TORTS Multiple Choice ACTUAL
UPDATED Exam Questions and CORRECT
Answers
The manager of a department store noticed that Paula was carrying a scarf with her as she
examined various items in the blouse department. The manager recognized the scarf as an
expensive one carried by the store. Paula was trying to find a blouse that matched a color in the
scarf, and, after a while, found one. The manager then saw Paula put the scarf into her purse, pay
for the blouse, and head for the door. The manager, who was eight inches taller than Paula,
blocked Paula's way to the door and asked to see the scarf in Paula's purse. Paula produced the
scarf, as well as a receipt for it, showing that it had been purchased from the store on the
previous day. The manager then told Paula there was no problem and stepped out of her way.
If Paula brings a claim against the store based on false imprisonment, the store's best defense
would be that: - CORRECT ANSWER the manager had a reasonable belief that Paula was
shoplifting and detained her only briefly for a reasonable investigation of the facts. (Based on
shopkeeper's privilege)
Defendant left her car parked on the side of a hill. Two minutes later, the car rolled down the hill
and struck and injured Plaintiff. In Plaintiff's negligence action against Defendant, Plaintiff
introduced into evidence the facts stated above, which are undisputed.
Defendant testified that, when she parked her car, she turned the front wheels into the curb and
put on her emergency brakes, which were in good working order. She also introduced evidence
that, in the weeks before this incident, juveniles had been seen tampering with cars in the
neighborhood. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant, and Plaintiff moved for a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Plaintiff's motion should be: - CORRECT ANSWER denied, because, given Defendant's
evidence, the jury was not required to draw an inference of negligence from the circumstances of
the accident. (This is a disputed set of facts in evidence and a reasonable jury could find for
Defendant. That means a JNOV is not appropriate)
Perry suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game at a public
park. The injury occurred when Perry and Dever, on opposing teams, each tried to obtain
possession of the ball when it rebounded from the backboard after a missed shot at the basket.
,During that encounter, Perry was struck and injured by Dever's elbow. Perry now seeks
compensation from Dever.
At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been rough from the
beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to discourage interference by
opposing players, and that Perry had been one of those making liberal use of such tactics.
In this action, will Perry prevail? - CORRECT ANSWER No, unless Dever intentionally used
force that exceeded the players' consent. (This is one where extra facts/assumptions are kind of
placed into the answer itself. You probably can't know the correct answer until you have those
facts, since consent is a defense to battery - but exceeding the scope of consent can be battery)
Company designed and built a processing plant for the manufacture of an explosive chemical.
Engineer was retained by Company to design a filter system for the processing plant. She
prepared an application for a permit to build the plant's filter system and submitted it to the
state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). As required by DEP regulations,
Engineer submitted a blueprint to the DEP with the application for permit. The blueprint showed
the entire facility and was signed and sealed by her as a licensed professional engineer.
After the project was completed, a portion of the processing plant exploded, injuring Plaintiff.
During discovery in an action by Plaintiff against Engineer, it was established that the explosion
was caused by a design defect in the processing plant that was unrelated to the filter system
designed by Engineer.
In that action, will Plaintiff prevail? - CORRECT ANSWER No, because Engineer owed no
duty to Plaintiff to prevent the particular risk of harm. (Duty only typically extends to
foreseeable plaintiffs for foreseeable harms, and there can be no liability if no duty)
Peter and Donald were in the habit of playing practical jokes on each other on their respective
birthdays. On Peter's birthday, Donald sent Peter a cake containing an ingredient that he knew
had, in the past, made Peter very ill. After Peter had eaten a piece of the cake, he suffered severe
stomach pains and had to be taken to the hospital by ambulance. On the way to the hospital, the
ambulance driver suffered a heart attack, which caused the ambulance to swerve from the road
and hit a tree. As a result of the collision, Peter suffered a broken leg.
In a suit by Peter against Donald to recover damages for Peter's broken leg, Peter will: -
CORRECT ANSWER prevail, because Donald knew that the cake would be harmful or
offensive to Peter. (Committing an intentional tort foreseeably means that medical care must be
, administered and within the range of administering care it's not per se unforeseeable that an
ambulance might crash (for a range of reasons))
While approaching an intersection with the red light against him, Motorist suffered a heart attack
that rendered him unconscious. Motorist's car struck Child, who was crossing the street with the
green light in her favor. Under the state motor vehicle code, it is an offense to drive through a red
traffic light.
Child sued Motorist to recover for her injuries. At trial it was stipulated that (1) immediately
prior to suffering the heart attack, Motorist had been driving within the speed limit, had seen the
red light, and had begun to slow his car; (2) Motorist had no history of heart disease and no
warning of this attack; (3) while Motorist was unconscious, his car ran the red light.
On cross motions for directed verdicts on the issue of liability at the conclusion of the proofs, the
court should: - CORRECT ANSWER grant Motorist's motion, because he had no history of
heart disease or warning of the heart attack. (there needs to be some "safe harbor" for a
defendant. The stipulations indicate no negligence of P for speeding, no negligence for failing to
monitor health condition, and that the only indicator of harm happened without a conscious act
by P because of a health condition)
Pocket, a bank vice president, took substantial kickbacks to approve certain loans that later
proved worthless. Upon learning of the kickbacks, Dodd, the bank's president, fired Pocket,
telling him, "If you are not out of this bank in ten minutes, I will have the guards throw you out
bodily." Pocket left at once.
If Pocket asserts a claim against Dodd based on assault, will Pocket prevail? - CORRECT
ANSWER No, because Dodd gave Pocket ten minutes to leave. (Having time to leave renders
the situation not sufficiently imminent for assault)
Traveler was a passenger on a commercial aircraft owned and operated by Airline. The aircraft
crashed into a mountain, killing everyone on board. The flying weather was good. Traveler's
legal representative brought a wrongful death action against Airline. At trial, the legal
representative offered no expert or other testimony as to the cause of the crash.
UPDATED Exam Questions and CORRECT
Answers
The manager of a department store noticed that Paula was carrying a scarf with her as she
examined various items in the blouse department. The manager recognized the scarf as an
expensive one carried by the store. Paula was trying to find a blouse that matched a color in the
scarf, and, after a while, found one. The manager then saw Paula put the scarf into her purse, pay
for the blouse, and head for the door. The manager, who was eight inches taller than Paula,
blocked Paula's way to the door and asked to see the scarf in Paula's purse. Paula produced the
scarf, as well as a receipt for it, showing that it had been purchased from the store on the
previous day. The manager then told Paula there was no problem and stepped out of her way.
If Paula brings a claim against the store based on false imprisonment, the store's best defense
would be that: - CORRECT ANSWER the manager had a reasonable belief that Paula was
shoplifting and detained her only briefly for a reasonable investigation of the facts. (Based on
shopkeeper's privilege)
Defendant left her car parked on the side of a hill. Two minutes later, the car rolled down the hill
and struck and injured Plaintiff. In Plaintiff's negligence action against Defendant, Plaintiff
introduced into evidence the facts stated above, which are undisputed.
Defendant testified that, when she parked her car, she turned the front wheels into the curb and
put on her emergency brakes, which were in good working order. She also introduced evidence
that, in the weeks before this incident, juveniles had been seen tampering with cars in the
neighborhood. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant, and Plaintiff moved for a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Plaintiff's motion should be: - CORRECT ANSWER denied, because, given Defendant's
evidence, the jury was not required to draw an inference of negligence from the circumstances of
the accident. (This is a disputed set of facts in evidence and a reasonable jury could find for
Defendant. That means a JNOV is not appropriate)
Perry suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game at a public
park. The injury occurred when Perry and Dever, on opposing teams, each tried to obtain
possession of the ball when it rebounded from the backboard after a missed shot at the basket.
,During that encounter, Perry was struck and injured by Dever's elbow. Perry now seeks
compensation from Dever.
At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been rough from the
beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to discourage interference by
opposing players, and that Perry had been one of those making liberal use of such tactics.
In this action, will Perry prevail? - CORRECT ANSWER No, unless Dever intentionally used
force that exceeded the players' consent. (This is one where extra facts/assumptions are kind of
placed into the answer itself. You probably can't know the correct answer until you have those
facts, since consent is a defense to battery - but exceeding the scope of consent can be battery)
Company designed and built a processing plant for the manufacture of an explosive chemical.
Engineer was retained by Company to design a filter system for the processing plant. She
prepared an application for a permit to build the plant's filter system and submitted it to the
state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). As required by DEP regulations,
Engineer submitted a blueprint to the DEP with the application for permit. The blueprint showed
the entire facility and was signed and sealed by her as a licensed professional engineer.
After the project was completed, a portion of the processing plant exploded, injuring Plaintiff.
During discovery in an action by Plaintiff against Engineer, it was established that the explosion
was caused by a design defect in the processing plant that was unrelated to the filter system
designed by Engineer.
In that action, will Plaintiff prevail? - CORRECT ANSWER No, because Engineer owed no
duty to Plaintiff to prevent the particular risk of harm. (Duty only typically extends to
foreseeable plaintiffs for foreseeable harms, and there can be no liability if no duty)
Peter and Donald were in the habit of playing practical jokes on each other on their respective
birthdays. On Peter's birthday, Donald sent Peter a cake containing an ingredient that he knew
had, in the past, made Peter very ill. After Peter had eaten a piece of the cake, he suffered severe
stomach pains and had to be taken to the hospital by ambulance. On the way to the hospital, the
ambulance driver suffered a heart attack, which caused the ambulance to swerve from the road
and hit a tree. As a result of the collision, Peter suffered a broken leg.
In a suit by Peter against Donald to recover damages for Peter's broken leg, Peter will: -
CORRECT ANSWER prevail, because Donald knew that the cake would be harmful or
offensive to Peter. (Committing an intentional tort foreseeably means that medical care must be
, administered and within the range of administering care it's not per se unforeseeable that an
ambulance might crash (for a range of reasons))
While approaching an intersection with the red light against him, Motorist suffered a heart attack
that rendered him unconscious. Motorist's car struck Child, who was crossing the street with the
green light in her favor. Under the state motor vehicle code, it is an offense to drive through a red
traffic light.
Child sued Motorist to recover for her injuries. At trial it was stipulated that (1) immediately
prior to suffering the heart attack, Motorist had been driving within the speed limit, had seen the
red light, and had begun to slow his car; (2) Motorist had no history of heart disease and no
warning of this attack; (3) while Motorist was unconscious, his car ran the red light.
On cross motions for directed verdicts on the issue of liability at the conclusion of the proofs, the
court should: - CORRECT ANSWER grant Motorist's motion, because he had no history of
heart disease or warning of the heart attack. (there needs to be some "safe harbor" for a
defendant. The stipulations indicate no negligence of P for speeding, no negligence for failing to
monitor health condition, and that the only indicator of harm happened without a conscious act
by P because of a health condition)
Pocket, a bank vice president, took substantial kickbacks to approve certain loans that later
proved worthless. Upon learning of the kickbacks, Dodd, the bank's president, fired Pocket,
telling him, "If you are not out of this bank in ten minutes, I will have the guards throw you out
bodily." Pocket left at once.
If Pocket asserts a claim against Dodd based on assault, will Pocket prevail? - CORRECT
ANSWER No, because Dodd gave Pocket ten minutes to leave. (Having time to leave renders
the situation not sufficiently imminent for assault)
Traveler was a passenger on a commercial aircraft owned and operated by Airline. The aircraft
crashed into a mountain, killing everyone on board. The flying weather was good. Traveler's
legal representative brought a wrongful death action against Airline. At trial, the legal
representative offered no expert or other testimony as to the cause of the crash.
