Torts Practice UPDATED ACTUAL Exam
Questions and CORRECT Answers
When a homeowner heard that his neighbor intended to sell his home to a minority purchaser,
the homeowner told the neighbor that the neighbor and his family would meet with "accidents" if
he did so. The neighbor then called the prospective purchaser and told him that he was taking the
house off the market. If the neighbor asserts a claim against the homeowner for assault, the
neighbor will:
a) Recover if the homeowner intended to place the neighbor in fear of physical harm.
b) Recover, because the homeowner's conduct was extreme and outrageous.
c) Not recover if the homeowner took no action that threatened immediate physical harm to the
neighbor.
d) Not recover because the neighbor's action removed any threat of harmful force. - CORRECT
ANSWER C is the best answer.
The neighbor won't recover if the homeowner's conduct doesn't threaten immediate physical
harm. A prima facie case for assault requires the defendant create a reasonable apprehension in
the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person. Threats of future
harm don't give rise to an action for assault.
Mere intent to place P in fear of physical harm isn't enough for assault. Extreme and outrageous
conduct is IIED, not assault. The fact that the neighbor took action to remove the threat is
irrelevant; had the homeowner's conduct threatened immediate harm, the fact that it was a
conditional threat that the neighbor could avoid by complying with the condition wouldn't negate
the assault.
A six-year-old boy has a well-deserved reputation for bullying younger/smaller children. His
parents have encouraged him to be aggressive and tough. The boy, for no reason, knocked down,
kicked, and severely injured a four-year-old child. A claim's been asserted by the child's parents
for their medical and hospital costs and for the child's injuries. If the claim is asserted against the
boy, the most likely result is the boy will be:
a) Liable, because he intentionally harmed the child
b) Liable, because as a six year old, he should've known his conduct was wrongful
c) Not liable, because a child under 7 isn't liable in tort
d) Not liable, because he's presumed to be under his parents' control and they have the sole
responsibility - CORRECT ANSWER A is the best answer. Most courts hold that children are
deemed capable of forming the requisite intent. There's no minimum age for capacity to commit
, intentional torts and children generally are deemed to have the capacity to form the intent to
commit intentional torts. Parents aren't vicariously liable for their children's torts (could be liable
for negligent supervision).
A nervous man was persuaded by his girlfriend to go with her to a haunted house; saw the signs
out front warning that the house has live "monsters" who'll be trying to scare people, not for the
faint of heart (same warning printed on tickets). He paid for tickets and reluctantly went inside
with his girlfriend. In the first room, an actor dressed as a large monster came at them shrieking,
and the man dove through one of the plate glass windows to the outside, severely lacerating his
arms and face in the process. If the man brings an action against the actor, will he recover?
a) No, because the man expressly assumed the risk of injury.
b) No, unless the jury determines that the actor was negligent in trying to scare the man
c) Yes because the actor intended to cause apprehension of harm on the part of the man -
CORRECT ANSWER A is the best answer. A plaintiff in a negligence action may be denied
recovery if he assumed the risk of any damage caused by defendant's acts. Exculpatory language
is a consensual agreement between the parties intended to insulate one of the parties from
liability resulting from his own negligence; closely scrutinized but generally enforceable if it's
not an adhesion contract (a situation where one party essentially had no choice but to accept the
terms set by the other party). Risks were clearly stated on the signs and tickets and man was
aware when he purchased the tickets. Even in comparative negligence, express assumption of the
risk is a complete defense, so the man won't recover.
A man suffering arthritis developed a joint infection following knee surgery; his orthopedist
recommended a lengthy procedure accompanied by IV antibiotics, to which the man consented.
During the placement of the IV catheter in the man's arm, the line was improperly placed into an
artery and the man suffered a blood clot, then a seizure, then died within two hours. Hospital
didn't disclose person who inserted the catheter, doctor's are independent contractors. The man's
wife brought a wrongful death suit against the medical team/hospital. Which is LEAST relevant
to determining viability of plaintiff's COA?
a) Whether the jurisdiction applies res ipsa in this type of situation where the circumstances are
w/in the control of multiple defendants
b) whether the hospital hires its teams of doctors as independent contractors
c) whether death is an unlikely occurrence from the misplacement of the catheter - CORRECT
ANSWER C is the best. The fact that the extent or severity of the harm wasn't foreseeable
doesn't relieve the defendant of liability. The tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him (Eggshell
Skull Rule). The fact that it may have been unforeseeable that the catheterization error would've
resulted in death isn't a relevant consideration. A is relevant bc res ipsa is used in many
Questions and CORRECT Answers
When a homeowner heard that his neighbor intended to sell his home to a minority purchaser,
the homeowner told the neighbor that the neighbor and his family would meet with "accidents" if
he did so. The neighbor then called the prospective purchaser and told him that he was taking the
house off the market. If the neighbor asserts a claim against the homeowner for assault, the
neighbor will:
a) Recover if the homeowner intended to place the neighbor in fear of physical harm.
b) Recover, because the homeowner's conduct was extreme and outrageous.
c) Not recover if the homeowner took no action that threatened immediate physical harm to the
neighbor.
d) Not recover because the neighbor's action removed any threat of harmful force. - CORRECT
ANSWER C is the best answer.
The neighbor won't recover if the homeowner's conduct doesn't threaten immediate physical
harm. A prima facie case for assault requires the defendant create a reasonable apprehension in
the plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person. Threats of future
harm don't give rise to an action for assault.
Mere intent to place P in fear of physical harm isn't enough for assault. Extreme and outrageous
conduct is IIED, not assault. The fact that the neighbor took action to remove the threat is
irrelevant; had the homeowner's conduct threatened immediate harm, the fact that it was a
conditional threat that the neighbor could avoid by complying with the condition wouldn't negate
the assault.
A six-year-old boy has a well-deserved reputation for bullying younger/smaller children. His
parents have encouraged him to be aggressive and tough. The boy, for no reason, knocked down,
kicked, and severely injured a four-year-old child. A claim's been asserted by the child's parents
for their medical and hospital costs and for the child's injuries. If the claim is asserted against the
boy, the most likely result is the boy will be:
a) Liable, because he intentionally harmed the child
b) Liable, because as a six year old, he should've known his conduct was wrongful
c) Not liable, because a child under 7 isn't liable in tort
d) Not liable, because he's presumed to be under his parents' control and they have the sole
responsibility - CORRECT ANSWER A is the best answer. Most courts hold that children are
deemed capable of forming the requisite intent. There's no minimum age for capacity to commit
, intentional torts and children generally are deemed to have the capacity to form the intent to
commit intentional torts. Parents aren't vicariously liable for their children's torts (could be liable
for negligent supervision).
A nervous man was persuaded by his girlfriend to go with her to a haunted house; saw the signs
out front warning that the house has live "monsters" who'll be trying to scare people, not for the
faint of heart (same warning printed on tickets). He paid for tickets and reluctantly went inside
with his girlfriend. In the first room, an actor dressed as a large monster came at them shrieking,
and the man dove through one of the plate glass windows to the outside, severely lacerating his
arms and face in the process. If the man brings an action against the actor, will he recover?
a) No, because the man expressly assumed the risk of injury.
b) No, unless the jury determines that the actor was negligent in trying to scare the man
c) Yes because the actor intended to cause apprehension of harm on the part of the man -
CORRECT ANSWER A is the best answer. A plaintiff in a negligence action may be denied
recovery if he assumed the risk of any damage caused by defendant's acts. Exculpatory language
is a consensual agreement between the parties intended to insulate one of the parties from
liability resulting from his own negligence; closely scrutinized but generally enforceable if it's
not an adhesion contract (a situation where one party essentially had no choice but to accept the
terms set by the other party). Risks were clearly stated on the signs and tickets and man was
aware when he purchased the tickets. Even in comparative negligence, express assumption of the
risk is a complete defense, so the man won't recover.
A man suffering arthritis developed a joint infection following knee surgery; his orthopedist
recommended a lengthy procedure accompanied by IV antibiotics, to which the man consented.
During the placement of the IV catheter in the man's arm, the line was improperly placed into an
artery and the man suffered a blood clot, then a seizure, then died within two hours. Hospital
didn't disclose person who inserted the catheter, doctor's are independent contractors. The man's
wife brought a wrongful death suit against the medical team/hospital. Which is LEAST relevant
to determining viability of plaintiff's COA?
a) Whether the jurisdiction applies res ipsa in this type of situation where the circumstances are
w/in the control of multiple defendants
b) whether the hospital hires its teams of doctors as independent contractors
c) whether death is an unlikely occurrence from the misplacement of the catheter - CORRECT
ANSWER C is the best. The fact that the extent or severity of the harm wasn't foreseeable
doesn't relieve the defendant of liability. The tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him (Eggshell
Skull Rule). The fact that it may have been unforeseeable that the catheterization error would've
resulted in death isn't a relevant consideration. A is relevant bc res ipsa is used in many
