Intentional Torts
An impatient driver who was fed up with jaywalking pedestrians drove straight at one of them, leaning on the horn and intending to make her jump. She did not hear him or change her pace, however, because her music player was turned to full volume. A bystander on the curb rushed out to pull her to safety. She tripped as she was being pulled to the curb, fracturing her kneecap.
If the pedestrian sues the driver for assault, what will be the likely result?
A. The driver wins, because the pedestrian did not know at the time that she was in danger from the driver.The driver wins, because the pedestrian did not know at the time that she was in danger from the driver.
Here, because the pedestrian was oblivious to the driver's attempt to scare her, the driver is not liable for assault.
After picking up a load of hazardous chemical waste, a truck driver for a waste management company set out on the road to his next stop. However, he had failed to secure the latch on the back panel of the truck. Consequently, the panel opened while the truck was on the road, and a metal canister full of chemical waste fell onto the road. A car struck the canister, causing the car to veer off the road and injure the driver. The driver filed suit against the company for his injuries.
The jurisdiction in which the above events took place has adopted a rule of partial comparative negligence. At trial, the driver of the car admitted that he had momentarily taken his eyes off the road to look at his speedometer. When he had looked up again, the canister was there and he could not stop in time. The jury found that the company, through its truck driver, had acted willfully and wantonly and was 90% at fault, while the driver of the car was 10% at fault. The driver filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, seeking recovery for 100% of his damages.
If the judge grants the motion, what is the most likely reason?
A. A plaintiff's comparative negligence is not taken into account in cases of willful and wanton conduct by the defendant.
B. A state ordinance mandating motorists to stay within the posted speed limit requires as a matter of law an occasional glance at the speedometer.
C. The company was more than 50% at fault.
D. The company was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.
B. A state ordinance mandating motorists to stay within the posted speed limit requires as a matter of law an occasional glance at the speedometer.
If the driver was effectively required by statute to take an occasional quick look at his speedometer to make sure that he was complying with appropriate speed limits, then his momentary glance at the speedometer in the instant case would, as a matter of law, not constitute negligent conduct. Because this is a matter of law, the judge would be authorized to correct this aspect of the jury's verdict. If the driver is thus found to be not negligent in this matter, his recovery will not be reduced.
The manufacturer made a product that was sold over the counter for the treatment of dandruff and dry scalp conditions. A doctor purchased a bottle at a drugstore. A statement on the label read, "this product will not harm normal scalp or hair" the Dr. used the product as directed because of a rare scalp condition making him allergic to one of the ingredients, the product irritated his scalp, causing pain and discomfort. In an action for negligence by the doctor against the manufacturer, which of the following additional facts or inferences, if it was the only one true, would be the most effective in the manufacturers defense?
A. Dr did not read the statement on the label
B. the reasonable person in the manufacturer's position would not have foreseen that the product would injure persons with the doctor's allergies.
C. Product was manufactured fror the manfacturer in another country.
D. the manu. was unaware that an allergy existed like that suffered by the doctor.
#1
A motorcycle enthusiast who lived in a state wilderness area with rugged terrain purchased a motorcycle that was promoted as an all-terrain motorcycle in advertisements showing it going over very rugged terrain. However, the shock absorbers that were sold with the motorcycle as standard equipment were not designed for rough terrain and would not provide a safe ride under these conditions. The owner’s manual that came with the motorcycle stated that it should not be driven over rough terrain without equipping it with heavy-duty shock absorbers designed for that purpose. The next day, the purchaser took his motorcycle to the wilderness area and rode onto a trail. He crested a hill and landed hard, causing his shock absorbers to fail. The purchaser lost control and crashed, suffering serious and permanent injuries.
The purchaser brought a strict products liability action against the motorcycle’s manufacturer in a jurisdiction that does not apply its comparative negligence rules to these actions. At trial, he presented evidence of the advertisements and the fact that the shock absorbers installed on the motorcycle were dangerously inadequate under off-road conditions. The manufacturer presented evidence that the purchaser had received the owner’s manual with the warning about the shock absorbers and had disobeyed a posted state statute in the wilderness area forbidding motorized vehicles from leaving the roadway. At the close of the evidence, both parties move for a directed verdict.
What should the court do?
A Deny both motions, because the jury could determine that the purchaser’s use of the motorcycle over rough terrain was foreseeable.
B Grant the manufacturer’s motion, because the owner’s manual adequately warned of the unsuitability of the shock absorbers for off-road use.
C Grant the manufacturer’s motion, because the purchaser was in violation of the law when he drove off of the road.
D Grant the purchaser’s motion, because the shock absorbers were dangerously inadequate for the off-road conditions shown in the motorcycle’s advertisements.
A Deny both motions, because the jury could determine that the purchaser’s use of the motorcycle over rough terrain was foreseeable.
A 15 year old boy was killed during a gang fight. 2 days after his funeral, the boys mother saw a television program about gang violence and was shocked to see video of herself weeping over the boys body. Teh video had been shot by the television reporting team while the boys body was still lying on the public street . The mother suffered severe emotional distress as a result of seeing the video.
If the mother sues the television station for invasion of privacy and that of her son, will the mother likely to prevail?
A. no because a person had no right to privacy after his or her death
B. no because the street was open to the public and the subject was newsworthy
C. yes because the mother did not give permission tohave the video used int he program
D. yes because the mother suffered severe emotional distress as a result of viewing the video
B. no because the street was open to the public and the subject was newsworthy
A hockey player who was playing in the final game of the season before a hostile crowd in the opponent’s packed stadium had an opportunity to get his team into the playoffs, but he missed a shot into an open net as the horn sounded, ending the game. As the crowd cheered and jeered, the puck bounced back to him and he shot it in anger toward the stands. A fan who had been looking the other way turned back toward the rink just in time to be struck in the face by the puck. He suffered a broken nose and a severe gash under his eye. After the game, the league commissioner fined the player for violating league rules by intentionally directing the puck out of the playing area.
If the fan sues the player for battery, will the fan likely prevail?
C. Yes, because the player knew that it was substantially certain that a fan would be hit by the puck.Yes, because the player knew that it was substantially certain that a fan would be hit by the puck.
Here, the player’s conduct caused a harmful contact to the fan, because the player set into motion the force that caused injury to the fan. His intentionally shooting the puck into the crowded stands is enough to establish that he knew with substantial certainty that the puck would strike a spectator.
Really testing intent!
The P and 2 other men were out quail hunting. The P todl the two men to be careful as they walked through a field. The P was walking in front while the other 2 were walking behind him. one of the two men flushed a quail from the bushes and both men shot int he P's direction. The P was hit in the eye and lip. It was impossible for him to tell which bullet was shot by which man. The P sued both men for negligence. Which of the following statement is correct?
A. Both men may be held fully liable for all of the P's injuries
B. each man may be liable for 50% of the P's injuries.
C. P has the burden of proof of showing which injury each man is responsible for
D. P has to show that each man was a substantial cause of phis injuries.
#17
what duty, if any, does a retailer owe its customers?
A. no duty to inspect products furnished by reputable manufacturers.
B. a duty to inspect the packages of all products sold, but no duty to inspect the contents of those packages.
C. a duty to inspect only those products that are furnished by the manufacturers whose products are not well known to the retailer.
D. a duty to make reasonable inspection of all products that are sold by the retailer.
#32
A pilot was injured when the helicopter that he was flying ran out of fuel and fell from the air. The day after the pilot purchased the helicopter, he noticed the fuel gauge gave incorrect readings. He complained to an officer fo the helicopter maker, who told him to have it fixed and send the helicopter maker the bill. A week before the accident, the pilot hired an independent mechanic to repair the fuel gauge. The mechanic worker on the gauge but failed to repair it properly. The day before the accident, the pilot's partner flew the helicopter, using most of the fuel in the tank. Although the pilot's partner noticed that the fuel guage continued to indicate the tank was full , he also did not mention it to the pilot nor replace the fuel in the tank. Ont he day of the accident, the fuel gauge indicated that the tank was full, although it was actually almost empty. if the pilot wishes to assert a claim for damages on the theory of strict liability in tort whom is he most likely to recover against?
A. helicopter maker only
B. helicopter maker and the pilot's partner only
C. helicopter maker and the mechanic only
D. the helicopter maker, pilot's partner and mechanic.
#34
A gardener's flower and plant shop was located across the street from a factory, in a building that the gardener rented from a landlord. Gases fromt he factory caused some of the potted plants in his shop to die. One of the gardeners empployees suffered from allergies. As a result, he found the gases so irritating to his eyes that he was unable to continue working at the gardener's shop and had to quit his job. Who may successfully assert a private nuisance claim against the factory?
A. landlord only
B. landlord and gardener only
C. the gardener and the employee only
D. the landlord, gardener and the employee
#47
At the request of local police, security officials for an intercity passenger train made random searches of passenger luggage for contraband as it was being sent to the baggage claim area, although they did not have legal authority to search bags without a warrant. The searches were conducted so that there was no delay in the luggage being released to those claiming their bags. A traveler went to the baggage claim area but his luggage, which contained a number of valuables but no contraband, did not appear. It had been selected for a search but the security officers were having difficulty getting it unlocked to search it. When the traveler inquired about the luggage, he was told that it was being inspected and that he would have to remain in the area if he wanted to claim it when it was released, and that its return could not be guaranteed if he was not around when it was released. About 30 minutes later, the luggage was returned to the traveler with an apology for the delay. The delay caused the traveler to miss his commuter train to the suburbs, so he had to pay for cab fare.
Assuming there are no issues of governmental immunity, can the traveler bring an action against the security officials for false imprisonment?
B. Yes, because the traveler reasonably believed that he would not get his luggage back if he left the baggage area.
The act or omission can be directed against plaintiff’s property if its effect is to restrain plaintiff from leaving. Here, security officials, who had no legal authority to conduct a search of the traveler’s luggage, were under a duty to release it to him when he requested it. Requiring him to remain in the area to claim it when it was released was a sufficient confinement or restraint for purposes of false imprisonment.
The owner of a speedboat let his friend operate it in a busy channel. While operating the boat, the friend collided with a canoe that had the right of way, injuring its occupant. The canoeist filed suit against both the owner and the friend, alleging that the friend was negligent in operating the boat and that the owner was negligent in letting him operate it, having reason to know that the friend was not qualified to operate a boat.
The jurisdiction follows traditional rules for joint and several liability and contribution. There is no other applicable statute.
If the jury finds both defendants liable and assesses the plaintiff’s damages at $100,000, how should the judgment be entered?
A $50,000 against each defendant.$50,000 against each defendant.
B $25,000 against the owner and $75,000 against the friend.$25,000 against the owner and $75,000 against the friend.
C $100,000 against the owner only.$100,000 against the owner only.
D $100,000 against both defendants.
D $100,000 against both defendants.
The judgment should be entered in the full amount of $100,000 against both defendants. Where two or more tortious acts combine to proximately cause an indivisible injury to the plaintiff, each tortfeasor will be jointly and severally liable for that injury. Joint and several liability of such parties means that each is liable to the plaintiff for the entire damage incurred, so that the plaintiff may recover the entire judgment amount from any defendant (with the plaintiff of course being limited to one total recovery). The owner and the friend have been found jointly and severally liable for the harm caused to the canoeist by their tortious acts. Thus, the entire damage amount of $100,000 is recoverable from either of these defendants. As a result, judgment in the amount of $100,000 should be entered against both the owner and the friend.
A woman's neighbor liked to shoot neighborhood squirrels with an air rifle. The woman knew the neighbor was shooting the squirrels, but she had not asked him to stop because he had shot some that chewed a hole in the roof. One day, as the woman was unloading her carm which was parked on the other side of the street near the neighbors house, the heighbor shot at a squirrel and shattered the womans second story bed room window. The woman was very scared by the sound of the falling glass which caused her to have a severe panic attack. The woman sued the neighbor for NIED. Should the court rule in her favor?
A. yes because she suffered a panic attack from the sound of the falling glass.
B. yes because the neighbor should have foreseen that he may have hurt her when he shot at her house.
C. no, because she didnt tell the neighbor to stop shooting at the squirrels.
D. No because she was unloading her groceries from her car on the other side of the street when her window was shot.
#3
A boater taking his new powerboat out on a large lake ran out of gas because of a defective seal in the gas tank. The defect was not discoverable by an ordinary inspection. His frantic signaling alerted the captain of a sightseeing boat passing by. The captain pulled up alongside to assist and attempted to restart the boat. A spark ignited a pool of gas that had leaked from the gas tank and collected in the lower part of the boat, causing an explosion and fire. The captain was severely burned and died from his injuries. The captain's estate brought a wrongful death action based on strict liability against the powerboat dealer and the manufacturer. Evidence at trial established that the dealer had sold the manufacturer's boats for years without any problems reported by customers.
Can the captain's estate recover any damages from the dealer?
A Yes, unless the jury finds that the boater was negligent in failing to investigate where the gas had gone.
B Yes, because harm to someone in the captain's position was a foreseeable result of the gas leak.
C No, because the dealer had no reason to anticipate that the manufacturer assembled the gas tank improperly.
D No, because the captain did not have a sufficient relationship to the boater to make the dealer liable for the captain's death.
B Yes, because harm to someone in the captain's position was a foreseeable result of the gas leak.
A dog owner lived next door to a day care center. Because he had a large yard and there were no applicable zoning restrictions, he installed a kennel and began training attack dogs to sell to businesses. As soon as he opened the business and posted signs in front advertising the exceptional ferocity of the dogs, some parents who had children enrolled in the day care center became alarmed at the prospect of the dogs right next to the yard where the children played, especially because the children could see and hear the dogs being taught to attack people. Within a few months of the dogs' arrival next door, the owner of the day care lost 10% of her enrollment.
If the day care owner brings a nuisance action against the dog owner, what will be the most critical factual issue that the trier of fact must resolve to determine who should prevail?
A Whether the day care owner suffered other damages in addition to her economic losses.
B Whether the day care owner's use of her property makes her business abnormally sensitive to the presence of the dogs.
C Whether the dog owner conducted his business with reasonable care.
D Whether the dog owner was apprised of the day care owner's concerns and did nothing to alleviate them
B Whether the day care owner's use of her property makes her business abnormally sensitive to the presence of the dogs.
A student borrowed her roommate’s car to pick up a pizza that they had ordered. On the way and without permission from the roommate, the student drove the car to a bookstore approximately two miles from the pizzeria and spent 10 minutes in the store finding and purchasing a book she needed for a class. She arrived at the pizzeria 10 minutes after the pizza was supposed to be ready but had to wait a few more minutes for it to be done. She brought it back to the car, which she had parked on the street in a marked parallel parking space, and saw to her dismay that the car had been struck by a hit-and-run driver. There were a number of dents in the back of the car, amounting to $900 in damages.
If the roommate sues the student for the damage to her car, what will she likely recover?
A. Nothing, because the student had to wait for the pizza even after her 10-minute detour.
Because the student had to wait for the pizza even after her detour, she is not liable because any tortious conduct on her part did not cause the damage to the car, as explained in the discussion for the wrong answer choices.the student is not liable for conversion. Conversion requires an act by defendant interfering with plaintiff’s right of possession that is serious enough to require defendant to pay the full value of the chattel. In this case, the student’s unauthorized use of the car was not significant enough to constitute a serious interference with the roommate’s right to possession; it was a short detour that did not prolong the use of the car beyond the time period for which it was originally lent.
While the P was visiting her daughter, the two of them decided to go swimming at a nearby pool. Since she had not brought a bathing suit with her, the P went to a deptartment store to purchase one. While looking at the suits at the bargain counter, she found one that had been manufactured by the D. The package of the suit bore the label that read :Disposable Bathing suit, Thus garment is made completely from recycled paper. Although it is strong enough to be worn several times and is even washable, its inexpensive enough to throw away after one use. Buy several and take them to the beach!" The P bought the suit and wore it in public at the swimming pool. After swimming for a few minutes, the wet paper bathing suit suddenly dissolved and fell from her in shreds leaving her naked. If the P asserts a claim against the D for damages resulting from embarrassment, what is the D's best argument in defense?
A. D made no representations to the P.
B. P sustained to physical injury or symptoms.
C. P purchased the suit from a department store
D. the D acted reasonably in manufacturing and labeling the bathing suit.
#16
B
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?
D No, because the child suffered no harm from use of the anesthetic.
The mother has no cause of action because the child suffered no damages from the dentist's breach of duty. One of the duties that doctors, dentists, and other health professionals owe their patients is the duty to provide a patient with enough information about the risks of a proposed course of treatment or surgical procedure to enable the patient to make an "informed consent" to the treatment. If an undisclosed risk was serious enough that a reasonable person in the patient's position would have withheld consent to the treatment, the health care professional has breached this duty. However, breach of duty is only one element of a cause of action for negligence. The plaintiff must also establish actual and proximate cause and some damage to plaintiff's person or property. Damage means actual harm or injury. Unlike for some intentional torts, damage will not be presumed and nominal damages are not available. Note that complete absence of consent to a medical or surgical procedure may often constitute battery, which does not require damage as an element. However, a nondisclosure of the risks of the procedure is characterized instead as a breach of the duty of care. Here, the mother consented to the surgery and use of a local anesthetic, so battery is not applicable. Further, the child's dental work was completed without any problem and no other injury is apparent from the facts; the mother's possible distress at not being informed of the risk is not, standing alone, a compensable injury.
A. yes because of the poisonous nature of the seeds was a defect
B. yes because it was reasonable for the dealer to resell the seeds without inspection
C. No because the wholesaler had no contractual relationship with the breeder
D. No because the breeder will be unable to recover damages from the deeler.
#43
The city's ballet company, which was well known internationally, was having financial difficulties that caused it to fire several key dancers. After a reporter investigated the story, the city newspaper published an article saying that the ballet company was losing money because the ballet director, a world famous and well known public figure, was stealing money to use for his expensive plastic surgery.
The director brought a defamation suit against the newspaper. During the trial, the director produced irrefutable proof that he had not stolen the money from the ballet company. What else does he have to show to be successful in his lawsuit?
A. the director personally lost money as a result of the article
B. the reporter was negligent in researching the article.
C. the newspaper intended to hurt the director by publishing the article
D. that the ballet co. suffered pecuniary damages as a result of the article.
#21
A teenager and his father were practicing baseball in a sandlot when the teenager hit the ball over his father's head and onto a landowner's adjacent property. The landowner had several "beware of dog" signs posted along his fence, but the father did not notice them in his haste to retrieve the ball. The father climbed over the fence into the landowner's yard and was attacked by the landowner's vicious guard dog, which was trained to maim intruders. The dog bit the father, causing him to suffer severe lacerations that required numerous stitches.
If the father brings an action against the landowner to recover damages for his injuries, will he likely prevail?
A. Yes, because the landowner may not use a vicious dog to protect only his property.
The father will prevail because the landowner may not intentionally use a vicious dog to protect only his property. One may use only reasonable force to defend property. A landowner may not use force that will cause death or serious bodily harm. Furthermore, one may not use indirect deadly force such as a trap, spring gun, or vicious dog when such force could not lawfully be directly used, e.g., against a mere trespasser.
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.
The landowner can recover the full amount of his damages from the lumber mill because the negligence of its employee caused the destruction of the lodge. Before a defendant will be liable for a breach of duty to the plaintiff, it must be shown that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the injury. The general test for determining whether an act or omission is the actual cause of the injury is the “but for” test, i.e., whether the injury would not have occurred but for the act or omission. Under certain circumstances, however, the “but for” test is inadequate to determine actual cause. Where several causes combine to bring about an injury—and any one alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury—the actual cause requirement is satisfied if defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the injury. Under this analysis, the fire started by the lumber mill employee was an actual cause of the destruction of the landowner’s lodge because it was a substantial factor in causing the harm. It was also a proximate cause of the harm because no intervening forces broke the causal connection between the act and the harm. Because its employee was acting within the scope of his employment when he caused the fire to start, the lumber mill is vicariously liable for the injury that resulted.
A nervous man was persuaded by his girlfriend to go with her to a haunted house. He saw the signs in front of the haunted house warning that this attraction has live “monsters” who will be trying to scare people and is not for the faint of heart, and he also noticed the same warning printed on the tickets. He paid for his ticket and reluctantly went into the darkened house with his girlfriend. In the first room, an actor dressed as a large monster came at them with a shriek, and the man dove through one of the plate glass windows to the outside, severely lacerating his arms and face in the process.
If the man brings an action against the actor, will he recover?
A No, because the man expressly assumed the risk of injury.
B No, unless the jury determines that the actor was negligent in trying to scare the man.
C Yes, because the actor intended to cause apprehension on the part of the man.
D Yes, but the man’s recovery will be reduced by a certain percentage if the trier of fact determines that he was also at fault.
A No, because the man expressly assumed the risk of injury.
A landowner operated a honey farm on her property adjacent to a busy state highway. The landowner had numerous hives for her honeybees that she carefully maintained and operated in compliance with all appropriate regulations. A motorist was driving his sports car on the highway at a high rate of speed after a rain shower when he lost control on the wet pavement. His car crossed in front of a motorcyclist who was going in the opposite direction, causing the motorcyclist to crash into a ditch on the side of the road. The motorist’s car continued off the road onto the landowner’s property and smashed into one of the beehives, driving a swarm of bees out of the hive. The motorcyclist, who suffered only a few bruises when his motorcycle crashed, saw the swarm of bees and started to run across the road to get away from them. He stumbled and was struck by a truck, causing him to suffer several broken bones and serious internal injuries.
Can the motorcyclist recover any damages from the landowner?
A Yes, because the landowner is strictly liable for injury caused by the honeybees.
B Yes, because the motorcyclist was a traveler on a public road.
C No, because the honeybees did not directly inflict injury on the motorcyclist.
D No, because the landowner exercised due care in her operation of the beehives.
D No, because the landowner exercised due care in her operation of the beehives.
The landowner will prevail because there is no evidence that she was negligent in her operation or maintenance of her beehives, and she is not strictly liable for the bees getting loose. Honeybees kept in a hive on a honey farm are domestic animals just like other farm animals, so strict liability does not apply. In contrast to keepers of wild animals, the owner of a domestic animal is not strictly liable for the injuries it causes. Strict liability would only apply if the owner has knowledge of that particular animal’s dangerous propensities (i.e., propensities more dangerous than normal for that species). Here, while honeybees as a class can inflict harm by stinging, there is no indication that any of these particular honeybees were more aggressive or dangerous than normal.
A plumber working for a company providing plumbing services to commercial and industrial establishments was required to be “on call” for emergency plumbing services 24 hours a day, and was required to drive his company van home each night so he would have all of his tools and equipment at hand for any calls. However, he was not permitted to use the company van for personal errands. On his way home one afternoon, he took a detour toward a supermarket a few blocks away to pick up some items for dinner. While entering the supermarket parking lot, he drove negligently and struck a pedestrian, seriously injuring him. The pedestrian filed suit against the plumber’s company in a jurisdiction that maintains traditional common law rules regarding contribution and indemnity, and the jury awarded him $100,000 in damages, which the company paid.
If the company sues the plumber to recoup its loss in the lawsuit, which party will prevail?
A The company can recover 100% of the judgment as an indemnity, because the plumber was negligent, not the company.
B The company will prevail, because the company had a rule against using company vehicles for personal errands.
C The company will not prevail, because the company has already been found liable under principles of vicarious liability in the lawsuit by the pedestrian.
D The company will not prevail, because the company required the plumber to be “on call” 24 hours a day.
A The company can recover 100% of the judgment as an indemnity, because the plumber was negligent, not the company.