gould’s “mcq’s in the morning” multiple choice program“mcq’s in the morning” multiple...

GOULD’S “MCQ’s in the MORNING” Multiple Choice Program:

TORTS QUESTIONS, 151-160

© 2012 GOULD’S LEGAL EDUCATION, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

© 2012 GOULD’S, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

151. Tom and Bob were friends. One day they went to a baseball game, and were seated in the crowd, with others fans cheering the home team. At one point, Tom stood up to cheer and lost his balance. A person near Tom, Fan, reached out to help steady Tom, and touched Tom on Tom’s arm. The place where Tom was touched by Fan, was a sensitive area that Tom had just had an operation on, and Tom screamed out in pain. If Tom brings a claim of battery against Fan, what is the likely result? A. Tom wins, because Fan intentionally touched Tom. B. Tom wins, because Tom experienced a harmful or offensive touching. C. Fan wins, because Fan and Tom were at a baseball game. D. Fan wins, because Fan was being a good Samaritan.


151. CORRECT ANSWER: C. A battery occurs where the defendant intends, or takes action with an intent to a substantial certainty, to cause a harmful or offensive touching to another, or something connected with that person. An offensive touching is present when the dignity of a reasonable person would be hurt. Consent consists of an express or implied agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff, garnered from the circumstances, for defendant to engage in the activity that caused the intentional tort. However, the defendant may not exceed the scope of any consent given by the plaintiff, and the defendant may not use fraud or duress to induce the consent of the plaintiff. In this situation, Tom impliedly consented to incidental touches in a crowded society, when he went to the baseball game. Fan engaged in a normally appropriate societal touching when trying to steady Tom, and therefore Fan would prevail in a battery claim because of Tom’s implied consent to normal societal physical contact.


152. Tom and Bob were friends. One day they went to a baseball game, and were seated in the crowd, with others fans cheering the home team. At one point, Tom stood up to cheer and lost his balance. A person near Tom, Fan, reached out pushed Tom slightly, so that Tom fully lost his balance and fell. Fan was not outwardly angry, but felt insulted that Tom was not cheering for the home team. If Tom brings a claim of battery against Fan, what is the likely result? A. Tom wins, because he fell. B. Tom wins, because Tom experienced a harmful or offensive touching. C. Fan wins, because Fan and Tom were at a baseball game. D. Fan wins, because Fan was not angry.


152. CORRECT ANSWER: B. A battery occurs where the defendant intends, or takes action with an intent to a substantial certainty, to cause a harmful or offensive touching to another, or something connected with that person. An offensive touching is present when the dignity of a reasonable person would be hurt. Consent consists of an express or implied agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff, garnered from the circumstances, for defendant to engage in the activity that caused the intentional tort. However, the defendant may not exceed the scope of any consent given by the plaintiff, and the defendant may not use fraud or duress to induce the consent of the plaintiff. In this situation, Tom impliedly consented to incidental touches in a crowded society, however, Fan’s intent in touching Tom was not a normal societal touch, because Fan intended to cause Tom to experience a harmful touching. Therefore, the touch from Fan was outside of the implied consent to societal touches, and Tom will prevail in a battery claim against Fan.


153. Tom and Bob were friends. One day they went to a baseball game, and were seated in the crowd, with others fans cheering the home team. At one point, Tom, as a prank, placed a light bicycle chain with a lock around Bob’s waist, while Bob was watching the baseball game. Moments later, when Bob tried to stand and cheer, he could not stand, because of the light bicycle chain around his waist. Tom immediately removed the chain. If Bob brings a claim of false imprisonment against Tom what is the likely result? A. Tom wins, because he only engaged in a prank. B. Tom wins, because Bob was not confined to a bounded area. C. Bob wins, because Tom intended to confine Bob. D. Bob wins, if Tom locked the chain.


153. CORRECT ANSWER: D. False imprisonment occurs where a defendant intends, or takes action with knowledge to a substantial certainty, to confine plaintiff to a bounded area with physical means or threats, for any length of time, and in which plaintiff has no reasonable means of escape. The plaintiff must be aware of the confinement. In this situation, Tom caused Bob to be confined to Bob’s seat momentarily, which would be a false imprisonment, if Bob could not extricate himself from the bicycle chain in a reasonable manner. Thus, if Tom locked the chain, Bob would have a difficult time to extricate himself, and Bob would prevail in a claim of false imprisonment against Tom.


154. Tom was Bob’s father. One day they went to a baseball game, and were seated in the crowd, with others fans cheering the home team. At one point, Tom, saw what he knew to be a dangerous firecracker with a long fuse, that another fan had lit and placed under the seats nearby to where Tom and Bob were seated. Tom said nothing, but immediately walked away. If Bob experiences physical injury due to the blast from the dangerous firecracker, what is the likely result in a claim by Bob against Tom? A. Tom wins, because Tom was Bob’s father. B. Tom wins, because he was not the cause-in-fact of the harm. C. Bob wins, because Tom was Bob’s father. D. Bob wins, because he experienced harm from the blast.


154. CORRECT ANSWER: C. Negligence is defined as unreasonable conduct by a defendant, where defendant’s conduct fails to rise to a standard of care of that of a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances. Defendant's conduct must breach a duty to prevent a foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff, and defendant’s breach must actually and proximately cause injury to the plaintiff. Prima facie issues are: Duty, Standard of Care, Breach of Duty, Actual Cause, Proximate Cause, Damages, Defenses, and Remedies. Normally there is no duty to act to rescue or to give / render aid to one in peril, however, under a special relationship between two parties, such as parent-child, teacher-student, and similar special relationships, a defendant has a duty to aid and to protect the others in their care. In this situation, Tom had a special relationship with Bob, because Tom was Bob’s father, and therefore Tom had a duty to try and render aid to Bob when Bob was in a perilous situation.


155. Tom was Bob’s father. One day they went to a baseball game, and were seated in the crowd, with others fans cheering the home team. At one point, Tom, saw what he knew to be a dangerous firecracker with a long fuse, that another fan had lit and placed under the seats nearby to where Tom and Bob were seated. Tom said nothing, but immediately grabbed Bob, and walked away with Bob. If Fan nearby to where Tom was seated experiences physical injury from the blast from the dangerous firecracker, what is the likely result in a claim against Tom? A. Tom wins, because he had no duty to aid or rescue Fan. B. Fan wins, because Tom did not act as an appropriate person. C. Fan wins, because Tom was the cause-in-fact of Fan’s injury. D. Fan wins, because it was foreseeable to Tom that Fan would be injured.


155. CORRECT ANSWER: A. Negligence is defined as unreasonable conduct by a defendant, where defendant’s conduct fails to rise to a standard of care of that of a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances. Defendant's conduct must breach a duty to prevent a foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff, and defendant’s breach must actually and proximately cause injury to the plaintiff. Prima facie issues are: Duty, Standard of Care, Breach of Duty, Actual Cause, Proximate Cause, Damages, Defenses, and Remedies. Normally there is no duty to act to rescue or to give / render aid to one in peril, however, under a special relationship between two parties, such as parent-child, teacher-student, and similar special relationships, a defendant has a duty to aid and to protect the others in their care. In this situation, Tom did not have a special relationship with Fan, nor did Tom cause the peril, or start to render aid leaving Fan in a worse situation. Therefore, Tom had no duty to aid or rescue Fan.


156. Tom was Bob’s father. For Bob’s birthday, Tom purchased a set of youth golf clubs from Sports Store, manufactured by Superior Clubs, for Bob to use. The golf clubs were shorter than normal golf clubs. One day, Bob was swinging his golf clubs, and a golf club broke in half, causing Bob injury. If Bob sues Sports Store in negligence, and it is found that the golf clubs were defective at purchase, what is the likely result? A. Sports Store wins, if they can show that they would not have found a defect in the golf clubs with a reasonable inspection. B. Sports Store wins, because Bob did not purchase the golf clubs. C. Bob wins, because the golf clubs were defective at purchase. D. Bob wins, because he was a foreseeable user of the golf clubs.


156. CORRECT ANSWER: A. Under negligence, people who place products into the stream of commerce, such as manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, owe a duty of care to reasonably foreseeable users of the products, to reasonably inspect the goods before selling them to purchasers. Therefore, in this situation, if defendant could not have found the defect in the golf clubs with a reasonable inspection, then will not be found liable in negligence.


157. Tom was Bob’s father. For Bob’s birthday, Tom purchased a set of youth golf clubs from Sports Store, manufactured by Superior Clubs, for Bob to use. The golf clubs were shorter than normal golf clubs. One day, Bob was swinging his golf clubs, and a golf club broke in half, causing Bob injury. If Bob sues Sports Store in strict liability in tort, and it is found that the golf clubs were defective at purchase, what is the likely result? A. Sports Store wins, if they can show that they would not have found a defect in the golf clubs with a reasonable inspection. B. Sports Store wins, because Bob did not purchase the golf clubs. C. Bob wins, because the golf clubs were defective at purchase. D. Bob wins, because of the doctrine of caveat emptor.


157. CORRECT ANSWER: C. A claim in strict products liability is proper where a product causes damage to the plaintiff, and the product was sold in a defective condition which was unreasonably dangerous to a normal consumer of the product. Bob was a foreseeable user of the golf clubs because they were purchased for him, and Sports Store was a foreseeable defendant, because they were in the distributive chain of the golf clubs. Therefore, Bob would prevail in a claim of strict products liability, because the golf clubs were defective.


158. Tom was Bob’s father. For Bob’s birthday, Tom purchased a set of youth golf clubs from Sports Store, manufactured by Superior Clubs, for Bob to use. The golf clubs were shorter than normal golf clubs. One day, Linda, Tom’s wife, was swinging Bob’s golf clubs, and a golf club broke in half, causing Linda injury. If Linda sues Sports Store in strict liability in tort, and it is found that the golf clubs were defective at purchase, what is the likely result? A. Sports Store wins, because the golf clubs were not purchased for Linda. B. Sports Store wins, because Linda did not purchase the golf clubs. C. Linda wins, if Linda was a foreseeable user of the golf clubs. D. Linda wins, because of the doctrine of caveat emptor.


158. CORRECT ANSWER: C. A claim in strict products liability is proper where a product causes damage to the plaintiff, and the product was sold in a defective condition which was unreasonably dangerous to a normal consumer of the product. If Linda was a foreseeable user of the golf clubs, then should would be a proper plaintiff in this situation. Since Sports Store was a foreseeable defendant because they were in the distributive chain of the golf clubs, and the golf clubs were defective at purchase, Linda would prevail in a claim of strict products liability against Sports Store.


159. Tom was Bob’s father. For Bob’s birthday, Tom purchased a set of youth golf clubs from Sports Store, manufactured by Superior Clubs, for Bob to use. The golf clubs were shorter than normal golf clubs. One day, Linda, Tom’s wife, was swinging Bob’s golf clubs, and a golf club broke in half, causing Linda injury. If Linda sues Sports Store in strict liability in tort, and wins, and Sports Store fully pays the final judgment, may Sports Store seek payment regarding the judgment from Superior Clubs? A. No, because such reimbursement is only available for intentional torts. B. Yes, because Superior Clubs manufactured the golf clubs. C. No, because Superior Clubs did not sell the golf clubs. D. Yes, because good faith, fairness, and equity favor the non-prevailing party who otherwise used good faith in their dealings with others.


159. CORRECT ANSWER: B. Under the doctrine of contribution, where one defendant pays more than their percentage of damages, they may secure reimbursement from another defendant. Contribution is not available for intentional torts. In this situation, Superior Clubs would be a proper defendant, because they were in the distributive chain. Therefore, since Sports Store paid the full judgment, they may seek contribution from Superior Clubs.


160. Tom was Bob’s father. For Bob’s birthday, Tom purchased a set of youth golf clubs from Sports Store, manufactured by Superior Clubs, for Bob to use. The golf clubs were shorter than normal golf clubs. One day, Linda, Tom’s wife, was swinging Bob’s golf clubs, and received a call on her cellular phone. Linda then walked in the house, leaving the golf clubs in the front yard. Joe, a neighbor walking by, picked up a golf club, swung it, and the golf club broke in half, causing Joe injury. If Joe sues Superior Clubs in strict liability in tort, and it is determined that the golf clubs were defective at purchase, what is the likely result? A. Superior Clubs wins, if Joe was not a foreseeable user of the golf clubs. B. Superior Clubs wins, because the golf clubs were purchased for Tom. C. Joe wins, because the golf clubs were defective at purchase. D. Joe wins, under the doctrine of caveat emptor.


160. CORRECT ANSWER: A. A claim in strict products liability is proper where a product causes damage to the plaintiff, and the product was sold in a defective condition which was unreasonably dangerous to a normal consumer of the product. Superior Clubs was a foreseeable defendant, because they were in the distributive chain of the golf clubs. However, if Joe, who was merely a neighbor walking by the house, was not a foreseeable user of the golf clubs, then he would not be a proper plaintiff in strict products liability against Superior Clubs, and Superior Clubs would prevail in a claim of strict products liability.


CONTACT INFORMATION

e.Mail [email protected]

Office Telephone 1-312-607-4143

Website http://www.GouldsLegalEducation.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.gouldslegaleducation.com/

gould’s “mcq’s in the morning” multiple choice program“mcq’s in the morning” multiple...

Documents