TORTS Multiple Choice ACTUAL Exam
Questions and CORRECT Answers
Randall is being sued for battery because he hit Tom on the head with a baseball bat, causing a
serious skull fracture. Randall claims that he did not have the intent to cause a harmful or
offensive touching on Tom, and so he says that Tom cannot meet his burden of proof for the
intent element of battery. Which of the following situations would allow Randall to prevail on
his lack-of-intent argument?
1. Randall meant to hit Tom hard enough to hurt him, but he never meant to crack his skull.
2. Randall was insane and thought that Tom was a ghost, and he thought that the bat would pass
through ghost-Tom in a way that would be amusing, not harmful or offensive.
3. From where Randall was standing, Tom really looked like Fred, which is who Randall really
wanted to hit. If Randall had known it was Tom, he never would have hit him.
4. Randall's purpose was to practice swinging his bat, not to hit Tom. He knew that Tom's -
CORRECT ANSWER 2 is CORRECT. This might be hard for Randall to prove, but if he can
prove it he should win. Insanity does not eliminate intent, but there is no intent here in the first
place. Randall did not act with the purpose of causing a harmful or offensive touching to Tom,
nor did he know to a substantial certainty that his action would cause such a touching. He
intended, and expected, that the result would be amusement, not pain. (If Randall had insanely
thought that Tom was a demon sent to steal his soul, and he was using the bat to defend himself
by hitting and hurting the demon, that would satisfy intent. In that case, Randall would have the
purpose of hurting demon-Tom with the bat, and the fact that his purpose was motivated by his
delusion would not change that either.)
I am walking out of the mall, where I just bought a new (real) fur coat. An anti-fur-coat activist
comes up to me with a can of paint, and tells me that if I don't turn around and return the coat, he
will throw the paint on my coat. In response, I call him a [string of swear words in my ancestral
language]. He makes a motion as if throwing the paint toward me. The lid is still on the can of
paint (though I could not see this before), and it is his intent to make me think I'm about to get
doused in paint, not actually get the paint on me. Unfortunately, the paint can is defective, and
the lid comes off. My coat gets covered with paint. Can I successfully sue this guy for battery?
1. Yes.
2. No, because the paint touched my coat, but not me, and battery requires contact with my
"person."
,3. No, because he did not actually intend to throw the paint.
4. No, because I provoked him. Fur is murder and swearing isn't nice e - CORRECT
ANSWER 1 is CORRECT. You can substitute the intent to commit one of the classic
intentional torts for the intent to commit any other one. Here, the intent to commit assault
satisfies the intent element of battery (which was the result of the act). He intended to cause an
assault (i.e., for me to reasonably apprehend an imminent battery). As for the result element,
there is no question that defendant's act caused an offensive touching.
Staszewski sues me for battery (among other things). In his complaint, he alleges that I broke
into his house in the middle of the night and tried to smother him with a pillow. I know that this
never happened and I am pretty sure that he dreamed the whole thing. Which of the following
statements about Staszewski's battery claim is true?
1. If I file a motion to dismiss, I will win. His case is too preposterous to proceed.
2. If I file a motion for summary judgment, I will win, assuming that he can't find enough
evidence through discovery to back up his allegations.
3. If I file a motion for summary judgment, I will win, as long as I can find enough evidence
through discovery to back up my side of the story.
4. None of the above statements is true. - CORRECT ANSWER 2 is CORRECT. In a motion
for summary judgment, we view the facts found in discovery in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. In the case of 2, however, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable
to Staszewski, he has no evidence to show that I committed a battery, so I should win summary
judgment.
Jane is walking down the street when a police officer stops her and tells her that she is under
arrest for murder. The officer handcuffs her and puts her in the police car. Jane has no idea why
she is being arrested, and she is deeply embarrassed, but she does not want to resist arrest. Partly,
this is because the officer says to her, very convincingly: "Don't even think about trying to
escape, because I would easily catch you and then beat you up." (He uses much saltier language
than that, but that is the gist of it.) At the police station, it becomes clear that there has been a
mistake. The officer mistook Jane for Jean, her very identical twin sister, for whom an arrest
warrant had been issued. Jane is released and, infuriated, she goes straight to her lawyer. Which
of the following is an accurate statement about Jane's legal options?
1. Jane can sue for false imprisonment, and if it was not reasonable for the of - CORRECT
ANSWER 1 is correct. Jane can prove all of the elements of false imprisonment (also known
as "false arrest" in cases like this) here. The officer intended to confine her in a bounded area
(i.e., the police car), did so by means of the handcuffs, the threat of force, and his apparent legal
authority, and he in fact had no legal authority. The officer can defend himself in this case by
, showing that he had legal authority, if he can establish that he had probable cause to arrest Jane.
Given that the suspect looks exactly like Jane, the officer might have a good argument here. On
the other hand, maybe he does not. The point is not whether the officer was reasonable here
(maybe he was), the point is that if he was not reasonable--which is what choice A offers as a
given--then Jane can recover for false arrest.
On Al's first day of law school, a mean professor calls on him. Al gives what he thinks is a pretty
good answer, but the professor says it is terrible. He then walks up to Al and places a cell phone
in front of him and says, "Take this phone and call your parents. Tell them that there is very little
chance that you will ever be a lawyer." Al's lifelong dream is to be a lawyer, and this incident
causes him to become deeply depressed and to drop out of school. A former classmate of Al's
tells him that he should sue the professor for intentional infliction of emotional distress. If Al
sues, will he win?
1. No, if there is no evidence that the professor intended for Al to actually drop out of school.
2. No, if a jury does not believe that the professor's conduct was outrageous or extreme.
3. Yes. As long as a jury concludes that the emotional damage Al suffered was severe enough,
Al cannot lose.
4. No, because Al has - CORRECT ANSWER 2 is the correct answer. Outrageous or extreme
conduct is an element of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, so without it Al
cannot recover. (Generally speaking, if the question is "Will X be liable for the tort?" and one of
the choices is "No, if X didn't commit all of the elements of that tort," that'll be the right answer.)
Dorchester is at a party at Pilkington's house. Dorchester is amusing some of the other guests by
throwing macadamia nuts high up in the air and catching them in his mouth. Which of the
following additional facts would be most likely to make Dorchester liable for trespass to
chattels?
1. Dorchester missed on one of his throws. The errant nut landed on a bronze sculpture of
Pilkington's and got some macadamia dust on it.
2. The macadamia nuts were not being served at the party. A few minutes earlier Dorchester had
located Pilkington's secret, hidden stash of macadamia nuts while nosing around, and he had
brought them out from there.
3. Dorchester missed on one of his throws. The errant nut landed on the floor. Later, Thibodeaux
was walking by, slipped on the nut, and landed hard on one of Pilkington's chairs, damaging it.
4. All of the above would result in Dorchester being liable for trespass to chattels. - CORRECT
ANSWER 2 is correct. Taking the elements of trespass to chattels one at a time, we first
consider the intent by defendant to use or intermeddle with a chattel. The nuts count as a chattel
Questions and CORRECT Answers
Randall is being sued for battery because he hit Tom on the head with a baseball bat, causing a
serious skull fracture. Randall claims that he did not have the intent to cause a harmful or
offensive touching on Tom, and so he says that Tom cannot meet his burden of proof for the
intent element of battery. Which of the following situations would allow Randall to prevail on
his lack-of-intent argument?
1. Randall meant to hit Tom hard enough to hurt him, but he never meant to crack his skull.
2. Randall was insane and thought that Tom was a ghost, and he thought that the bat would pass
through ghost-Tom in a way that would be amusing, not harmful or offensive.
3. From where Randall was standing, Tom really looked like Fred, which is who Randall really
wanted to hit. If Randall had known it was Tom, he never would have hit him.
4. Randall's purpose was to practice swinging his bat, not to hit Tom. He knew that Tom's -
CORRECT ANSWER 2 is CORRECT. This might be hard for Randall to prove, but if he can
prove it he should win. Insanity does not eliminate intent, but there is no intent here in the first
place. Randall did not act with the purpose of causing a harmful or offensive touching to Tom,
nor did he know to a substantial certainty that his action would cause such a touching. He
intended, and expected, that the result would be amusement, not pain. (If Randall had insanely
thought that Tom was a demon sent to steal his soul, and he was using the bat to defend himself
by hitting and hurting the demon, that would satisfy intent. In that case, Randall would have the
purpose of hurting demon-Tom with the bat, and the fact that his purpose was motivated by his
delusion would not change that either.)
I am walking out of the mall, where I just bought a new (real) fur coat. An anti-fur-coat activist
comes up to me with a can of paint, and tells me that if I don't turn around and return the coat, he
will throw the paint on my coat. In response, I call him a [string of swear words in my ancestral
language]. He makes a motion as if throwing the paint toward me. The lid is still on the can of
paint (though I could not see this before), and it is his intent to make me think I'm about to get
doused in paint, not actually get the paint on me. Unfortunately, the paint can is defective, and
the lid comes off. My coat gets covered with paint. Can I successfully sue this guy for battery?
1. Yes.
2. No, because the paint touched my coat, but not me, and battery requires contact with my
"person."
,3. No, because he did not actually intend to throw the paint.
4. No, because I provoked him. Fur is murder and swearing isn't nice e - CORRECT
ANSWER 1 is CORRECT. You can substitute the intent to commit one of the classic
intentional torts for the intent to commit any other one. Here, the intent to commit assault
satisfies the intent element of battery (which was the result of the act). He intended to cause an
assault (i.e., for me to reasonably apprehend an imminent battery). As for the result element,
there is no question that defendant's act caused an offensive touching.
Staszewski sues me for battery (among other things). In his complaint, he alleges that I broke
into his house in the middle of the night and tried to smother him with a pillow. I know that this
never happened and I am pretty sure that he dreamed the whole thing. Which of the following
statements about Staszewski's battery claim is true?
1. If I file a motion to dismiss, I will win. His case is too preposterous to proceed.
2. If I file a motion for summary judgment, I will win, assuming that he can't find enough
evidence through discovery to back up his allegations.
3. If I file a motion for summary judgment, I will win, as long as I can find enough evidence
through discovery to back up my side of the story.
4. None of the above statements is true. - CORRECT ANSWER 2 is CORRECT. In a motion
for summary judgment, we view the facts found in discovery in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. In the case of 2, however, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable
to Staszewski, he has no evidence to show that I committed a battery, so I should win summary
judgment.
Jane is walking down the street when a police officer stops her and tells her that she is under
arrest for murder. The officer handcuffs her and puts her in the police car. Jane has no idea why
she is being arrested, and she is deeply embarrassed, but she does not want to resist arrest. Partly,
this is because the officer says to her, very convincingly: "Don't even think about trying to
escape, because I would easily catch you and then beat you up." (He uses much saltier language
than that, but that is the gist of it.) At the police station, it becomes clear that there has been a
mistake. The officer mistook Jane for Jean, her very identical twin sister, for whom an arrest
warrant had been issued. Jane is released and, infuriated, she goes straight to her lawyer. Which
of the following is an accurate statement about Jane's legal options?
1. Jane can sue for false imprisonment, and if it was not reasonable for the of - CORRECT
ANSWER 1 is correct. Jane can prove all of the elements of false imprisonment (also known
as "false arrest" in cases like this) here. The officer intended to confine her in a bounded area
(i.e., the police car), did so by means of the handcuffs, the threat of force, and his apparent legal
authority, and he in fact had no legal authority. The officer can defend himself in this case by
, showing that he had legal authority, if he can establish that he had probable cause to arrest Jane.
Given that the suspect looks exactly like Jane, the officer might have a good argument here. On
the other hand, maybe he does not. The point is not whether the officer was reasonable here
(maybe he was), the point is that if he was not reasonable--which is what choice A offers as a
given--then Jane can recover for false arrest.
On Al's first day of law school, a mean professor calls on him. Al gives what he thinks is a pretty
good answer, but the professor says it is terrible. He then walks up to Al and places a cell phone
in front of him and says, "Take this phone and call your parents. Tell them that there is very little
chance that you will ever be a lawyer." Al's lifelong dream is to be a lawyer, and this incident
causes him to become deeply depressed and to drop out of school. A former classmate of Al's
tells him that he should sue the professor for intentional infliction of emotional distress. If Al
sues, will he win?
1. No, if there is no evidence that the professor intended for Al to actually drop out of school.
2. No, if a jury does not believe that the professor's conduct was outrageous or extreme.
3. Yes. As long as a jury concludes that the emotional damage Al suffered was severe enough,
Al cannot lose.
4. No, because Al has - CORRECT ANSWER 2 is the correct answer. Outrageous or extreme
conduct is an element of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, so without it Al
cannot recover. (Generally speaking, if the question is "Will X be liable for the tort?" and one of
the choices is "No, if X didn't commit all of the elements of that tort," that'll be the right answer.)
Dorchester is at a party at Pilkington's house. Dorchester is amusing some of the other guests by
throwing macadamia nuts high up in the air and catching them in his mouth. Which of the
following additional facts would be most likely to make Dorchester liable for trespass to
chattels?
1. Dorchester missed on one of his throws. The errant nut landed on a bronze sculpture of
Pilkington's and got some macadamia dust on it.
2. The macadamia nuts were not being served at the party. A few minutes earlier Dorchester had
located Pilkington's secret, hidden stash of macadamia nuts while nosing around, and he had
brought them out from there.
3. Dorchester missed on one of his throws. The errant nut landed on the floor. Later, Thibodeaux
was walking by, slipped on the nut, and landed hard on one of Pilkington's chairs, damaging it.
4. All of the above would result in Dorchester being liable for trespass to chattels. - CORRECT
ANSWER 2 is correct. Taking the elements of trespass to chattels one at a time, we first
consider the intent by defendant to use or intermeddle with a chattel. The nuts count as a chattel
