admission to the park.
    2. BRecover if the worker knew that visitors sometimes entered the area where the accident occurred, even though that area was not open to visitors.
    3. CNot recover if the area was closed to visitors.
    4. DNot recover unless the worker had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
40. 40Doctor prescribed a drug without telling patient that there was a 10% chance that she would develop impaired vision as a result of using the drug. The patient's vision was impaired by the use of the drug. The patient sues the doctor for failing to inform her of the risk. In a jurisdiction that applies the physician standard, the patient will:

    1. AWin, if a reasonable person would consider the information important.
    2. BWin, if plaintiff thought the information was important.
    3. CLose, unless the patient shows that the doctor was not justified in withholding the information because of concern for the patient's condition.
    4. DLose, unless a medical expert testifies that he would have told the patient about this risk.
41. 41Dr. Barry, a surgeon, recommends knee surgery for Jessica after examining Jessica's knee. Most doctors would not have recommended surgery for Jessica, opting instead for physical therapy first to see if it would alleviate Jessica's pain. However, doctors following a recognized school of thought, like Dr. Barry, opt for surgery because mobility is likely to be greater if the surgery is successful. Dr. Barry goes ahead with the surgery and does not explain to Jessica the greater risks of surgery compared to physical therapy or that most doctors would not recommend surgery. Unfortunately, Jessica's knee gets worse. Jessica sues Dr. Barry claiming lack of informed consent. Dr. Barry explains she did not want to tell Jessica about the risks of surgery because she thought it might upset Jessica and she therefore might have decided to not have the surgery. Is Dr. Barry liable for failing to secure informed consent?

    1. ANo, because Jessica consented to surgery
    2. BNo, because Dr. Barry was genuinely concerned Jessica might not have surgery which Dr. Barry believed to be beneficial
    3. CYes, because doctors must disclose all risks of surgery
    4. DYes, because doctors generally must disclose material risks of surgery
42. 42Gwen works as a security guard at Shopco, a warehouse grocery store. Gwen is supposed to patrol the store for four hours straight and then take a half hour for lunch. Gwen is tired, so she goes into the restroom and takes a snooze in a bathroom stall. While Gwen is sleeping, Robbie the robber comes in to steal money from the cash drawers. In the course of the robbery, Robbie shoots a customer, Mike, who tried to get up and tackle him during the robbery. Mike sues Shopco for negligence, arguing that Gwen was negligent in sleeping on the job (assume Shopco is vicariously liable for Gwen's actions). What is the strongest intervening cause argument Shopco can make against liability for negligence?

    1. AGwen falling asleep on the job was a superseding cause which breaks the chain of causation.
    2. BRobbie robbing the store was a superseding cause which breaks the chain of causation.
    3. CMike trying to tackle Robbie was a superseding cause which breaks the chain of causation.
    4. DRobbie shooting Mike was a superseding cause which breaks the chain of causation.
43. 43Megan is about to board an airplane when Caitlyn negligently bumps into her, causing Megan to get some cuts and scrapes. After Megan cleans up, she goes to board her plane, but it has already departed. Caitlyn gets on the next plane, but that plane has a malfunction and crashes, seriously injuring Caitlyn. If Caitlyn sues Megan for negligence, what is the most likely result?

    1. AMegan will recover for all of her injuries actually caused by Caitlyn's negligence.
    2. BMegan will recover only for those injuries actually caused by Caitlyn's negligence.
    3. CMegan is likely to recover for the cuts and scrapes but not for injuries related to the plane crash.
    4. DMegan is likely to recover nothing from Caitlyn.
44. 44Connor works as a substitute school teacher. One day Connor gets a call to be a substitute teacher in a
    kindergarten classroom. Connor, who also makes fireworks as a hobby, brings a box of powdered explosive 1/1
    materials into the classroom so it will not get stolen from his car. If dropped the box could easily explode. Connor leaves the box on the desk of the kindergarten classroom. A few children are playing during recess near the box, and one of them knocks the box over. The powdered materials in the box spread all over the floor, and Joan, a child in the classroom, slips on the materials and breaks her elbow. Fortunately, there is no explosion. Joan sues Connor for negligence in a jurisdiction which follows the Third Restatement's approach to scope of liability/proximate cause. Which statement is true about Joan's case?

    1. AJoan cannot prove that Connor's bringing the box into the classroom was an actual cause of her injury.
    2. BJoan has a stronger case based upon bringing a slippery substance in the classroom than bringing explosives in the classroom.
    3. CJoan's slipping was a harm within the risk of bringing explosives into the classroom.
    4. DBecause Joan can prove negligence and actual cause, she will necessarily prove her entire prima facie case.
45. 45Nick worked at a ship yard during World War II as a welder. He was exposed to asbestos on the job in many different forms and from many different products. Years later, Nick develops asbestosis, a disease one can only get from exposure to asbestos. Nick wants to sue asbestos manufacturers who made asbestos products that might have been in the ship yard during the years he worked as a welder. (Assume all manufacturers selling asbestos at the time could be found negligent and that the claims are not barred by any statute of limitations.) Nick cannot identify who made any of the products he was exposed to, and different products raised different risks of causing asbestosis. He cannot sue all of the manufacturers of asbestos products made at the time because some are out of business. The manufacturers he sues argue that his claim fails on actual causation grounds. How should the court rule on the manufacturers' argument?

    1. AThe court should reject it because Nick can prove causation of each manufacturer as concurrent causes.
    2. BThe court should reject it because Nick can shift the burden using alternative liability.
    3. CThe court should reject it because Nick can prove his case using market share liability.
    4. DThe court should accept it under existing accepted theories of causation
46. 46Frank runs Frank's factory, which makes leather goods. The factory spews smoke, which contains a chemical that causes some people to contract a rare lung disease. Barney, Frank's competitor, runs a nearby factory making the same type of leather goods and spewing the same smoke which contains the same chemical that can cause the rare lung disease. Roger, who lives near Frank's and Barney's factories, contracts the rare lung disease, and there is no question that Roger got the disease from the smoke emitted from the factories. An expert testifies that Roger got sick either from Frank's factory smoke or Barney's factory smoke but not both. The expert cannot tell which one. Assume Barney was negligent in spewing the smoke but Frank was not. Barney argues to the court that he cannot be liable because Roger cannot prove actual cause. How should the court rule?

    1. AThe court should agree with Barney because it is not more likely than not that the smoke came from Barney's factory.
    2. BThe court should agree with Barney because Barney's actions were not a but-for cause of injury and the alternative liability doctrine is inapplicable on these facts.
    3. CThe court should disagree with Barney and hold Barney liable unless he can prove it is more likely than not that the smoke from his factory did not cause the injury.
    4. DThe court should disagree with Barney because he was negligent to spew the smoke.
47. 47Frank runs Frank's factory, which makes leather goods. The factory spews smoke, which contains a chemical that
    causes some people to contract a rare lung disease. Barney, Frank's competitor, runs a nearby factory making 0/1
    the same type of leather goods and spewing the same smoke which contains the same chemical that can cause the rare lung disease. Roger, who lives near Frank's and Barney's factories, contracts the rare lung disease, and there is no question that Roger got the disease from the smoke emitted from one of the factories. An expert testifies that Roger got sick either from Frank's factory smoke or Barney's factory smoke. The expert cannot tell which one. Assume both Frank and Barney were negligent in spewing this smoke. Barney argues to the court that he cannot be liable because Roger cannot prove actual cause. How should the court rule?

    1. AThe court should agree with Barney because it is not more likely than not that the smoke came from Barney's factory.
    2. BThe court should agree with Barney because Barney's actions were not a but-for cause of injury, and the alternative liability doctrine is inapplicable on these facts.
    3. CThe court should disagree with Barney and hold Barney liable unless he can prove it is more likely than not that the smoke from his factory did not cause the injury.
    4. DThe court should disagree with Barney because he was negligent to spew the smoke.
48. 48Frank runs Frank's factory, which makes leather goods. The factory spews smoke, which contains a chemical that causes some people to contract a rare lung disease. Barney, Frank's competitor, runs a nearby factory making the same type of leather goods and spewing the same smoke which contains the same chemical that can cause the rare lung disease. Roger, who lives near Frank's and Barney's factories, contracts the rare lung disease, and there is no question that Roger got the disease from the smoke emitted from the factories. An expert testifies that each factory alone emitted enough smoke to give Roger this disease, and he is no worse off having been exposed to smoke from both factories. Barney argues to the court that he cannot be liable because Roger cannot prove actual cause. How should the court rule?

    1. AThe court should agree with Barney because two people can never both be actual causes of the same injury.
    2. BThe court should agree with Barney because Barney's actions were not a but-for cause of injury.
    3. CThe court should reject Barney's argument because Barney's actions were a but-for cause of injury.
    4. DThe court should reject Barney's argument because even though Barney's actions were not a but-for cause of injury, a jury could find causation under the multiple sufficient cause doctrine.
49. 49Frank runs Frank's factory, which makes leather goods. The factory spews smoke, which contains a chemical that some people claim increases the risk of lung cancer. According to epidemiological statistics, 10 people in the neighborhood around Frank's factory are expected to contract lung cancer, but there are 13 cases of lung cancer there. If any of the 13 people with lung cancer sue Frank in tort for their cancers based upon the smoke from Frank's factory:

    1. AEach plaintiff would have to prove that the chemical in the smoke from Frank's factory can cause lung cancer.
    2. BEach plaintiff would have to prove, assuming the chemical can increase the risk of lung cancer, that the chemical in the smoke from Frank's factory caused the plaintiff's lung cancer.
    3. CEach plaintiff would have to prove both the chemical in the smoke can cause lung cancer, and that the chemical in the smoke from Frank's factory caused the plaintiff's lung cancer.
    4. DAssuming Frank's spewing of the smoke was tortious, each plaintiff could get damages equal to 3/13ths of his or her injuries.
50. 50Torey is driving drunk after leaving a friend's house. Torey is stopped at a red light, not breaking any other traffic laws, when Erin crashes into her. Erin concedes she was negligent in causing the crash, as she was texting when 1/1
    the crash occurred. But she wants to have her negligence reduced on account of Torey's drunk driving. The jurisdiction allows for comparative responsibility allocations between plaintiffs and defendants when both are negligent. How should the court handle Erin's argument?

    1. AThe court should allow Erin to make the argument to the jury, because drunk driving is negligence per se.
    2. BThe court should allow Erin to make the argument to the jury, because Torey could have injured many people by driving drunk
    3. CThe court should bar Erin's argument, because Erin was negligent.
    4. DThe court should bar Erin's argument, because Torey's conduct was not an actual cause of the accident.
51. 51Chloe is crossing the street when she has a sudden seizure. She collapses in the crosswalk. Barbara is driving
    down the street and is not paying attention to the road as she talks on her cell phone. Barbara runs over Chloe, 1/1
    causing Chloe serious injuries. Barbara concedes her conduct was negligent but argues that Chloe cannot prove actual causation saying, If I didn't run Chloe over, someone else would have eventually. Is a factfinder likely to find that Barbara's conduct was an actual cause of Chloe's injury?

    1. AYes, because Chloe would eventually have been run over by someone.
    2. BNo, because Chloe would have eventually been run over by someone.
    3. CYes, because but for Barbara's negligence, this injury to Chloe would not have occurred.
    4. DNo, because even with Barbara's negligence, an injury to Chloe would have occurred.
52. 52Noah works for a company running halfway houses for convicted sex offenders. A state statute prohibits knowingly transporting sex offenders within 500 feet of any school. Noah drives a van full of sex offenders right in front of Mills Elementary School. Unfortunately, because of Noah's poor driving, he runs over and injures three Mills' students crossing in a crosswalk. The students sue Noah for negligence. May the students prove negligence through violation of the statute?

    1. ANo, because Mills' students were not in the class of people the statute was designed to protect.
    2. BNo, because violating the statute was not an actual cause of the students' injuries.
    3. CNo, because bad driving was not a harm within the risk of violating the statute.
    4. DNo, because the students have other ways of proving negligence.
53. 53P is injured in an accident involving A and B. A and B are equally at fault in causing the accident. P's damages
    are $10,000. P settles with B for $1,000 and gives B a release. P sues A in a jurisdiction that has adopted pure
    comparative negligence. If the jurisdiction uses a pro rata credit based on comparative fault, P will recover from
    C:

    1. A$3,333
    2. B$5,000
    3. C$9,000
    4. DNothing.
54. 54P is injured in an accident involving A, B and C. All three parties are equally at fault in causing the accident. P's
    damages are $10,000. P settles with B for $1,000 and gives B a release. P sues C in a jurisdiction that has
    adopted pure comparative negligence. If the jurisdiction uses a pro tanto credit, P will recover from C:

    1. A$3,333
    2. B$5,000
    3. C$9,000
    4. DNothing.
55. 55Owner raised a pet squirrel from infancy. The animal was perfectly tame and always stayed on Owner's unfenced
    backyard, where Owner provided food and water. On one occasion the animal left unexpectedly for a week. It
    was next seen by Pedestrian who was walking along a public sidewalk in Owner's neighborhood. Pedestrian
    recognized the animal as belonging to Owner. He tried to pet the animal, and was bitten. The animal turned out
    to have rabies, and Pedestrian had to take a long series of painful shots in order to avoid getting the disease.
    Prior to petting the animal, Pedestrian had seen a small amount of foam at the edges of the animal's mouth, but
    he failed to associate the foam as a symptom of rabies. The animal had exhibited no signs of having rabies prior
    to leaving Owner's property. However, because of the time span involved, he must have already contracted the
    disease. In an action by Pedestrian against Owner for damages caused by the bite, Pedestrian's best theory of
    recovery is:

    1. ANegligence
    2. BStrict liability for keeping domesticated animals
    3. CStrict liability for keeping wild animals
    4. DStrict liability for permitting a dangerous animal to escape from Owner's land
56. 56Celebrate Inc. is running a fireworks show at the annual Fourth of July picnic. Billy, an 11-year-old boy, sneaks
    past security guards to get a close look at the operation. He gets too close, and suffers hearing damage because
    he is not wearing protective earplugs. The jurisdiction treats the lighting of fireworks as an abnormally dangerous
    activity and applies the Third Restatement's approach to strict liability for abnormally dangerous products. What
    is the relevance, if any, of Billy's conduct in evaluating who bears responsibility for Billy's injury?

    1. ABilly's conduct is irrelevant, because this is a case governed by strict liability principles
    2. BBilly's assumption of risk is relevant, but not any negligence on his part.
    3. CAny negligence by Billy is relevant, but not his assumption of risk.
    4. DBoth Billy's negligence and assumption of risk are relevant for the allocation of responsibility for the injury.
57. 57Callie and Sam are neighbors in a rural area. One day Sam is using reasonable care, shepherding his sheep to
    graze, when the sheep are spooked by a wolf in the area. They run in many directions, and some knock over
    Callie's fence, causing $1,500 in damage. Will Sam be strictly liable for damages caused by his sheep?

    1. AYes, because Sam's sheep caused the damage.
    2. BYes, because sheep are docile animals.
    3. CNo, because Sam used reasonable care
    4. DNo, because livestock owners are never strictly liable for intruding livestock.
58. 58Pavel is riding his bike when Dino negligently hits Pavel with his car. Pavel breaks a rib. Dino calls an ambulance
    to take Pavel to the hospital. Alvin the ambulance driver picks up Pavel to take him to the hospital, but negligently
    crashes the ambulance, causing Pavel to get a concussion. If Pavel sues both Dino and Alvin for negligence:

    1. ABoth parties are jointly and severally liable for the rib injury and concussion
    2. BDino is responsible for the rib injury and Alvin is responsible for the concussion.
    3. CBoth parties are liable for both injuries depending upon their relative share of responsibility
    4. DDino is solely responsible for the rib injury, while Dino and Alvin are jointly and severally responsible for the concussion
59. 59Nikki and Karen are involved in an automobile accident which injures Sima. Sima sues both of them for
    negligence. The jury finds that Nikki was 80 percent at fault and Karen was 20 percent at fault, and that Sima's
    damages were $100,000. The jurisdiction uses traditional joint and several liability rules. What is the most that
    Sima may recover from Karen?

    1. A$100,000, but only if Nikki refuses to pay her fair share
    2. B$20,000
    3. C$80,000
    4. D$100,000
60. 60Many hunters are out on the first day of duck hunting season. It is very crowded and Maria, a hunter, is unlucky
    enough to be shot twice. Alice shoots Maria in the left arm, causing very serious injuries. Janet shoots Maria in
    the right leg, causing a minor flesh wound. The three people had never met before the shooting. Assume that
    both Alice and Janet were negligent in shooting Maria, and that Maria was not negligent. Alice has left town and is
    nowhere to be found. If Maria sues Janet for negligence, she will be able to recover for:

    1. AThe arm injury.
    2. BThe leg injury.
    3. CBoth the arm and the leg injury.
    4. DBoth the arm and the leg injury, but only if Janet was at least as at fault as Maria
61. 61The Acme Blasting Company has the worst safety record in the blasting business. It takes no steps to clear the
    blasting area, in direct violation of state laws and industry practice. As a result, Brennan, who is walking down
    the street near an Acme blast site, is seriously injured. The jurisdiction in which the accident took place imposes
    strict liability for personal injuries occurring through blasting. Assume Brennan succeeds in proving his prima
    facie case against Acme for injuries as the result of blasting. May Brennan also obtain punitive damages?

    1. AYes, but only if Acme intended to harm Brennan
    2. BYes, even though blasting is a strict liability tort
    3. CNo, unless Acme intended to harm Brennan
    4. DNo, because one need not prove fault to recover damages for blasting in the jurisdiction
62. 62Ava injures Ezra in an automobile collision that was completely Ava's fault. Ezra suffers serious back injuries, the
    result of which left Ezra able to move but unable to work. Doctors testify that unless Ezra has back surgery, he
    will never be able to work again. The back surgery is very risky, however, and if Ezra has the surgery, there is a 30
    percent chance he would be left completely paralyzed. In Ezra's suit for negligence against Ava, which statement
    is most correct about the damages to which Ezra will be entitled?

    1. AEzra will be able to get the value of his past lost wages, as well as future lost wages, discounted to present value.
    2. BEzra will be able to get the value of his past lost wages, as well as his future lost wages, discounted to present value, but only up to the point at which he could have had the back surgery.
    3. CEzra will be able to get the value of his past lost wages only.
    4. DEzra will not be able to get any lost wages, because he breached his duty to mitigate.
63. 63Liam was injured in a terrible automobile accident, which left him with limited ability to feel pleasure and pain. He
    has had and will continue to have extensive medical expenses and will never be able to work again. Alexa, who
    caused the accident, argues that she need not pay any damages because the plaintiff has limited ability to feel
    pain. How should a court respond to the Alexa's argument?

    1. AThe court should accept it, ruling that Liam can recover no damages for his injuries.
    2. BThe court should accept it in part, ruling that Liam can recover no noneconomic damages
    3. CThe court should accept it in part, ruling that Liam can recover no economic damages.
    4. DThe court should reject it.
64. 64Talia and Sammy are neighbors who dislike each other. Every afternoon, Talia sends her dog to go to the
    bathroom near the line between their adjoining properties. Talia insists the dog is on her side of the property line.
    Sammy insists the dog is crossing the line. To resolve the case, Sammy sues Talia for trespass to land, seeking
    $1 in damages for the invasion. Talia responds by stating that, even if Sammy is right that Talia's dog has
    crossed into Sammy's property, Sammy cannot prove his prima facie case for trespass to land because he has
    neither requested nor proven any damages. How should the court rule on Talia's argument?

    1. AThe court should accept Talia's argument because plaintiffs must always prove damages as part of the prima facie case
    2. BThe court should reject Talia's argument because Talia was acting intentionally.
    3. CThe court should reject Talia's argument because plaintiffs never need to prove damages as part of the prima facie case.
    4. DThe court should reject Talia's argument because Sammy could seek nominal damages as a means of declaring the rights between the two parties.
65. 65Alexandra is driving cross country to visit her best friend. She is in a hurry and is driving even while she is
    sleepy. Alexandra is so tired she decides to pull over. Unfortunately, she pulls over on the railroad tracks. Paula
    is the train conductor. She sees Alexandra's car on the tracks, not moving, but assumes Alexandra will move the
    car. Once the train is very close to the car, and after it is too late to stop the train, Paula blows the train horn.
    Alexandra wakes up, but it is too late for her to move the car, and she suffers serious personal injuries. Can
    Alexandra prevail in a lawsuit against Paula and the train company for negligence in a jurisdiction which has
    adopted the 49% modified comparative negligence rule?

    1. AYes, and Alexandra is likely to recover all of her damages.
    2. BYes, but Alexandra will recover all of her damages only if the jury determines she is less at fault than Paula.
    3. CYes, but Alexandra will recover only some of her damages, and only if the jury determines she is less at fault than Paula.
    4. DNo, even though Paula was also at fault because the last clear chance doctrine has been abolished

Description

Quiz on Torts Quiz, created by Susana Lum on 15/12/2018.

Author

Susana Lum

Language

English

Views

0

Tags

torts

Rating

No ratings yet

Rate this quiz

Rate this quiz

More on Intentional torts and trespass to the person