Torts I
1. A missile company was engaged in research and development of an interplanetary space shuttle, under contract with the United States government. Over a period of years, it developed the prototype of a huge, solid-fuel rocket engine for use in this program. To evaluate the performance of this engine, it conducted a static test of the engine at a remote desert test site. The rocket engine was mounted on a concrete test stand, with the thrust of the engine directed downward into the ground. When the engine was fired up, huge clouds of flame and smoke filled the air, and particles of debris from the rocket filled the air, and particles of debris from the rocket fell into an adjoining farm.
If the farmer files an action against the company for trespass, which of the following facts, if proved, would be the most helpful to the company in avoiding liability?
A. The farmer bought and operated his farm knowing that the company used the adjoining property for testing its rocket engines.
B. Neither the company nor anyone in its employ set foot upon the farmer’s land.
C. The company had no reason to anticipate the tests would cause any of the results that occurred.
D. The rocket testing program is essential to national security, so that the company’s conduct was comply privileged as a public necessity
(C) The company had no reason to anticipate the tests would cause any of the results that occurred.
6. A pedestrian walking along an unpaved road on his way to work saw a school bus coming in the opposite direction suddenly begin to careen toward him. The bus driver had momentarily lost control of the bus while attempting to light a cigarette.
To avoid being hit by the bus, the pedestrian jumped off the road into a landowner’s yard. Unfortunately, he landed in a bed of prize-winning zinnias and damaged them extensively.
In a suit by the landowner against the bus driver for the damages to her zinnias, what is the likely result?
A. The bus driver is liable for trespass because his driving caused the pedestrian to enter the landowner’s yard and damage her zinnias.
B. The bus driver is liable on the theory of negligence.
C. The bus driver is not liable because the landowner’s zinnias were not within the scope of any duty he owed in operating a bus on a public road.
D. If the bus driver is held liable on any theory, he is entitled to indemnity from the pedestrian, who did the damage.
B. The bus driver is liable on the theory of negligence.
11. A hiker in an isolated area encountered a cross-country skier who had broken her leg. The hiker created a makeshift sled and began pulling the skier to the nearest road. As the hiker was pulling her across the ice of a lake, the ice gave way and they went into the water. The hiker was unable to get out of the water and drowned. The skier was able to pull herself to shore and eventually was rescued. However, she suffered severe hypothermia and lost some of her toes to frostbite as a result of being in the water.
Does the skier have a cause of action for damages against the hiker’s estate?
A. No, because the hiker had no duty to come to the skier’s aid.
B. No, because the hiker did not survive the accident.
c
D. No, unless the hiker acted with gross negligence in his attempt to cross the ice.
C. No, unless the hiker acted negligently in attempting to cross the ice.
What does IRAC stand for?
Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion
2. In response to the latest energy crisis, an oil company began testing a new method of extracting oil from certain types of subsurface rock. The process used concentrated sound waves to pulverize the rock and draw out the oil. The tests, conducted in a sparsely populated area, caused heavy vibrations in the ground and the slumping of subsurface earth structures surrounding the test site. This led to the collapse of a water well on a rancher’s property.
If the rancher brings a negligence action against the oil company, which of the following would be most helpful to the oil company in avoiding liability.
A. The subsurface earth structures that collapsed as a result of the tests were unstable before the tests took place.
B. The rancher’s property is located at such a far distance from the test site that no risk to the rancher was foreseeable.
C. The oil company exercised due care in selecting the personnel who chose the test site and conducted the tests.
D. The oil company built its test site and conducted the tests in conformity with safety procedures and standards used by all other companies engaged in similar tests.
(B) The rancher’s property is located at such a far distance from the test site that no risk to the rancher was foreseeable.
7. A boy was playing softball in a neighborhood park when a ball was hit over the fence and into a neighbor’s yard. The boy knocked on the neighbor’s door and obtained permission from her to retrieve the ball from her yard. As he bent to retrieve the ball in some bushes, the boy brushed against an exposed electric wire that was partially hidden by the bushes and received a severe electric shock and burns. The neighbor had failed to maintain the bushes, allowing them to become overgrown, and was not aware of the exposed wire.
If the boy sues the neighbor in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, what is the likely result?
A. The neighbor is liable because the boy entered with her permission.
B. The neighbor is liable because she failed to repair a dangerous condition on her property.
C. The neighbor is liable because she failed to reasonably inspect the property, which would have made her aware of the dangerous condition of the wire.
D. The neighbor is not liable because she did not know of the condition of the wire.
D. The neighbor is not liable because she did not know of the condition of the wire.
12. The governor of an arid western state owned a vacation home and permitted his son to have a party there. At the end of the night the son failed to properly extinguish a bonfire that he and his friends had built, and within a few hours, wind-blown cinders had spread the fire to the trees east of the lodge. At the same time several miles away, a worker at a lumber mill was making emergency repairs to a pipe running between two mill buildings. He did not notice some of the sparks from his welding torch land in a pile of dried lumber and catch fire, and he failed to check the area after he was finished. By the time the fire was noticed by another employee, it was out of control. The wind blew both fires toward a landowner’s hunting lodge. They merged a mile away and shortly thereafter totally consumed the lodge.
For political reasons, the landowner did not bring a lawsuit against the governor or his son. He did, however, file a lawsuit against the lumber mill, alleging that its employee’s negligence caused the destruction of his lodge. Evidence at trial established that either fire alone would have destroyed the lodge as well.
Can the landowner recover from the lumber mill?
A. No, because the landowner’s lodge would have been destroyed regardless of the conduct of the lumber mill’s employee.
B. No, because the damage is indivisible and cannot be apportioned unless the landowner adds the other tortfeasor to the lawsuit.
C. Yes, because the negligence of the lumber mill’s employee was a cause of the landowner’s injury.
D. Yes, but the landowner can recover only 50% of his damages from the lumber mill.
C. Yes, because the negligence of the lumber mill’s employee was a cause of the landowner’s injury.
What are Andy's office hours?
Mondays at noon
3. A dentist filling a child's cavities used a newly developed local anesthetic that was more effective than Novocain. However, it carried a 1% risk of causing a serious seizure when administered to children, which the dentist did not mention to the child's mother or note in the consent forms, which stated only that a local anesthetic would be used. The child's dental work was completed without any problem, but the mother looked up the anesthetic on the Internet and learned about the risk. She complained to the dentist that she would not have consented to use of the anesthetic had she known of the risk, but the dentist argued that using the new anesthetic was justified in the child's case because otherwise he would not have been willing to sit still for the dental work.
Does the mother have a cause of action on behalf of the child against the dentist?
A. Yes, because a reasonable person would have considered information about the risk important.
B. Yes, because the mother would not have consented to the use of the anesthetic if she had known of the risk of seizure.
C. No, because the dentist used his best judgment in deciding that the benefits of using the anesthetic outweighed the risk.
D. No, because the child suffered no harm from use of the anesthetic.
D. No, because the child suffered no harm from use of the anesthetic.
8. A homeowner born on the fourth of July celebrated his birthday in his backyard with an assortment of fireworks and skyrockets, despite a severe drought and watering ban that left the grass extremely dry. One of the fireworks landed in a pile of dry grass clippings behind his garage, but the homeowner neglected to check whether it was extinguished. The grass clippings ignited, and the fire eventually spread to the rear wall of the garage. By the time the homeowner discovered the fire and called the fire department, the flames were reaching as high as the vacant apartment on the second floor of the garage. The first firefighter to arrive rushed with a hose to the back of the garage. As he went up the outside stairs leading to the back door of the apartment, one of the steps broke, causing him to fall to the ground and break his leg. Unbeknownst to the homeowner, the wood on the underside of the step had rotted away.
In a suit by the firefighter against the homeowner, will the firefighter likely prevail?
A. Yes, because the homeowner was negligent in allowing the fire to start.
B. Yes, because it was foreseeable that the homeowner’s shooting off the fireworks would necessitate the assistance of the fire department.
C. No, unless the jury determines that the homeowner could have discovered the condition of the step with a reasonable inspection.
D. No, because a firefighter cannot recover for negligent conduct of another that causes him to be injured from risks that are inherent to his duties.
D. No, because a firefighter cannot recover for negligent conduct of another that causes him to be injured from risks that are inherent to his duties.
13. The owner of a collection of old anvils lent it to the local museum and hired professional movers to transport the anvils to the second floor of the museum, where they would be displayed. The movers used a rope and pulley apparatus to lift the anvils on the outside of the building to a second-story window. While one of the largest anvils was being lifted, it slipped and fell, crashing to the ground. However, the anvil was not even dented.
If the owner brings a negligence action against the movers for allowing the antique anvil to fall, what can the owner recover?
A. Nominal damages.
B. Punitive damages.
C. Both nominal damages and punitive damages.
D. Neither nominal damages nor punitive damages.
D. Neither nominal damages nor punitive damages.
What are Dalia's office hours?
Tuesdays at 2
4. A shopper at a grocery store slipped and fell when he stepped in some water that had seeped out from a malfunctioning freezer case. The fall caused the shopper to break an ankle, so he filed suit against the store in a jurisdiction applying the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land. At trial, the shopper presented evidence of the above facts, and testified that the floor around the water appeared dirty.
To survive a motion for summary judgment by the store, what additional evidence must the shopper present?
A. No additional evidence.
B. He was planning to make a purchase at the store.
C. The store employees knew that the freezer case was leaking.
D. His attention was diverted by store displays so that he did not notice the water on the floor.
A. No additional evidence.
9. A 13-year-old boy who lived on a farm with his parents in a rural area had learned to drive the family’s tractor when he was 11. A state statute permitted persons without a driver’s license to operate farm vehicles on public roads for short distances. One morning the boy took the tractor onto a public road to reach one of the outlying fields a few hundred yards away. As he neared the field he was distracted by a girl riding by on a bicycle, and cut in front of a milk delivery truck that was starting to pass him. The truck swerved off the road, injuring the driver.
If the driver sues the boy to recover damages for his injuries, which of the following statements is most correct regarding the standard of care to be applied?
A. The state statute replaces the general common law standard of care with a statutory standard.
B. The trier of fact should take into account the boy’s experience at driving a tractor when considering the applicable standard of care.
C. Persons 13 years of age or older are held to the same standard as adults.
D. An adult standard of care will not be applied because it is common in that region for children of that age to be operating tractors.
B. The trier of fact should take into account the boy’s experience at driving a tractor when considering the applicable standard of care.
worker at a petrochemical plant was severely burned when a pipe carrying hot oil exploded. The worker brought a negligence action against the company that manufactured and installed the pipe. At trial, the worker established what happened and the injuries he suffered. He also presented evidence that the pipe burst because it had corroded at a higher than normal rate, which according to testimony of the worker’s experts indicated a defect in the manufacture of the pipe. At the close of the worker’s case, the manufacturer moved for a directed verdict.
How should the court rule?
A. Deny the motion, because the pipe was defective and injured the worker.
B. Deny the motion, because the jury could find that the premature corrosion of the pipe would not have occurred absent negligence by the manufacturer.
C. Grant the motion, because the worker has not established that the manufacturer was negligent.
D. Grant the motion, because the pipe was in the petrochemical plant’s possession when it exploded.
B. Deny the motion, because the jury could find that the premature corrosion of the pipe would not have occurred absent negligence by the manufacturer.
What is the first step to approaching multiple choice questions
Read the call of the question
5. A boy was playing softball in a neighborhood park when a ball was hit over the fence and into a neighbor’s yard. The boy knocked on the neighbor’s door and obtained permission from her to retrieve the ball from her yard. As he bent to retrieve the ball in some bushes, the boy brushed against an exposed electric wire that was partially hidden by the bushes and received a severe electric shock and burns. The neighbor had failed to maintain the bushes, allowing them to become overgrown, and was not aware of the exposed wire.
If the boy sues the neighbor in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, what is the likely result?
A. The neighbor is liable because the boy entered with her permission.
B. The neighbor is liable because she failed to repair a dangerous condition on her property.
C. The neighbor is liable because she failed to reasonably inspect the property, which would have made her aware of the dangerous condition of the wire
D. The neighbor is not liable because she did not know of the condition of the wire.
D. The neighbor is not liable because she did not know of the condition of the wire.
10. At the end of the season, the owner of a private beach stacked up his rental canoes onto a trailer, and arranged for them to be moved the next day into a storage shed for the winter. That evening, two nine-year-old boys came onto the owner’s property even though they knew that the lake was closed to the public for the season. Both of them had used the canoes (with an adult) several times during the past summer. They unhooked one of the canoes from the rack, lifted it down, and pushed it into the water. Although the life vests were sitting in an open bin nearby, neither boy put one on. When they were out in the middle of the lake with the canoe, they tried to switch seats and caused the canoe to capsize. They both tried to swim to shore. One was able to make it, but unfortunately the other boy could not make it and he drowned. Had he been wearing a life vest, he would have survived. The boy’s parents bring a wrongful death action against the beach owner.
If the beach owner prevails, what will be the likely reason?
A. Children of the boy’s age, intelligence, and education would not likely take the canoe out without a life vest.
B. The owner took precautions to make the canoes inaccessible.
C. The boy appreciated the risk of taking the canoe out onto the lake without a life vest.
D. The boy was not lured onto the owner’s property by the canoes.
C. The boy appreciated the risk of taking the canoe out onto the lake without a life vest.
15. After their marriage, a wife and husband went for genetic counseling because of a hereditary incurable genetic disease in both of their families. When it was determined that their offspring were certain to inherit the disease, they decided not to have children of their own. The wife went to a doctor to have her fallopian tubes tied to ensure that she would not become pregnant; for religious reasons, abortion was not an option for her. The doctor did not properly perform the surgery. Tests taken after the surgery indicated that it was not successful, but the doctor failed to inform the wife of that fact. Two years later, the wife became pregnant and gave birth to a child who was afflicted with a disabling version of the genetic disease. Furthermore, the pregnancy left the wife partially disabled because of an internal condition that could not have been foreseen by her or her doctor.
The wife sues the doctor, seeking to recover the medical expenses of her pregnancy and her pain and suffering during labor, her lost future earnings because of her disability, the future costs of raising her child, and the extraordinary medical expenses to treat her child’s disease.
Under current law, which element of damages is the wife least certain to recover?
A. Medical expenses and pain and suffering for her labor.
B. The future costs of raising the child.
C. The additional medical expenses to treat the child’s disease.
D. Lost future earnings because of her disability.
B. The future costs of raising the child.
Why are rule statements so important?