Torts: Practice Questions (Mbe)

Front 1

Negligent infliction of mental distress + physical harm

Back 1

Most jurisdictions hold that recovery for negligent infliction of mental distress can be had only when P has actually sustained physical contact

Front 2

Nominal damages

Back 2

Awardable in intentional tort cases NOT in negligent tort cases

Battery -- no physical harm or actual damages required (just intentional, unpermitted, offensive contact)

Front 3

Res Ipsa Loquitur and > 1 party

Back 3

does not apply when more than one party may have been in control of the instrumentality causing the injury

Front 4

False imprisonment & length of time

Back 4

Length of time irrelevant to false imprisonment action;
Lack of actual damages also irrelevant

Front 5

Private necessity & committing trespass

Back 5

If you have a private necessity defense, then you have not committed a trespass

But you are still liable for damage done to the property (so in that sense, the property owner will "win")

Front 6

Complete loss of a chattel

Back 6

Conversion, not trespass to chattels (because too serious)

Front 7

Duty to rescue if you caused another's injury

Back 7

If D places another person in peril or causes his injury (even if not negligently), D has duty to make reasonable efforts to rescue victim or render aid

Front 8

Intentional torts and vicarious liability

Back 8

Normally employer not liable for vicarious torts of employee (except in jobs like bill collector or club bouncer)

Front 9

Licensee who should have noticed dangerous condition himself

Back 9

Then no duty to warn

Front 10

Negligence per se

Back 10

Standard of care in negligence case can be established by proving that a statute imposing a specific duty applies

Class of persons / class of events

You're not held to statutory standard of care if compliance is impossible or more dangerous --> no prima facie case of negligence

Front 11

Contributory negligence & reckless/wanton conduct

Back 11

Contributory negligence (minority rule): P's negligence bars recovery but NOT where D

Front 12

Joint and several liability

Back 12

Each defendant is liable for combined liability of all defendants

Front 13

Parent brings action on behalf of child

Back 13

Parent's contributory negligence is NOT imputed to child

Front 14

Products liability suit in negligence

Back 14

Helpful for Defense to show that no one had complained before (so no reason to know)

Front 15

Inadequate warning --> strict liability

Back 15

(1) product presents unreasonable risk of injury to users and bystanders
(2) no sufficient warning of the danger

Front 16

Driver drives straight at pedestrian intending to scare her, but pedestrian does not notice because playing music

Back 16

NO liability for assault, which requires that pedestrian reasonably apprehend an immediate harmful contact

Front 17

Employers seeking indemnity

Back 17

Employer can recover 100% of judgment from negligent employee under common law indemnity rules

It is enough that the employee's negligence caused the injury and that the company was liable for the judgment solely because of its relationship to the plumber

Front 18

Qualified privilege in defamation cases

Back 18

(1) Recipient had an interest in the information and
(2) it is reasonable for D to publish the statement

(E.g., bank telling customer why account was overdrawn, even if erroneous)

Front 19

Misdiagnosis

Back 19

Can be negligence
Dr's breach of duty of care could cause patient to continue to suffer from untreated condition (+ emotional distress from thinking condition was worse than it was)

Cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress if ONLY suffer damages, but can recover for emotional distress if P ALSO suffers physical injury

Front 20

Infliction of emotional distress & zone of danger

Back 20

In most jurisdictions, bystander does not need to be within the zone of danger to recover

Front 21

Firefighter's rule

Back 21

Generally precludes a firefighter from recovering for injuries occurring on duty from risks inherent to his job, even if caused by another's negligence (e.g., dangerous conditions on land)

Front 22

Attractive nuisance doctrine

Back 22

No prima facie case if the child appreciates the risk (one of the elements is that the condition is dangerous because the child is unable to appreciate the risk)

Front 23

Defamation + mens rea

Back 23

publication to third party may be either intentional or negligent

Front 24

Using car in a way that constitutes material breach of bailment agreement

Back 24

A lends car to B who lends it for a long time to C
B then tries to give car back to A
A can sue and recover fair market value of car (conversion)
B is liable for conversion because he used the car in such a way as to constitute a material breach of bailment agreement
Substantial interference with car = material breach

Front 25

Contributory negligence + strict liability action

Back 25

Contrib negligence jurisdiction

Ordinary contributory negligence (failing to discover defect/guard against its existence) is NOT a defense to products liability action based on strict liability

Assumption of risk (voluntarily and unreasonably encountering known risk) IS defense to strict liability

Front 26

Wrongful pregnancy

Back 26

E.g., if doctor does not succeed in tying fallopian tubes and patient has baby.

Unclear whether parent can recover future child rearing expenses.

CANNOT recover additional expenses of treating child's disease.

CAN recover damages from pregnancy itself; impaired earning capacity as a result of pregnancy

Front 27

Painting car the wrong color, causing racer to lose endorsements

Back 27

Racer can recover for trespass to chattels
(1) D's act interferes with P's right of possession in the chattel
(2) Intent to perform the act
(3) Causation
(4) Damages

Front 28

Publication in negligence action

Back 28

must be made either intentionally or negligently (e.g., must be reasonably foreseeable that defamatory statement would be overheard)

Front 29

Dramshop Act

Back 29

Create cause of action against vendors of intoxicating beverages in favor of a third person injured by drunk vendee