Torts 1 Fall Final ACTUAL Exam Questions
and CORRECT Answers
intentional torts - CORRECT ANSWER - Battery, Assault, trespass, conversion
Act (within intentional torts_ - CORRECT ANSWER - a voluntary physical movement
Assault prima facie - CORRECT ANSWER - Act, intent to cause apprehension of harmful
or offensive contact, causation
Battery prima facie - CORRECT ANSWER - Act, intent to touch, harmful/offensive
touch, causation
is injury an element of battery? - CORRECT ANSWER - no injury is not required to
establish battery
Assault and battery example - CORRECT ANSWER - A intentionally causes B reasonably
to apprehend that he is about to be shot, and A actually shoots B
single intent - CORRECT ANSWER - Intend just the touching P must show that D
subjectively intended to cause contact [or acted with substantial certainty that contact would
occur]
dual intent - CORRECT ANSWER - Intend the touching + intend harm P is generally not
required to show that D's purpose/motive was to harm/offend.
unlawful intent - CORRECT ANSWER - The act was considered wrongful therefore the
intention is wrongful
,eggshell plaintiff - CORRECT ANSWER - If you hit someone who has a thin skull, they
would sustain many injuries; we assume all plaintiffs have "thin skull"
Vosburg v. Putney ( shin kick) - CORRECT ANSWER - -D kicked P in the leg. Both
students' incidents occurred in the classroom. The kick exacerbated P's previous injury. P will
never be able to use his leg again. P seeks damages for assault & battery.
-Intent to commit the act, even if no intent to harm→Liability.
knight v. jewett(touch football) - CORRECT ANSWER - -Agreed to play touch football &
it got aggressive. Knight asked Jewett not to play so aggressively or she wouldn't play.. He ends
up stepping on her hand- amputated finger. Knight sues Jewett for BATTERY
-Holding: In favor of Jewett (D) → no intent to cause harm, no intent to touch.
polmatier v. russ - CORRECT ANSWER - L FOR BATTERY, CANNOT USE
INSANITY AS DEFENSE. Russ was having a schizophrenic episode; thought his father-in-law
was a spy shot him with a shotgun. Criminal charges brought; successfully used insanity defense.
MIL then brought civil suit for wrongful death
Did D have Intent if he was insane?
Court: he had intent; the choices were clear and intentional
His act was NOT involuntary
**does NOT have to be a rational choice, just has to be a choice***
Laidlaw v. Sage - CORRECT ANSWER - NL NO BATTERY.
Person made threat known and then set off bomb in office
Under extreme threat/violence acts are involuntary (instinctual/reflexive)
Self-preservation is instinctual; involuntary act
Bc of impending danger Sage's actions were deemed involuntary act bc under influence of
impending danger is a self preservation attempt
Keel v. Hainline - CORRECT ANSWER - L FOR BATTERY
, 2 boys throwing erasers, accidentally hits P in the eye (not involved in the play), shattering
glasses; she loses her eye.
The court focuses on context... The kids had no business playing this game in the classroom. The
intent was to engage in a touching; that would be a battery.
Causation in Fact - CORRECT ANSWER - - But-for causation=actual causation
- P must prove D's breach prob needed to happened for P to be injured
Exceptions to But-For Causation - CORRECT ANSWER - - Alternative liability (prob
identifying D)
- Multiple sufficient causes
"But For" Causation Test - CORRECT ANSWER - - "But For" D's breach, would P have
been injured?
- If no: D's breach was a cause of P's injury
- If Yes: D's breach wasn't a cause of P's injury bc the injury would have happened regardless
New York Central RR v. Grimstad - CORRECT ANSWER - - NL bc no but-for causation
- Tugboat bumped into barge causing P's husband to fall into water
- P couldn't find lifesaving equipment but he drowned
- P needed to prove it was more likely than not that "but for" D failing to provide lifesaving
equipment on the upper deck, her husband would've survived
- Since she couldn't, NL
Gardner v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc. - CORRECT ANSWER - - L bc "But For" lack of
effort
- Guy fell overboard at some point on the D's vessel
- Crew didn't try to search for him & he was never seen again
- L bc ppl can survive for hrs in the water & crew didn't risk anything by looking for him
- Captain & crew had a duty to look for him & failure to do so was cause in fact of death
and CORRECT Answers
intentional torts - CORRECT ANSWER - Battery, Assault, trespass, conversion
Act (within intentional torts_ - CORRECT ANSWER - a voluntary physical movement
Assault prima facie - CORRECT ANSWER - Act, intent to cause apprehension of harmful
or offensive contact, causation
Battery prima facie - CORRECT ANSWER - Act, intent to touch, harmful/offensive
touch, causation
is injury an element of battery? - CORRECT ANSWER - no injury is not required to
establish battery
Assault and battery example - CORRECT ANSWER - A intentionally causes B reasonably
to apprehend that he is about to be shot, and A actually shoots B
single intent - CORRECT ANSWER - Intend just the touching P must show that D
subjectively intended to cause contact [or acted with substantial certainty that contact would
occur]
dual intent - CORRECT ANSWER - Intend the touching + intend harm P is generally not
required to show that D's purpose/motive was to harm/offend.
unlawful intent - CORRECT ANSWER - The act was considered wrongful therefore the
intention is wrongful
,eggshell plaintiff - CORRECT ANSWER - If you hit someone who has a thin skull, they
would sustain many injuries; we assume all plaintiffs have "thin skull"
Vosburg v. Putney ( shin kick) - CORRECT ANSWER - -D kicked P in the leg. Both
students' incidents occurred in the classroom. The kick exacerbated P's previous injury. P will
never be able to use his leg again. P seeks damages for assault & battery.
-Intent to commit the act, even if no intent to harm→Liability.
knight v. jewett(touch football) - CORRECT ANSWER - -Agreed to play touch football &
it got aggressive. Knight asked Jewett not to play so aggressively or she wouldn't play.. He ends
up stepping on her hand- amputated finger. Knight sues Jewett for BATTERY
-Holding: In favor of Jewett (D) → no intent to cause harm, no intent to touch.
polmatier v. russ - CORRECT ANSWER - L FOR BATTERY, CANNOT USE
INSANITY AS DEFENSE. Russ was having a schizophrenic episode; thought his father-in-law
was a spy shot him with a shotgun. Criminal charges brought; successfully used insanity defense.
MIL then brought civil suit for wrongful death
Did D have Intent if he was insane?
Court: he had intent; the choices were clear and intentional
His act was NOT involuntary
**does NOT have to be a rational choice, just has to be a choice***
Laidlaw v. Sage - CORRECT ANSWER - NL NO BATTERY.
Person made threat known and then set off bomb in office
Under extreme threat/violence acts are involuntary (instinctual/reflexive)
Self-preservation is instinctual; involuntary act
Bc of impending danger Sage's actions were deemed involuntary act bc under influence of
impending danger is a self preservation attempt
Keel v. Hainline - CORRECT ANSWER - L FOR BATTERY
, 2 boys throwing erasers, accidentally hits P in the eye (not involved in the play), shattering
glasses; she loses her eye.
The court focuses on context... The kids had no business playing this game in the classroom. The
intent was to engage in a touching; that would be a battery.
Causation in Fact - CORRECT ANSWER - - But-for causation=actual causation
- P must prove D's breach prob needed to happened for P to be injured
Exceptions to But-For Causation - CORRECT ANSWER - - Alternative liability (prob
identifying D)
- Multiple sufficient causes
"But For" Causation Test - CORRECT ANSWER - - "But For" D's breach, would P have
been injured?
- If no: D's breach was a cause of P's injury
- If Yes: D's breach wasn't a cause of P's injury bc the injury would have happened regardless
New York Central RR v. Grimstad - CORRECT ANSWER - - NL bc no but-for causation
- Tugboat bumped into barge causing P's husband to fall into water
- P couldn't find lifesaving equipment but he drowned
- P needed to prove it was more likely than not that "but for" D failing to provide lifesaving
equipment on the upper deck, her husband would've survived
- Since she couldn't, NL
Gardner v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc. - CORRECT ANSWER - - L bc "But For" lack of
effort
- Guy fell overboard at some point on the D's vessel
- Crew didn't try to search for him & he was never seen again
- L bc ppl can survive for hrs in the water & crew didn't risk anything by looking for him
- Captain & crew had a duty to look for him & failure to do so was cause in fact of death
