TORTS FINAL FALL EXAM 2025
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Intentional torts - ANS Battery, Assault, trespass, conversion
Act (within intentional torts_ - ANS a voluntary physical movement
Assault prima facie - ANS Act, intent to cause apprehension of harmful or offensive contact,
causation
Battery prima facie - ANS Act, intent to touch, harmful/offensive touch, causation
is injury an element of battery? - ANS no injury is not required to establish battery
Assault and battery example - ANS A intentionally causes B reasonably to apprehend that he
is about to be shot, and A actually shoots B
single intent - ANS 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 - ANS Intend the touching + intend harm P is generally not required to show that
D's purpose/motive was to harm/offend.
unlawful intent - ANS The act was considered wrongful therefore the intention is wrongful
1 Copyright ©2025 SIRJOEL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
,eggshell plaintiff - ANS 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) - ANS -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) - ANS -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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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
2 Copyright ©2025 SIRJOEL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
, Keel v. Hainline - ANS 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 - ANS - 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 - ANS - Alternative liability (prob identifying D)
- Multiple sufficient causes
"But For" Causation Test - ANS - "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 - ANS - 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. - ANS - 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
3 Copyright ©2025 SIRJOEL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Intentional torts - ANS Battery, Assault, trespass, conversion
Act (within intentional torts_ - ANS a voluntary physical movement
Assault prima facie - ANS Act, intent to cause apprehension of harmful or offensive contact,
causation
Battery prima facie - ANS Act, intent to touch, harmful/offensive touch, causation
is injury an element of battery? - ANS no injury is not required to establish battery
Assault and battery example - ANS A intentionally causes B reasonably to apprehend that he
is about to be shot, and A actually shoots B
single intent - ANS 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 - ANS Intend the touching + intend harm P is generally not required to show that
D's purpose/motive was to harm/offend.
unlawful intent - ANS The act was considered wrongful therefore the intention is wrongful
1 Copyright ©2025 SIRJOEL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
,eggshell plaintiff - ANS 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) - ANS -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) - ANS -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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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
2 Copyright ©2025 SIRJOEL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
, Keel v. Hainline - ANS 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 - ANS - 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 - ANS - Alternative liability (prob identifying D)
- Multiple sufficient causes
"But For" Causation Test - ANS - "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 - ANS - 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. - ANS - 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
3 Copyright ©2025 SIRJOEL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
