Torts Practice UPDATED Exam Questions
and CORRECT Answers
In a crowded subway two people are standing next to each other because there are no available
seats. Person 1 looks down and notices that Person 2 has shiny, new shoes. Person 1 thinking that
it would be funny and a good natured prank, decides to step on person 2's shoes to scuff them a
little. As he does so the train slows suddenly and instead of just scuffing the shoes with light
contact Person 1 ends up stomping Person 2's shoe with a lot of force. Person 2 suffers injury to
his toes but there is no actual damage to the shoe. For what intentional tort, if any, may Person 1
be liable? - CORRECT ANSWER - Person 1 may be liable for battery.
- Even though there was no intent to commit a battery, there was the intent to commit a trespass
to chattel by scuffing the shoe. Even though the shoe ended up not being scuffed, because
harmful or offensive contact occurred (damage to toes), the intent to commit trespass to chattel
transfers via the doctrine of transferred intent to satisfy all the elements of the tort of battery.
Sleeping Beauty had been asleep for years. One day Prince Charming strolled into town. He saw
Sleeping Beauty and out of the goodness of his heart decided to kiss her. His only motivation in
kissing her was to help her because he knew the kiss would wake her up. Two weeks after the
kiss, sleeping beauty woke up. She was completely unaware at this point that she had been kissed
by the long gone prince. After she woke up she ran into her friend Rapunzel who said to her,
"You know Prince Charming came by 2 weeks ago and kissed you and that is the reason you are
now awake." Even though she was physically and emotionally unharmed, the unsolicited kiss
from Prince charming was something both she and a reasonable person would find offensive.
What cause(s) of action are at least actionable from these facts? - CORRECT ANSWER -
Battery
- Battery is defined as intentionally causing harmful or offensive contact to the person of another.
Unlike assault, which requires fear or apprehension, battery does not require an element of
sensory awareness of the contact. Prince Charming unquestionably had the intent to cause
contact to Sleeping Beauty so intent is satisfied. He did in fact cause contact and the contact was
the type of contact that would have been harmful or offensive to a reasonable person. The tort is
therefore satisfied. Additionally, battery is a dignitary tort so Sleeping Beauty may sue in Battery
even if there was no actual harm.
Randy was Angry at Big Brock so Randy hatched a plan. He would sneak up on Brock while
Brock was sleeping in his tent and point his rifle into the center of the tent where he knew Brock
,always slept and shoot, killing Brock. Randy waited until Brock was camping out in the
wilderness and he snuck up to the tent. He stuck the barrel of the rifle through the opening of the
tent and fired into the center of the tent without looking. It turns out that Brock was nowhere
near the tent and Randy ended up shooting only Brock's expensive sleeping bag, completely
destroying it. This was curious since Brock never slept with a sleeping bag before and Randy
knew this. Brock discovered all that had transpired after he returned to his tent and other campers
described what had happened. Brock seeks your advice to recover for the value of the sleeping
bag. Which of the following causes of action would be most likely to succeed? - CORRECT
ANSWER - Trespass to chattel
- The intent to batter will transfer to satisfy the intent element of trespass to chattel. Because the
resulting tort involved interference with Brock's chattel or personal property, then trespass to
chattel would be most likely to succeed.
Two students at the end of the semester got a D grade in torts. One student was incredibly irate
about the grade and the other was blissfully happy he did not get an F. The blissfully happy
student decided to celebrate. In order to celebrate she went to the store and bought a bow and
arrow. She waited until the classroom was full and began shooting suction cup tipped, wooden
arrows into the air in the classroom with a sign on them that said, "Joy, Joy I will work harder
because now I know that your grades in law school are proportional to the amount of work you
do." Her only goal in shooting the arrows was to share her profound discovery about the
correlation between grades and work in law school. However, the arrows bounced off the walls
and hit many, many people causing them to experience offensive contact. The irate student got
the same kind of bow and arrow that the other student got and began shooting the studen -
CORRECT ANSWER - The irate student acted with intent because he acted with the specific
purpose of causing harmful and offensive contact.
- Here the intent of the unhappy student may be classified as specific intent. The facts state the
student "methodically aimed at other students," and that he had 10 years of archery lessons. What
this shows is that the unhappy student is taking deliberate actions to bring about the tortious
result of harmful or offensive contact. This action with a deliberate purpose to achieve a tortious
result is called specific intent.
As Pedestrian was walking along the street on the edge of Homeowner's property, Homeowner
decided to play a prank on Pedestrian. Homeowner opened the door of his house facing the street
where Pedestrian was walking. He stood in the open doorway with his huge ferocious dog and
called to Pedestrian, "Hey." As Pedestrian looked across the 15 yards of lawn between the street
and the doorway he was petrified, and yelled to Homeowner, "make sure you hold on to that
,monster." At which point Homeowner yelled ATTACK!!!!!!!! and released the dog The dog
sprinted towards Pedestrian baring it's teeth and barking ferociously. Pedestrian froze with fear
but just before as the dog reached the edge of the property less than 2 feet from where Pedestrian
was in the street it suddenly stopped and moved back away from the property line and sat on the
lawn. Relieved Pedestrian walked away scared and almost in shock because the fear he ha -
CORRECT ANSWER - Lose because Homeowner did not cause any harmful or offensive
contact to Pedestrian
- there was no contact with the pedestrian
Pedestrian was walking along the street on the edge of Homeowner's property. Unknown to
Homeowner the door to his house was open and he was unaware that Pedestrian was on the
street. In an instant Homeowner's massive and ferocious dog sped through the door and charged
towards Pedestrian. As Pedestrian looked across the 15 yards of lawn between the street and the
doorway he was petrified, and screamed in horror as the dog bound towards him. The dog
sprinted towards Pedestrian baring it's teeth and barking ferociously. Pedestrian froze with fear
but just before as the dog reached the edge of the property less than 2 feet from where Pedestrian
was in the street it suddenly stopped and moved back away from the property line and sat on the
lawn. Relieved, Pedestrian walked away scared and almost in shock because the fear he had just
experienced. Homeowner knew the dog would not reach Pedestrian because of the buried elect -
CORRECT ANSWER - No, because Homeowner did not act with intent
- Homeowner was neither substantially certain his dog would cause harmful or offensive contact
to Pedestrian nor did he act with the deliberate purpose of bringing about that result he cannot be
said to have acted with intent. All the intentional torts require intent.
Tracie and Francis were soccer rivals. One day before a game between their respective teams
Tracie whispered to Francis, "I am going to beat you down immediately after this 90 minute
game is over if you score. Two minutes into the game Francis scored a goal. Immediately after
scoring he experienced nervousness and became fearful of what Tracie would do to him after the
game. Surprisingly, Francis fainted as a result of the fear, hit his head on the pitch, and had to be
carried off unconscious in a stretcher. Should Francis sue for assault and/or battery? -
CORRECT ANSWER - Francis should not sue for assault nor should he sue for battery.
- Assault is defined as intentionally causing fear or apprehension of imminent harmful or
offensive contact. Here, Tracie intentionally caused fear or apprehension of harmful or offensive
but the contact was not imminent. The threatened contact was at the beginning of a 90 minute
, game and therefore was not imminent. Good examples of imminence is swinging a bat at
someone's face but stopping an inch short of hitting them, making someone jump, etc. Battery is
also not actionable because even though Tracie threatened to cause harmful or offensive contact,
the contact that happened was not substantially certain to occur. The facts say it wasn't even
predictable because it was surprising that contact occurred.
As part of a game of truth or dare Melissa walked toward a perfect stranger, and when she was
about 10 feet from the stranger she asked the stranger the time. As the stranger looked up from
his watch, Melissa removed an unloaded gun from her pocket, pointed it at the stranger, and
pulled the trigger. As he saw this, the stranger yelled in terror, jumped back, and raised his
hands. Melissa laughed uncontrollably at the stranger's reaction and then told him it was a simple
prank and the gun was unloaded. Will Melissa be liable for assault and battery? - CORRECT
ANSWER - Melissa will be liable for assault even though she was not attempting to commit a
battery.
- In assault, it is the apparent ability to effectuate harmful or offensive contact rather than the
actual ability to cause contact that is legally sufficient. For example, here, even though the gun
was not loaded, and as a result there was no actual ability to effectuate the harmful or offensive
contact ,it reasonably appeared to the stranger (apparent ability) that harmful or offensive contact
was imminent. If the victim of the tort reasonably believed harmful or offensive contact was
imminent, then it is irrelevant to the tort whether there was actually the ability to bring about the
contact. The tricky part of this question is that many students erroneously assume that no assault
is possible unless there is a battery. That is incorrect. Assault is an independent tort which does
not depend on the existence of a battery and vice versa.
A martial arts expert with incredibly fast reflexes and catlike agility was walking along the street
when a stranger approached her. Stranger knew of Martial Arts Expert's reputation for speed and
wanted to see how fast Martial Arts Expert really was. Stranger was 3 feet in front of Martial arts
expert when he attempted to strike her shoulder with his hand. Even though it was moving
quickly, Martial Arts Expert saw the stranger's hand and arm moving as if it was in slow motion.
In her mind she was calm and experienced no fear whatsoever. Not only was the stranger
laughably slow but she would not have gotten hurt if the strike made contact with her. She
merely thought, "I'm just going to move out of the way of his hand because I don't want any
strangers touching me." She moved out of the way of the strike and stranger fell. Is stranger
liable for assault? - CORRECT ANSWER - Yes, because Martial Arts Expert was aware of an
imminent unconsented to contact which would be harmful or offensive to a reasonable person
and CORRECT Answers
In a crowded subway two people are standing next to each other because there are no available
seats. Person 1 looks down and notices that Person 2 has shiny, new shoes. Person 1 thinking that
it would be funny and a good natured prank, decides to step on person 2's shoes to scuff them a
little. As he does so the train slows suddenly and instead of just scuffing the shoes with light
contact Person 1 ends up stomping Person 2's shoe with a lot of force. Person 2 suffers injury to
his toes but there is no actual damage to the shoe. For what intentional tort, if any, may Person 1
be liable? - CORRECT ANSWER - Person 1 may be liable for battery.
- Even though there was no intent to commit a battery, there was the intent to commit a trespass
to chattel by scuffing the shoe. Even though the shoe ended up not being scuffed, because
harmful or offensive contact occurred (damage to toes), the intent to commit trespass to chattel
transfers via the doctrine of transferred intent to satisfy all the elements of the tort of battery.
Sleeping Beauty had been asleep for years. One day Prince Charming strolled into town. He saw
Sleeping Beauty and out of the goodness of his heart decided to kiss her. His only motivation in
kissing her was to help her because he knew the kiss would wake her up. Two weeks after the
kiss, sleeping beauty woke up. She was completely unaware at this point that she had been kissed
by the long gone prince. After she woke up she ran into her friend Rapunzel who said to her,
"You know Prince Charming came by 2 weeks ago and kissed you and that is the reason you are
now awake." Even though she was physically and emotionally unharmed, the unsolicited kiss
from Prince charming was something both she and a reasonable person would find offensive.
What cause(s) of action are at least actionable from these facts? - CORRECT ANSWER -
Battery
- Battery is defined as intentionally causing harmful or offensive contact to the person of another.
Unlike assault, which requires fear or apprehension, battery does not require an element of
sensory awareness of the contact. Prince Charming unquestionably had the intent to cause
contact to Sleeping Beauty so intent is satisfied. He did in fact cause contact and the contact was
the type of contact that would have been harmful or offensive to a reasonable person. The tort is
therefore satisfied. Additionally, battery is a dignitary tort so Sleeping Beauty may sue in Battery
even if there was no actual harm.
Randy was Angry at Big Brock so Randy hatched a plan. He would sneak up on Brock while
Brock was sleeping in his tent and point his rifle into the center of the tent where he knew Brock
,always slept and shoot, killing Brock. Randy waited until Brock was camping out in the
wilderness and he snuck up to the tent. He stuck the barrel of the rifle through the opening of the
tent and fired into the center of the tent without looking. It turns out that Brock was nowhere
near the tent and Randy ended up shooting only Brock's expensive sleeping bag, completely
destroying it. This was curious since Brock never slept with a sleeping bag before and Randy
knew this. Brock discovered all that had transpired after he returned to his tent and other campers
described what had happened. Brock seeks your advice to recover for the value of the sleeping
bag. Which of the following causes of action would be most likely to succeed? - CORRECT
ANSWER - Trespass to chattel
- The intent to batter will transfer to satisfy the intent element of trespass to chattel. Because the
resulting tort involved interference with Brock's chattel or personal property, then trespass to
chattel would be most likely to succeed.
Two students at the end of the semester got a D grade in torts. One student was incredibly irate
about the grade and the other was blissfully happy he did not get an F. The blissfully happy
student decided to celebrate. In order to celebrate she went to the store and bought a bow and
arrow. She waited until the classroom was full and began shooting suction cup tipped, wooden
arrows into the air in the classroom with a sign on them that said, "Joy, Joy I will work harder
because now I know that your grades in law school are proportional to the amount of work you
do." Her only goal in shooting the arrows was to share her profound discovery about the
correlation between grades and work in law school. However, the arrows bounced off the walls
and hit many, many people causing them to experience offensive contact. The irate student got
the same kind of bow and arrow that the other student got and began shooting the studen -
CORRECT ANSWER - The irate student acted with intent because he acted with the specific
purpose of causing harmful and offensive contact.
- Here the intent of the unhappy student may be classified as specific intent. The facts state the
student "methodically aimed at other students," and that he had 10 years of archery lessons. What
this shows is that the unhappy student is taking deliberate actions to bring about the tortious
result of harmful or offensive contact. This action with a deliberate purpose to achieve a tortious
result is called specific intent.
As Pedestrian was walking along the street on the edge of Homeowner's property, Homeowner
decided to play a prank on Pedestrian. Homeowner opened the door of his house facing the street
where Pedestrian was walking. He stood in the open doorway with his huge ferocious dog and
called to Pedestrian, "Hey." As Pedestrian looked across the 15 yards of lawn between the street
and the doorway he was petrified, and yelled to Homeowner, "make sure you hold on to that
,monster." At which point Homeowner yelled ATTACK!!!!!!!! and released the dog The dog
sprinted towards Pedestrian baring it's teeth and barking ferociously. Pedestrian froze with fear
but just before as the dog reached the edge of the property less than 2 feet from where Pedestrian
was in the street it suddenly stopped and moved back away from the property line and sat on the
lawn. Relieved Pedestrian walked away scared and almost in shock because the fear he ha -
CORRECT ANSWER - Lose because Homeowner did not cause any harmful or offensive
contact to Pedestrian
- there was no contact with the pedestrian
Pedestrian was walking along the street on the edge of Homeowner's property. Unknown to
Homeowner the door to his house was open and he was unaware that Pedestrian was on the
street. In an instant Homeowner's massive and ferocious dog sped through the door and charged
towards Pedestrian. As Pedestrian looked across the 15 yards of lawn between the street and the
doorway he was petrified, and screamed in horror as the dog bound towards him. The dog
sprinted towards Pedestrian baring it's teeth and barking ferociously. Pedestrian froze with fear
but just before as the dog reached the edge of the property less than 2 feet from where Pedestrian
was in the street it suddenly stopped and moved back away from the property line and sat on the
lawn. Relieved, Pedestrian walked away scared and almost in shock because the fear he had just
experienced. Homeowner knew the dog would not reach Pedestrian because of the buried elect -
CORRECT ANSWER - No, because Homeowner did not act with intent
- Homeowner was neither substantially certain his dog would cause harmful or offensive contact
to Pedestrian nor did he act with the deliberate purpose of bringing about that result he cannot be
said to have acted with intent. All the intentional torts require intent.
Tracie and Francis were soccer rivals. One day before a game between their respective teams
Tracie whispered to Francis, "I am going to beat you down immediately after this 90 minute
game is over if you score. Two minutes into the game Francis scored a goal. Immediately after
scoring he experienced nervousness and became fearful of what Tracie would do to him after the
game. Surprisingly, Francis fainted as a result of the fear, hit his head on the pitch, and had to be
carried off unconscious in a stretcher. Should Francis sue for assault and/or battery? -
CORRECT ANSWER - Francis should not sue for assault nor should he sue for battery.
- Assault is defined as intentionally causing fear or apprehension of imminent harmful or
offensive contact. Here, Tracie intentionally caused fear or apprehension of harmful or offensive
but the contact was not imminent. The threatened contact was at the beginning of a 90 minute
, game and therefore was not imminent. Good examples of imminence is swinging a bat at
someone's face but stopping an inch short of hitting them, making someone jump, etc. Battery is
also not actionable because even though Tracie threatened to cause harmful or offensive contact,
the contact that happened was not substantially certain to occur. The facts say it wasn't even
predictable because it was surprising that contact occurred.
As part of a game of truth or dare Melissa walked toward a perfect stranger, and when she was
about 10 feet from the stranger she asked the stranger the time. As the stranger looked up from
his watch, Melissa removed an unloaded gun from her pocket, pointed it at the stranger, and
pulled the trigger. As he saw this, the stranger yelled in terror, jumped back, and raised his
hands. Melissa laughed uncontrollably at the stranger's reaction and then told him it was a simple
prank and the gun was unloaded. Will Melissa be liable for assault and battery? - CORRECT
ANSWER - Melissa will be liable for assault even though she was not attempting to commit a
battery.
- In assault, it is the apparent ability to effectuate harmful or offensive contact rather than the
actual ability to cause contact that is legally sufficient. For example, here, even though the gun
was not loaded, and as a result there was no actual ability to effectuate the harmful or offensive
contact ,it reasonably appeared to the stranger (apparent ability) that harmful or offensive contact
was imminent. If the victim of the tort reasonably believed harmful or offensive contact was
imminent, then it is irrelevant to the tort whether there was actually the ability to bring about the
contact. The tricky part of this question is that many students erroneously assume that no assault
is possible unless there is a battery. That is incorrect. Assault is an independent tort which does
not depend on the existence of a battery and vice versa.
A martial arts expert with incredibly fast reflexes and catlike agility was walking along the street
when a stranger approached her. Stranger knew of Martial Arts Expert's reputation for speed and
wanted to see how fast Martial Arts Expert really was. Stranger was 3 feet in front of Martial arts
expert when he attempted to strike her shoulder with his hand. Even though it was moving
quickly, Martial Arts Expert saw the stranger's hand and arm moving as if it was in slow motion.
In her mind she was calm and experienced no fear whatsoever. Not only was the stranger
laughably slow but she would not have gotten hurt if the strike made contact with her. She
merely thought, "I'm just going to move out of the way of his hand because I don't want any
strangers touching me." She moved out of the way of the strike and stranger fell. Is stranger
liable for assault? - CORRECT ANSWER - Yes, because Martial Arts Expert was aware of an
imminent unconsented to contact which would be harmful or offensive to a reasonable person
