QUESTION #1

Doug decided to have his vision corrected with the new laser eye surgery. Doug’s
ophthalmologist, Dr. Hacker, recommended the type of surgery and scheduled Doug for the
operation. Hacker informed Doug of the risks. Doug was informed that facial numbness or
facial muscle paralysis could occur. Dr. Hacker did not, however, mention that a very small .05%
of patients can actually have worsened vision or go blind after the surgery. Hacker shielded
Doug from this statistic because he felt it to be “overkill and unwarranted and the information
would delay Doug’s recovery.” Doug had the surgery, which was successful and had some
minor facial muscle paralysis which resolved completely. However, when Doug discovered that
Hacker had failed to disclose the .05% risk of blindness and worsened vision associated with the
surgery, Doug was furious. He argues he would not have consented had he known.

If Doug asserts a claim against Hacker for negligence, will Doug prevail?

1. Yes, if Doug would have refused the operation had he been informed of the risk.
2. Yes, because a patient must be told all the risks associated with surgical procedures in
order to give an informed consent.
3. No, if Hacker used his best medical judgment in shielding his patient from the risk
statistic.
4. No, because the operation was a success and Doug suffered no ill effects.

QUESTION #2

Katie sustained injuries in a three-car collision on icy roads caused by the concurrent negligence
of the three separate drivers: Katie, Adam, and Chris. In Katie’s action for damages against
Adam and Chris, the jury apportioned the negligence 30% to Katie, 30% to Adam and 40% to
Chris. Katie’s total damages were $100,000.

A state statute provides for a system of pure comparative negligence, joint and several liability of
concurrent tortfeasors, and the statute provides for contribution based on proportionate fault.

If Katie chooses to execute her judgment against Chris alone, she will collect at most:

1. $70,000 from Chris, and then Chris will be entitled to collect $30,000 from Adam.
2. $40,000 from Chris, and then Chris will be entitled to collect $10,000 from Adam.
3. $40,000 from Chris and then Chris may collect nothing from Adam.
4. nothing from Chris since his fault is less than 50%.
QUESTION #3

Katie sustained injuries in a three-car collision on icy roads caused by the concurrent negligence
of the three separate drivers: Katie, Adam, and Chris. In Katie’s action for damages against
Adam and Chris, the jury apportioned the negligence 30% to Katie, 30% to Adam and 40% to
Chris. Katie’s total damages were $100,000.

The state has retained the common law rule pertaining to contribution and that the state’s
comparative negligence statute provides for a system of pure comparative negligence but
abolishes the concept of joint and several liability.

If Katie chooses to execute her judgment against Adam alone, she will be entitled to collect at
most:

1. $70,000 from Adam, and then Adam will be entitled to collect $40,000 from Chris.
2. $30,000 from Adam and then Adam will be entitled to collect $15,000 from Chris.
3. $30,000 from Adam and then Adam may collect nothing from Chris.
4. nothing from Adam since his fault is less than 50%.

QUESTION #4

Edgar and Jean-Pierre were classmates at Ivy League Law School who were vying for the same
scholarship. During the process of applying for the scholarship, Edgar was interviewed by a
member of the scholarship committee. The member asked Edgar if there was any known
impediment to any other candidates. Edgar told the committee member that he had heard that
Jean-Pierre was being investigated by the school honor committee for allegedly plagiarizing a
paper he had written last term. Edgar’s statement was not true.

If Jean-Pierre asserts a claim against Edgar for defamation, Jean Pierre will:

1. recover, if Edgar’s statement is proven to have been made with actual malice.
2. not recover, unless Jean-Pierre proves pecuniary loss.
3. recover, if Edgar’s statement was false and tended to injure Jean-Pierre’s reputation.
4. not recover, because Edgar’s statement was made in response to a direct question from
the committee member.
QUESTION #5

Demolisher Wreckers was in the process of tearing down a large office building in Inner City
that was built decades ago. During the process, the company was blasting. Wreckers erected
barriers to protect the public and large signs that read “Danger! No Pedestrians in Wrecking
Area! DO NOT ENTER! All areas were roped off and access was extremely limited. Verbal
warnings were played every thirty seconds for those who may be visually impaired. Although
Greg read the signs, he entered the area to cut through it and to be on time for an appointment
with a client. Greg was hit by a piece of the masonry on the building, which blasting dislodged
and which landed him in the hospital. The jurisdiction in which the accident occurred maintains
all the common law tort defenses.

In an action by Greg against Demolisher to recover damages for his injuries, Greg will:

1. not prevail, if Demolisher exercised reasonable care.

2. not prevail, because Greg understood the signs and disregarded the warnings.
3. prevail, because Greg was harmed by Demolisher’s abnormally dangerous activity.
4. prevail, unless Greg failed to use reasonable care to protect himself from harm.

QUESTION #6

Ann was taking a leisurely drive through the country when she was suddenly aware of a buzzing
noise somewhere in the back of her car. She momentarily took her eyes off the road to attempt
to ascertain where the noise had come from. As she did so, the car swerved a bit and startled
Jogger who was jogging along the path on the roadside. When Jogger saw the car swerve,
Jogger jumped backward and landed on a fence post fracturing his ankle. Jogger sued Ann for
damages and Ann moved for summary judgment. The facts are undisputed.

Ann’s motion should be:

1. granted, because Jogger was the proximate cause of his own injury.
2. granted, because it is not unreasonable behavior to be momentarily distracted.
3. denied, because a jury could find that Ann was negligent and caused Jogger to be injured.
4. denied, because the record shows that Jogger apprehended an imminent harmful or
offensive bodily contact with Ann’s instrumentality, the car.
QUESTION #7

Alvin was being escorted to his favorite table in his favorite restaurant, Lolita’s, when he slipped
and fell on some grease remaining from a previous meal, which was cooked at the table. An
investigation of the fall revealed that the restaurant negligently failed to clean the floor area after
the table-side cooking and that the management knew it created a hidden danger. The slip and
fall fractured Alvin’s elbow and aggravated much trouble with the herniated discs and fractured
hip Alvin had already experienced.

If Alvin sues Lolita’s for damages for his injuries, he should recover:

1. nothing, if Lolita’s could not reasonably expected to foresee the harm that Alvin would
suffer as a result of the accident.
2. nothing, if the accident would not have caused significant harm to an ordinarily prudent
restaurant patron.
3. damages for the full amount of the disability, because a tortfeasor must take its victim as
it finds him.
4. damages for the injury caused by the fall including any aggravation of the preexisting
disability.

QUESTION #8

Jackson was driving down the street when an earthquake struck. Jackson saw a light pole
starting to fall toward the street and so he deliberately steered his car quickly to the right,
allowing the vehicle to run over the beautifully landscaped property of Burr. Substantial damage
was done to the garden and Japanese pond and bridge.

In an action by Burr against Jackson to recover damages for the damage to his garden, Burr will:

1. prevail, because although occasioned by necessity, Jackson’s entry onto Burr’s property
was for Jackson’s benefit.
2. prevail, but for nominal damages only because Jackson was privileged to enter Burr’s
property.
3. not prevail because the earthquake was an act of God.
4. not prevail, because Jackson’s entry onto Burr’s property was occasioned by necessity
and therefore, privileged.
QUESTION #9

Dennis was a passenger on a recent flight on Aero airlines. Shortly after he boarded the aircraft
Dennis noticed that a famous Prize-fighter was also a passenger on the airplane and remarked to
the flight attendant that he didn’t believe Prize-fighter was that tough. During the flight
attendant served Dennis numerous adult beverages and, as he drank more, Dennis increasingly
bragged to the flight attendant that he could beat up Prize-fighter. After being served even more
alcohol by the flight attendant Dennis stood up, walked past the flight attendant and punched
Prize-fighter on the face. Prize-fighter was seriously injured.

If Prize-fighter asserts a claim against Aero Airlines, Prize-fighter will:

1. not prevail, because Aero Airlines had no duty to come to the assistance of Prize-fighter
when he appeared to be in danger of being attacked by Dennis.
2. prevail, because a common carrier is strictly liable for injuries suffered by passengers
while aboard the airplane.
3. prevail, because the flight attendant knew or should have known of the danger to Prize-
fighter and could have prevented the injury to Prize-fighter.
4. not prevail, because Prize-fighter should have defended himself.

QUESTION #10

Grandfather, who was too old, infirm and senile to cut his lawn, owned an old lawnmower which
had been manufactured long before lawnmowers had safety devices. Grandson, aged ten, visited
Grandfather one day and offered to cut his grass. Grandfather happily allowed Grandson to use
his lawnmower for the task. As Grandson was mowing the lawn the lawnmower hit a rock
which flew out from under the lawn mower and severely injured Grandson. After the incident
Grandfather remembered that the lawnmower had once thrown a rock and slightly injured him
when he had used it to mow the lawn several years earlier.

At the conclusion of the Grandson’s trial against Grandfather, Grandfather moves for a directed
verdict. The motion should be:

1. Granted, because of intrafamily immunity.

2. Granted, because Grandfather acted as the ordinary reasonable senile person would have
acted under the same or similar circumstances.
3. Denied, because the mower was inherently dangerous.
4. Denied, because a reasonable jury could find that Grandfather breached his duty of care
owed to Grandson.
QUESTION #11

Junk Yard owned a vicious guard dog, which he allowed to run free over the Junk Yard to
protect the property from thieves and vandals. Thief saw the signs at the Junk Yard, which said,
“Warning: Guard Dog Patrols Premises” and “Beware: Vicious Guard Dog.” Thief threw the
dog beef treated sleeping pills over the fence. When Thief entered the premises the guard dog
awoke and bit Thief badly – requiring him to have surgery and be hospitalized.

In Thief’s lawsuit against Junk Yard, will Thief prevail?

1. No, because Thief was a trespasser on the premises.

2. No, because Thief is barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk.
3. Yes, because Junk Yard is strictly liable for injuries caused by vicious watchdogs.
4. Yes, because Thief was owed a duty of care to protect him from vicious watchdogs.

QUESTION #12

George and Ringo were friends who once played in a band together. One day when visiting
George at his home, Ringo saw a stamp lying on the kitchen counter. Ringo, who was a stamp
collector, knew the stamp was worth a quarter of a million dollars because it had been misprinted
backwards. Ringo told George it was worth $100 and asked if he could buy it. George, who had
been planning to throw the stamp away, was thrilled to sell the stamp to Ringo for $100. Later,
Ringo sold the stamp to a dealer for $250,000. George later discovered the actual value of the
stamp.

George sues Ringo for intentional misrepresentation. George will:

1. not prevail because Ringo had no duty to disclose the fact of the stamp’s value to George.
2. not prevail because George, who was about to discard the stamp, suffered no loss and
realized a gain of $100.
3. prevail because Ringo lied to George about the value of the stamp.
4. prevail because Ringo, as a stamp collector, owed a higher duty of care than would be
owed by a musician.
QUESTION #13

Mary dated Movie Star when she was working in the movie business in California. She learned
from reading a letter on Movie Star’s desk that he had the AIDS virus. The letter was actually
not Movie Star’s, but his brother’s diagnosis. When Mary married, she told her husband,
Producer, about Movie Star and the virus. Producer met with Movie Star to discuss doing a
Broadway show together. At the meeting Producer asked Movie Star about his health and told
him what Mary had stated regarding his exposure to AIDS.

Movie Star is irate and is bringing an action against Mary for slander per se. The cause of action
against Mary will:

1. prevail, because AIDS is a loathsome disease and thus slander per se is actionable.
2. prevail because there is liability without proof of special harm.
3. not prevail, because Mary was not malicious nor did she act with reckless disregard of the
truth.
4. not prevail, because Mary’s communication to Producer was absolutely privileged.

QUESTION #14

Homer Clapsaddle, a hunter, was in the woods that he owned looking for deer when he saw a
man whom he believed to be a criminal he had seen on “America’s Most Wanted” TV
show. Butch, who had his back to Homer, was carrying a rifle on his shoulder. Homer called
loudly for Butch to stop. As he startled and turned around, Butch’s rifle looked as though it was
pointing at Homer. Homer who thought he was about to be shot, fired at Butch. The bullet
missed Butch and hit Arnold, another hunter who was trespassing on Homer’s land and sitting in
a deer stand in a tree. Homer was aware that hunters often crossed onto his land and parked
themselves in his trees since the game were plentiful.

If Arnold asserts a claim against Homer for battery, Arnold will:

1. recover, because Homer intended to hit Butch.

2. recover, because Arnold suffered a harmful and offensive bodily contact.
3. not recover, because Homer accidentally shot Arnold.
4. not recover, because Homer reasonably acted in self-defense.
QUESTION #15

Homer Clapsaddle, a hunter, was in the woods that he owned looking for deer when he saw a
man whom he believed to be a criminal he had seen on “America’s Most Wanted” TV
show. Butch, who had his back to Homer, was carrying a rifle on his shoulder. Homer called
loudly for Butch to stop. As he startled and turned around, Butch’s rifle looked as though it was
pointing at Homer. Homer who thought he was about to be shot, fired at Butch. The bullet
missed Butch and hit Arnold, another hunter who was trespassing on Homer’s land and sitting in
a deer stand in a tree. Homer was aware that hunters often crossed onto his land and parked
themselves in his trees since the game were plentiful.

Homer asserts a claim for assault against Butch. In his action, the most likely result is that
Homer will:

1. recover, because Butch pointed the rifle at him.

2. recover, because Butch’s act of turning around was voluntary.
3. not recover, unless Butch intended to scare Homer.
4. not recover, if Butch’s gun was not loaded.

QUESTION #16

John was in the hospital to have a skin graft done by Plastic Surgeon to an area of arm that he
had burned. John saw the doctor in his office but had not been able to meet with the surgeon
before the surgery was begun and anesthesia was given. The next morning, as Plastic Surgeon
was removing the dressing, John was horrified to find that two large worm-looking creatures
were sitting on his arm looking right at him. John fainted. Plastic Surgeon revived John and
explained that leaches are used to aid in blood supply to certain area. John was outraged and
horrified and developed a phobia about worms.

In his suit against Plastic Surgeon which of the following torts would provide John with the best
theory of recovery?

1. negligence
2. battery
3. negligent infliction of emotional distress
4. intentional infliction of emotional distress
QUESTION #17

Kathryn entered the Seers store to buy a lawnmower. Shortly after Kathryn had entered the store
Seers locked all the doors because the glut of customers exceeded the maximum occupancy limit
of the local fire code. Kathryn, who was busy selecting a lawnmower, was unaware of the
commotion at the front of the store caused by angry customers demanding to be allowed to
leave. By the time Kathryn had selected a mower and returned to the front of the store the doors
had been unlocked. The next day she learned from the local newspaper that she had been locked
inside the Seers store for approximately 30 minutes.

If Kathryn sues Seers for false imprisonment, she will:

1. recover, because she was confined in the store.

2. recover, because she was an invitee to whom a higher standard of care is owed.
3. not recover, because she was unaware of the confinement.
4. not recover, because Seers intended to keep people out of the store, not confine Kathryn
inside the store.

QUESTION #18

Swim Team for South High School was practicing for an upcoming important swim
meet. Coach Evans was the head coach of the swimming team. While the team was practicing, it
began to rain heavily. Within a few minutes, far off thunder was heard. Since the school pool
was in the open and had no metal near it, Coach Evans did not perceive any immediate danger to
the team members and did not stop the practice laps. Suddenly, a lightening bolt struck and
badly burned Bryan, 15 years old, who was the Swim Teams’ star diver. As a result of the burns,
Bryan has lost his right leg. The jurisdiction has abolished governmental immunity and the
school board may be sued as a private entity.

If Bryan, by and through his parents, sues the school and board for damages, will they prevail?

1. Yes, because Bryan was injured at school while engaged in a school activity.
2. Yes, because under the circumstances, Coach Evans (and thus, South High) would be
strictly liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
3. No, unless Coach Evans was negligent by failing to discontinue practice.
4. No, if lightening had never been known to hit the pool area before.
QUESTION #19

Jerry was failing his premed courses and was despondent and withdrawn. One day his college
roommate, Scott, found Jerry unconscious on the floor near an empty bottle of pills and a suicide
note. Scott, in a desperate effort to save Jerry’s life, carried him across campus to the Health
Center. Jerry received prompt medical attention and fully recovered. Unfortunately, Scott badly
injured his back, herniating a disc, as a result of carrying Jerry.

If Scott sues Jerry to recover damages for his injuries, who will prevail?

1. Jerry, because he did not intend to harm anyone other than himself.
2. Scott, but only if suicide is a criminal offense in the jurisdiction.
3. Scott, because danger invites rescue.
4. Jerry because Scott assumed the risk by carrying Jerry to the Health Center.

QUESTION #20

The organization to Save the Whales has moved next door to Gates house on Puget Sound. In its
quest to save the whales and aerate the water it has set aside to nurse sick mammals, the
organization has lights on and noise going all day and night. Gates is not pleased.

If Gates asserts a claim against Save the Whales for nuisance, will Gates prevail?

1. Yes, if the quality of the water in the Sound will be affected by the increased usage and
mammal life.
2. Yes, if Gates can show using statistics that the market value of his land will be adversely
affected by the use.
3. No, unless the Save the Whale’s use of the Sound is prohibited by existing land use
regulations.
4. No, unless Gates can show that Save the Whales organization’s use of the Sound has
substantially interfered with his own use and enjoyment of his property.

QUESTION #21

Dunston arrived home after having spent three months abroad on a business trip. When he
entered his house he discovered that he had been robbed of most of his valuables. All signs point
to Julie Peterson as the burglar, especially the fingerprints found in Dunston’s home. Julie is the
nine-year-old daughter of Paul Peterson.
If Dunston sues Paul Peterson for his losses what result?

1. Dunston will prevail under a theory of respondent superior.

2. Dunston will not prevail unless Paul Peterson knew or reasonably should have known
that Julie was burglarizing Dunston’s home.
3. Dunston will prevail if he proves that Paul Peterson failed to properly supervise his
daughter.
4. Dunston will not prevail because there is no legal theory under which Paul Peterson can
be held liable for the acts of his daughter.

QUESTION #22

E-Z Rental Agency rents vehicles in the state of Franklin. A state statute makes car rental
companies responsible for “the actions of those to whom it entrusts its vehicles.” E-Z also
requires that in order to rent a vehicle, the renter must have a valid driver’s license.

Spurgeon rents a car from E-Z and shows what appears to be a valid driver’s license. After
acquiring a vehicle, Spurgeon negligently causing an accident with Myrtle, seriously injuring
Myrtle and two of her children. It later turns out that Spurgeon’s driver’s license was fake and
that he had never even taken a driving test. Thereafter, Myrtle sues E-Z and not Spurgeon for all
injuries suffered.

What is the likely result?

1. E-Z will not be liable because Spurgeon did not have a valid driver’s license.
2. E-Z will be liable because a reasonable person would have validated Spurgeon’s license
in a manner other than a visual check.
3. E-Z will not be liable because it was Spurgeon who caused the accident.
4. E-Z will be liable under the theory of vicarious liability as authorized by the statute.

QUESTION #23

E-Z Rental Agency rents vehicles in the state of Franklin. A state statute makes car rental
companies responsible for “the actions of those to whom it entrusts its vehicles.” E-Z also
requires that in order to rent a vehicle, the renter must have a valid driver’s license.

Spurgeon rents a car from E-Z and shows what appears to be a valid driver’s license. After
acquiring a vehicle, Spurgeon negligently causing an accident with Myrtle, seriously injuring
Myrtle and two of her children. It later turns out that Spurgeon’s driver’s license was fake and
that he had never even taken a driving test. Thereafter, Myrtle sues E-Z and not Spurgeon for all
injuries suffered.
If E-Z winds up paying the judgment for injuries to Myrtle, what relief, if any, would they be
able to get from Spurgeon?

1. None, because Spurgeon was not even a party to the action.

2. Full indemnification, if it is determined that Spurgeon was solely responsible for the
injuries.
3. Partial reimbursement, to the extent that Spurgeon has collectible insurance.
4. Reimbursement in addition to treble damages because Spurgeon rented the vehicle with
fraudulent credentials.

QUESTION #24

After surgery that ended badly Julie sues the surgeon for medical malpractice. At trial an
attending nurse testifies that the surgeon, who is a board certified specialist in the relevant
specialty, smelled of alcohol during the operation. The attorney representing the surgeon objects
to this testimony on the ground that the nurse lacks the necessary qualifications for such
testimony.

The trial judge should:

1. Allows the testimony because the nurse is an appropriate medical expert.

2. Sustain the objection because the nurse is not board certified in the relevant specialty.
3. Allows the testimony because one does not need to be a medical expert to say whether a
doctor smelled of alcohol.
4. Sustain the objection because the smell of alcohol is irrelevant to the standard of care
owed by a board certified doctor.

QUESTION #25

Disney, who is neighbors with Woodward, borrowed Woodward’s ladder to clean the second
story windows on her house. Since Disney did not finish her windows that day, she left the
ladder leaning upright against the side of her house. During the night Plotter climbed the ladder
intending to enter Disney’s house through a second story window and steal any valuables he
could find inside. However, once Plotter reached the top of the ladder he discovered that the
windows were locked. Therefore, Plotter moved the ladder to Woodward’s house and placed it
near a first story kitchen window. Plotter discovered that the kitchen window was not securely
locked, entered the house through the kitchen window and stole Woodward’s valuables.

If Woodward sues Disney for negligence, what result?

1. Disney will be liable because by leaving the ladder outside, Disney created the
opportunity for Plotter to come along and use the ladder to enter either one of the houses.
 2. Disney will not be liable because Plotter’s criminal conduct broke the chain of causation
between Disney’s negligence and the harm to Woodward.
3. Disney will be liable for negligence because there is a higher duty of care when dealing
with property that is not one’s own.
4. Disney will not be liable for negligence because Woodward failed to securely lock the
kitchen window.

QUESTION #26

Disney, who is neighbors with Woodward, borrowed Woodward’s ladder to clean the second
story windows on her house. Since Disney did not finish her windows that day, she left the
ladder leaning upright against the side of her house. During the night Plotter climbed the ladder
intending to enter Disney’s house through a second story window and steal any valuables he
could find inside. However, once Plotter reached the top of the ladder he discovered that the
windows were locked. Therefore, Plotter moved the ladder to Woodward’s house and placed it
near a first story kitchen window. Plotter discovered that the kitchen window was not securely
locked, entered the house through the kitchen window and stole Woodward’s valuables.

On the way out of Woodward’s house, Plotter tripped and fell over a decorative bench that was
outside the kitchen window. As a result, Plotter’s leg was broken. If Plotter sues Woodward for
negligence, who will prevail?

1. Woodward, because Plotter was a trespasser on the premises.

2. Plotter, because Woodward’s placement of the bench was actual cause of the injury.
3. Woodward, because Disney’s negligence was the actual cause of Plotter’s injury.
4. Plotter, because Woodward was negligent in placing the bench below the kitchen
window.

QUESTION #27

Ethel’s friend Lucy worked as an architect on the second floor of an office building owned by
Landlord. One day Ethel met Lucy at her office to give her a birthday present. As Ethel was
leaving Lucy’s office she entered the building’s common elevator. Before Ethel could even push
a button the elevator suddenly and unexpectedly fell rapidly to the basement causing both of
Ethel’s legs to be broken. Neither the City’s building inspector nor the company which sold the
elevator to Landlord was able to determine the cause of the malfunction. Landlord had
previously had the elevator inspected regularly and the elevator never malfunctioned before or
after the incident involving Ethel.

If Ethel asserts a claim against Landlord, Ethel will:

1. not prevail because Landlord had no knowledge of any defect in the elevator.
 2. prevail because Landlord failed to warn Ether of the danger.
3. not prevail because no one could determine the cause of the injury-producing incident.
4. prevail in getting the cause to the jury on the theory of res ipsa loquitur.

QUESTION #28

Etar is in a hurry because he left some important documents in his office. He pulls quickly into
his Company garage, parks the car, gets the papers, and then heads out. On his way out he sees
Samar lying near the entrance/exit area of the garage. He gets out of his car briefly to examine
Samar and finds he is unconscious. At first Etar contemplates helping, but because he is in a
hurry and because it is December and very cold, Etar decides Samar must just be a “homeless
drunk” so he drives away. When Samar finally receives medical care, it is discovered that Samar
is not a “homeless drunk,” and that he was unconscious on the sidewalk after he had leapt away
from Etar’s car that was careening into the Company garage. Etar had been unaware of Samar’s
presence. It is also determined that the extra time Samar spent on the pavement resulted in a bad
case of frostbite that made him lose most of his toes.

If Samar brings an action against Etar for failing to help, he will likely:

1. Prevail, because Etar initially undertook a duty to help Samar.

2. Prevail, because Etar had a special relationship with Samar.
3. Not prevail because Etar did not exacerbate Samar’s condition.
4. Not prevail because no individual has a duty to rescue another.

QUESTION #29

Delores lived in the upstairs in a duplex owned by her downstairs neighbor, Edith. Edith knew
that Delores was deathly afraid of clowns. One afternoon, while Delores was in the basement
doing laundry, Edith as a practical joke placed a clown doll on the top step of the stairs from the
basement. When Delores came up the stairs with her laundry she saw the clown doll blocking
her path. Delores stood there petrified in fear for fifteen minutes until Edith removed the doll.

What is Delores’ best cause of action against Edith?

1. None, because Delores is a tenant and the owner has a right to decorate the house
however she chooses.
2. None, because Delores is overly sensitive.
3. Assault.
4. False imprisonment.
QUESTION #30

Sylvester is standing in an alley when a heavy safe falls from up above causing him severe
injury. The ACME Safe Company has a warehouse on the sixth floor of the building from which
the safe fell. After Sylvester brings a claim for negligence, ACME defends by saying that they
could not have been responsible because there was no one in the warehouse that day. Before
trial, Sylvester establishes that the safe that fell is an ACME safe that had been stored on the
sixth floor prior to the day that it fell.

At trial, Sylvester’s attorney asks the court to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction to the
jury. ACME objects. Should the instruction be given?

1. Yes, because the safe was under the control of the Defendant and the accident would not
have occurred had ordinary care had been observed.
2. No, because the theory of the Sylvester’s case was straight negligence.
3. Yes, because Sylvester would not have been injured “but for” ACME’s safe falling.
4. No, because the safe was not under the control of the Defendant.

QUESTION #31

Sylvester is standing in an alley when a heavy safe falls from up above causing him severe
injury. The ACME Safe Company has a warehouse on the sixth floor of the building from which
the safe fell. After Sylvester brings a claim for negligence, ACME defends by saying that they
could not have been responsible because there was no one in the warehouse that day. Before
trial, Sylvester establishes that the safe that fell is an ACME safe that had been stored on the
sixth floor prior to the day that it fell.

If it is established that on the date the safe fell, Sylvester had entered a closed off construction
area to engage in a drug deal, would any potential liability of ACME be eliminated?

1. Yes, but only if the state has a statute that makes it a crime to enter a closed off
construction zone.
2. No, because ACME would be strictly liable for the falling safe.
3. Yes, but only if the state is a contributory negligence state.
4. No, because Sylvester did not assume the risk of the falling safe.

QUESTION #32

Beatrice owns a sporting goods store and employs Sven as her clerk. Sven has had extensive
experience in clerking during the last year and Beatrice has sometimes placed him in charge
during her absence. Sven has been told to keep people off of the exercise equipment and not to
let store customers handle any of the sporting goods that might be deemed dangerous.
One weekend while Beatrice is away, Sven is in charge of the store. His old friend Bork walks
in and the two reminisce about their good times on the school archery team. Sven then shows
Bork one of the newest bows that is in stock. He also boasts to Bork about a new type of
“arrow” that has just been manufactured – one with a rubber ball attached to the end rather than a
sharp tip. The purpose of this “arrow” is to strike a blow rather than to protrude a target.

Bork asks Sven if he can try out the bow and new “arrow.” When Sven says no, the two men get
into a fight, at which point Sven says, “I’ll show you how the new arrow works.” Sven then
draws back the bow and aims at Bork. As the arrow flies, Bork ducks and the arrow strikes
Murtel in the head causing her a concussion.

In a suit brought against Beatrice by Murtel, Murtel will:

1. Prevail, because Beatrice did not take reasonable precautions when she put Sven in
charge.
2. Not prevail, because Sven committed an intentional tort.
3. Prevail, because it was negligent to allow Sven to handle dangerous equipment in her
absence.
4. Not prevail, because Sven did not intend to hit Murtel.

QUESTION #33

Beatrice owns a sporting goods store and employs Sven as her clerk. Sven has had extensive
experience in clerking during the last year and Beatrice has sometimes placed him in charge
during her absence. Sven has been told to keep people off of the exercise equipment and not to
let store customers handle any of the sporting goods that might be deemed dangerous.

One weekend while Beatrice is away, Sven is in charge of the store. His old friend Bork walks
in and the two reminisce about their good times on the school archery team. Sven then shows
Bork one of the newest bows that is in stock. He also boasts to Bork about a new type of
“arrow” that has just been manufactured – one with a rubber ball attached to the end rather than a
sharp tip. The purpose of this “arrow” is to strike a blow rather than to protrude a target.

Bork asks Sven if he can try out the bow and new “arrow.” When Sven says no, the two men get
into a fight, at which point Sven says, “I’ll show you how the new arrow works.” Sven then
draws back the bow and aims at Bork. As the arrow flies, Bork ducks and the arrow hits a
display of basketballs. As the balls go rolling, Murtel trips over one of them and falls on a
barbell where she breaks her tailbone.

What is Murtel’s best cause of action against Sven?

1. Battery, because Sven’s intentional act caused her injury.

2. A strict liability action, because business owners owe a higher level of care to business
invitees.
 3. Negligence, because Sven failed to act reasonably when he shot an arrow in the store.
4. Negligence, but only if Sven was aware that there were other customers in the store at the
time that he shot the arrow.

QUESTION #34

Beatrice owns a sporting goods store and employs Sven as her clerk. Sven has had extensive
experience in clerking during the last year and Beatrice has sometimes placed him in charge
during her absence. Sven has been told to keep people off of the exercise equipment and not to
let store customers handle any of the sporting goods that might be deemed dangerous.

One weekend while Beatrice is away, Sven is in charge of the store. His old friend Bork walks
in and the two reminisce about their good times on the school archery team. Sven then shows
Bork one of the newest bows that is in stock. He also boasts to Bork about a new type of
“arrow” that has just been manufactured – one with a rubber ball attached to the end rather than a
sharp tip. The purpose of this “arrow” is to strike a blow rather than to protrude a target.

Bork asks Sven if he can try out the bow and new “arrow.” When Sven says no, the two men get
into a fight, at which point Sven says, “I’ll show you how the new arrow works.” Sven then
draws back the bow and aims at Bork. As the arrow flies, Bork ducks and the arrow hits a
display of basketballs. As the balls go rolling, Murtel trips over one of them and falls on a
barbell where she breaks her tailbone.

What would Sven’s best defense be to Murtel’s cause of action for negligence?

1. That Murtel’s injury was not reasonably foreseeable.

2. That he did not intend to injure Murtel.
3. That the person who stacked the basketballs more responsible for the injury.
4. That his shooting the arrow was not the proximate cause of Murtel’s injury.