Intentional Torts
A man threw a book at his roommate during an argument. The book missed and hit their neighbor, who was visiting. The neighbor files a battery claim.
Is the man liable?
A. Yes, because he intended to cause harmful contact with another
B. Yes, because he was negligent in throwing the book
C. No, because he did not intend to hit the neighbor
D. No, because the neighbor wasn’t injured
✅ Correct Answer: A
💡 Explanation: Under transferred intent, intent to commit a tort against one person transfers if the tort affects a different person.
A driver looked at his phone for a few seconds while driving and struck a cyclist in a crosswalk.
Which element of negligence is most clearly established?
A. Duty
B. Breach
C. Causation
D. Damages
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Looking away from the road while driving is a clear breach of the duty of reasonable care.
A man punches another in a bar fight after the other man raises a bottle as if to strike. The attacker claims he acted in self-defense.
Is this a valid defense?
A. Yes, if he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger
B. No, because he struck first
C. Yes, if he can prove he acted in fear
D. No, because bar fights waive the right to claim self-defense
✅ Correct Answer: A
💡 Explanation: Self-defense is valid if the defendant had a reasonable belief of imminent bodily harm and used proportionate force.
A fireworks company is licensed and operates with care. Despite precautions, debris from a display injures a bystander.
What is the likely result?
A. No liability, because the company acted reasonably
B. Liability, because fireworks are an abnormally dangerous activity
C. No liability, because the bystander assumed the risk
D. Liability, only if the bystander was a foreseeable plaintiff
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous activities, like fireworks, even if conducted with care.
A pizza delivery driver hits a pedestrian while making a delivery. The pedestrian sues the pizza company.
Is the employer vicariously liable?
A. Yes, because employers are strictly liable for all employee acts
B. No, unless the employer was negligent
C. Yes, if the employee was acting within the scope of employment
D. No, because driving involves independent discretion
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: Employers are vicariously liable for employee torts committed within the scope of employment, including delivery driving.
A store employee detained a customer for 15 minutes on suspicion of shoplifting. The customer was cooperative and later shown to be innocent.
Could the customer recover for false imprisonment?
A. Yes, because the store lacked probable cause
B. No, if the store acted reasonably and within its shopkeeper's privilege
C. Yes, because innocence negates privilege
D. No, because the detention was under 30 minutes
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: The shopkeeper's privilege allows brief detention in a reasonable manner when there is a reasonable suspicion of theft.
A child under age 7 was riding a bike and accidentally ran into a parked car.
Can the child be held liable for negligence?
A. No, because children under 7 are presumed incapable of negligence
B. Yes, because riding a bike is inherently dangerous
C. No, unless the parents were negligent
D. Yes, if a reasonable child would have known the risk
✅ Correct Answer: A
💡 Explanation: Most jurisdictions presume children under 7 lack capacity for negligence.
A woman tackled a teenager who grabbed her purse but dropped it while fleeing. She continued hitting him after retrieving it.
What defense, if any, applies?
A. Defense of property, because she was protecting her belongings
B. No defense, because force must cease once the threat is over
C. Consent, because the teen committed a crime
D. Defense of others, because bystanders were in danger
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Force in defense of property or self must be proportionate and must cease once the threat has ended.
A factory manufactures ladders. A user falls after a step breaks due to a hidden defect. The user sues the manufacturer under strict products liability.
What must the user prove?
A. Negligence in inspection
B. That the product was unreasonably dangerous when it left the factory
C. That the manufacturer failed to issue a recall
D. That the defect was obvious to a reasonable user
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Strict liability requires that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the defendant’s control.
A nightclub bouncer punches a patron after closing. The patron sues the club for battery.
Is the employer liable?
A. Yes, because the act occurred on the premises
B. No, because intentional torts are never imputed to employers
C. Yes, if the act was foreseeable and within the bouncer’s role
D. No, because the bouncer acted outside the scope of employment
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: Employers may be liable for intentional torts if the conduct was foreseeable and related to job duties (e.g., handling unruly guests).
A protester sprayed washable chalk graffiti on a business’s window during a demonstration. The business sues for trespass to chattels.
What is the likely outcome?
A. No liability, because there was no permanent damage
B. Liability, because any intentional interference is sufficient
C. No liability, because chalk is expressive conduct
D. Liability only if the protester intended to cause harm
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Trespass to chattels requires intentional interference with personal property; harm or permanent damage is not necessary.
A factory released non-toxic smoke that drifted into nearby homes, causing mild eye irritation. Residents sue in negligence.
What is their strongest challenge?
A. Duty
B. Breach
C. Actual causation
D. Damages
✅ Correct Answer: D
💡 Explanation: Minor inconvenience or discomfort may not satisfy the threshold of legal damages in negligence.
A patient consents to surgery but later sues for battery, claiming she didn’t know the exact surgical technique.
Which doctrine best protects the physician?
A. Consent
B. Necessity
C. Assumption of risk
D. Self-defense
✅ Correct Answer: A
💡 Explanation: Valid consent defeats a battery claim, even if the patient was unaware of some procedural details, unless misrepresentation or lack of informed consent is proven.
A consumer is injured while using a blender in a manner not intended by the manufacturer but foreseeable.
Can the manufacturer be strictly liable?
A. No, because misuse bars strict liability
B. Yes, if the misuse was foreseeable
C. No, unless the consumer read the manual
D. Yes, if the product was modified after sale
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Foreseeable misuse does not bar strict liability. Manufacturers must anticipate how products may be used.
A volunteer at a nonprofit injures someone during a sponsored community event. The victim sues the organization.
What determines vicarious liability?
A. Whether the organization paid the volunteer
B. Whether the volunteer was under the organization’s control
C. Whether the volunteer acted in good faith
D. Whether the volunteer was a minor
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Control, not compensation, is the key factor in determining whether an agency or master-servant relationship exists.
A man fired a gun into the air during a celebration. The bullet struck a bystander on a rooftop two blocks away.
What tort, if any, has the man committed?
A. Battery, because he intended the contact
B. Negligence, because he failed to exercise due care
C. Battery, if he acted with substantial certainty the result would occur
D. No tort, because the harm was unforeseeable
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: Intent can be shown by substantial certainty that harm will occur, even if the actual victim was unintended.
A doctor failed to inform a patient of a rare side effect before a procedure. The patient experienced the side effect but likely would have consented anyway.
Can the doctor be liable?
A. Yes, under the theory of battery
B. No, because the patient likely would have consented
C. Yes, under the theory of lack of informed consent
D. No, because the risk was not statistically significant
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: Liability may still attach for lack of informed consent, regardless of the patient’s subjective likelihood to agree.
During an emergency flood, a man enters a neighbor’s backyard without permission to divert water from damaging both properties. The neighbor sues for trespass.
Which defense is most applicable?
A. Public necessity
B. Private necessity
C. Implied license
D. Justification
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Private necessity allows trespass to prevent serious harm. However, the trespasser must pay for any actual damage caused.
A seller includes a disclaimer in the product packaging stating, “Use at your own risk.” The product later explodes due to a design defect.
Can the seller avoid strict liability?
A. Yes, because the disclaimer warned users
B. No, disclaimers are generally ineffective against strict liability
C. Yes, if the defect was not foreseeable
D. No, unless the seller can show negligence
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Courts typically hold that disclaimers cannot waive strict liability for manufacturing or design defects.
A plaintiff suffers a heart attack after being startled by a negligently caused near-miss car accident.
Can the driver be liable for the resulting harm?
A. No, because heart attacks are unforeseeable
B. Yes, if the harm was a foreseeable result of the negligent act
C. No, unless the driver intended to cause emotional distress
D. Yes, under the doctrine of transferred intent
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Defendants are liable for all physical harm proximately caused, even if the precise result (e.g., heart attack) was unusual but foreseeable.
A homeowner installed a spring-loaded trap inside his shed to deter thieves. A trespasser triggered the trap and suffered serious injury.
Can the trespasser recover in tort?
A. No, because he was unlawfully on the property
B. Yes, because deadly force cannot be used to protect property
C. No, because he assumed the risk of injury by trespassing
D. Yes, if the trap was not marked with a warning
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: The use of deadly force is not permitted to defend property, even against trespassers. Mechanical traps are judged by the same standard.
A delivery truck negligently parks on a busy street. A driver swerves to avoid it and hits a pedestrian.
Is the truck company liable to the pedestrian?
A. Yes, if the company’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injury
B. No, because the pedestrian was not the foreseeable victim
C. Yes, under strict liability for commercial vehicles
D. No, because the driver’s action was a superseding cause
✅ Correct Answer: A
💡 Explanation: A negligent act is the proximate cause if the resulting harm is within the scope of foreseeable risks.
A plaintiff voluntarily attends a baseball game and is struck by a foul ball while not paying attention. She sues for negligence.
What is the strongest defense for the stadium?
A. Contributory negligence
B. Comparative fault
C. Assumption of risk
D. Lack of proximate cause
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: The plaintiff assumed the risk inherent in the activity by attending and remaining in an unprotected area where foul balls are foreseeable.
A food processor manufacturer adopts a new blade design. After reports of serious injuries, it switches back to the old design. An injured user sues over the newer blade.
What must the user show for a design defect claim?
A. The manufacturer failed to warn of known risks
B. The design was negligent
C. A safer alternative design existed and was economically feasible
D. The defect was not subject to recall
✅ Correct Answer: C
💡 Explanation: The “reasonable alternative design” test is used in design defect claims — the plaintiff must show a safer, practical design was available.
A trespasser walks across an open construction site and falls into an unmarked trench. The site owner had not posted warnings or fencing.
Can the trespasser recover?
A. No, because trespassers assume all risk
B. Yes, if the condition posed a hidden danger the owner failed to warn about
C. No, because only invitees are owed a duty of care
D. Yes, because landowners owe the same duty to all entrants
✅ Correct Answer: B
💡 Explanation: Landowners owe a limited duty to trespassers not to maintain hidden traps or dangerous artificial conditions without warning.