TORTS Multiple Choice UPDATED
ACTUAL Exam Questions and CORRECT
Answers
In the context of intentional torts, to which of the following situations does the doctrine of
transferred intent NOT apply?
A
Where the defendant intended a victim who was different from the actual victim.
B
Where the defendant intended a circumstance that was different from the circumstances required
to establish liability.
C
Where the defendant intended an injury that was different from the actual injury that the victim
sustained.
D
Where the defendant intended to commit a tort that was different from the tort that he actually
did commit. - CORRECT ANSWER B is correct because circumstances do not matter.
A is person to person
C and D are tort to tort
Transferred intent is when intent transfer from person to person or tort to tort. (Meant battery but
committed assault or meant for one person but it was two another)
As a part of a fraternity prank, a fraternity member grabbed a fraternity pledge, forced him into a
closet, and locked the closet door. The fraternity member only intended to hold the pledge
against his will for about an hour. He did not intend for the pledge to sustain any injuries,
although he recognized that the pledge might sustain a few bruises if he tried to force the door
open by banging on it or throwing his weight against it. The pledge did briefly bang on the door
and try to force the door open, and he pleaded to be released. Unbeknownst to the fraternity
member, the pledge suffered from claustrophobia. While in the closet, he had a panic attack,
passed out, and hit his head, sustaining a severe concussion. He also experienced post-traumatic
,stress following the incident. The pledge filed a lawsuit against the fraternity member based on
the intentional tort of false imprisonment.
Assuming the fraternity pl - CORRECT ANSWER B is correct: all the injuries
Knew he was imprisoned= all you have to have is presumed injury to recover but he can recover
for actual harm as well.
A woman suffered from delusions which rendered her insane. Despite suffering from a mental
illness, she was able to engage in some daily activities and enjoyed riding a bicycle around the
neighborhood. During one such ride, she experienced a delusion that distracted her and caused
her to slam into a pedestrian. The pedestrian suffered a broken arm, which also affected his
livelihood, and he sued the woman for the intentional tort of battery, defined as an intentional,
nonconsensual contact with the plaintiff or his effects, which contact caused harm to the plaintiff.
On the issue of the requisite state of mind to establish battery, which party will prevail?
A
The woman, because she is insane.
B
The pedestrian, because the woman intended to ride her bicycle.
C
The pedestrian, because insanity is not a defense to an intentional tort.
D
The woman, because she did not intend to hit the pedestrian. - CORRECT ANSWER D is
correct.
Even though was having this dilussion, she did not mean to hit this person/ did not intend to
make contact
Insanity doesn't negate intent but you do have to intend to make contact.
,Lens would accept C as well ^
What must a defendant have intended in order to be liable for an intentional tort?
A
The specific act that she committed.
B
The specific act, the specific injury, and the specific victim.
C
The specific act, or the specific injury, or the specific victim.
D
The specific injury that the plaintiff suffered.
E
The specific victim that was injured. - CORRECT ANSWER A is correct. Only need to intend
the act specified by the crime.
A hiker crossed paths with an acquaintance while hiking in the woods. The hiker strongly
believed in telekinesis, the ability to move objects with the power of the mind. The acquaintance
knew about the hiker's belief, and wishing to scare him, she told him that she could perform
telekinesis and was going to make a large tree branch fall on his head. The hiker became very
apprehensive that he would be hit. Though the hiker was not hit by a tree branch, he suffered
emotional distress.
If the hiker sues the acquaintance for assault, is he likely to prevail?
A
No, because a reasonable person would not have been apprehensive that the acquaintance could
make a tree branch fall with the power of her mind.
B
, No, because the acquaintance's mere words are not enough to create a reasonable apprehension
of harmful or offensive contact.
C
Yes, because the acquaintance intended to and did create in the hiker an apprehension of a -
CORRECT ANSWER A and B are both correct.
Lens says A because an objective reasonable person would not have apprehended a tree to hit
them-- wouldn't have believed in telekenesis.
B is quimbee answer bc mere words are not enough for emotional distress.
If actor knows of particular vulnerability of Plaintiff, that negates the objective test on IIED,
NOT on assault.
A patient was recovering from surgery in a hospital. His doctor recommended that he stay
another day, but the patient was anxious to leave and demanded that the hospital release him.
While the staff was preparing for his release, they discovered a mix-up among some of the
patient lockers, and they could not find this patient's personal belongings, which included his
wallet, car and house keys, and clothing. For the next 24 hours, the staff searched for the patient's
belongings. During this time, the hospital kept the patient on an intravenous drip (IV) of
antibiotics and hydration, which the doctor felt was still beneficial. The IV prevented the patient
from moving about freely, but he did not insist that the nurse remove it from his arm. Finally, the
staff located the patient's belongings, the nurse removed the IV, and the patient was released
from the hospital.
In a subsequent action by the patient claiming false - CORRECT ANSWER C because the
hospital did not have the purpose of confining the patient and or knowledge to a substantial
certainty intent.
B was Taylor's answer because an IV confines a person-- bounds don't need to be 4 walls.
A driver traveling cross-country to visit family grew tired late at night. Fearful of falling asleep
at the wheel, the driver pulled off the road onto a strip of land that he believed to be owned by
the state. The driver intended to sleep for a few hours, thinking that it was lawful to occupy state
ACTUAL Exam Questions and CORRECT
Answers
In the context of intentional torts, to which of the following situations does the doctrine of
transferred intent NOT apply?
A
Where the defendant intended a victim who was different from the actual victim.
B
Where the defendant intended a circumstance that was different from the circumstances required
to establish liability.
C
Where the defendant intended an injury that was different from the actual injury that the victim
sustained.
D
Where the defendant intended to commit a tort that was different from the tort that he actually
did commit. - CORRECT ANSWER B is correct because circumstances do not matter.
A is person to person
C and D are tort to tort
Transferred intent is when intent transfer from person to person or tort to tort. (Meant battery but
committed assault or meant for one person but it was two another)
As a part of a fraternity prank, a fraternity member grabbed a fraternity pledge, forced him into a
closet, and locked the closet door. The fraternity member only intended to hold the pledge
against his will for about an hour. He did not intend for the pledge to sustain any injuries,
although he recognized that the pledge might sustain a few bruises if he tried to force the door
open by banging on it or throwing his weight against it. The pledge did briefly bang on the door
and try to force the door open, and he pleaded to be released. Unbeknownst to the fraternity
member, the pledge suffered from claustrophobia. While in the closet, he had a panic attack,
passed out, and hit his head, sustaining a severe concussion. He also experienced post-traumatic
,stress following the incident. The pledge filed a lawsuit against the fraternity member based on
the intentional tort of false imprisonment.
Assuming the fraternity pl - CORRECT ANSWER B is correct: all the injuries
Knew he was imprisoned= all you have to have is presumed injury to recover but he can recover
for actual harm as well.
A woman suffered from delusions which rendered her insane. Despite suffering from a mental
illness, she was able to engage in some daily activities and enjoyed riding a bicycle around the
neighborhood. During one such ride, she experienced a delusion that distracted her and caused
her to slam into a pedestrian. The pedestrian suffered a broken arm, which also affected his
livelihood, and he sued the woman for the intentional tort of battery, defined as an intentional,
nonconsensual contact with the plaintiff or his effects, which contact caused harm to the plaintiff.
On the issue of the requisite state of mind to establish battery, which party will prevail?
A
The woman, because she is insane.
B
The pedestrian, because the woman intended to ride her bicycle.
C
The pedestrian, because insanity is not a defense to an intentional tort.
D
The woman, because she did not intend to hit the pedestrian. - CORRECT ANSWER D is
correct.
Even though was having this dilussion, she did not mean to hit this person/ did not intend to
make contact
Insanity doesn't negate intent but you do have to intend to make contact.
,Lens would accept C as well ^
What must a defendant have intended in order to be liable for an intentional tort?
A
The specific act that she committed.
B
The specific act, the specific injury, and the specific victim.
C
The specific act, or the specific injury, or the specific victim.
D
The specific injury that the plaintiff suffered.
E
The specific victim that was injured. - CORRECT ANSWER A is correct. Only need to intend
the act specified by the crime.
A hiker crossed paths with an acquaintance while hiking in the woods. The hiker strongly
believed in telekinesis, the ability to move objects with the power of the mind. The acquaintance
knew about the hiker's belief, and wishing to scare him, she told him that she could perform
telekinesis and was going to make a large tree branch fall on his head. The hiker became very
apprehensive that he would be hit. Though the hiker was not hit by a tree branch, he suffered
emotional distress.
If the hiker sues the acquaintance for assault, is he likely to prevail?
A
No, because a reasonable person would not have been apprehensive that the acquaintance could
make a tree branch fall with the power of her mind.
B
, No, because the acquaintance's mere words are not enough to create a reasonable apprehension
of harmful or offensive contact.
C
Yes, because the acquaintance intended to and did create in the hiker an apprehension of a -
CORRECT ANSWER A and B are both correct.
Lens says A because an objective reasonable person would not have apprehended a tree to hit
them-- wouldn't have believed in telekenesis.
B is quimbee answer bc mere words are not enough for emotional distress.
If actor knows of particular vulnerability of Plaintiff, that negates the objective test on IIED,
NOT on assault.
A patient was recovering from surgery in a hospital. His doctor recommended that he stay
another day, but the patient was anxious to leave and demanded that the hospital release him.
While the staff was preparing for his release, they discovered a mix-up among some of the
patient lockers, and they could not find this patient's personal belongings, which included his
wallet, car and house keys, and clothing. For the next 24 hours, the staff searched for the patient's
belongings. During this time, the hospital kept the patient on an intravenous drip (IV) of
antibiotics and hydration, which the doctor felt was still beneficial. The IV prevented the patient
from moving about freely, but he did not insist that the nurse remove it from his arm. Finally, the
staff located the patient's belongings, the nurse removed the IV, and the patient was released
from the hospital.
In a subsequent action by the patient claiming false - CORRECT ANSWER C because the
hospital did not have the purpose of confining the patient and or knowledge to a substantial
certainty intent.
B was Taylor's answer because an IV confines a person-- bounds don't need to be 4 walls.
A driver traveling cross-country to visit family grew tired late at night. Fearful of falling asleep
at the wheel, the driver pulled off the road onto a strip of land that he believed to be owned by
the state. The driver intended to sleep for a few hours, thinking that it was lawful to occupy state
