TORTS FINAL FALL 2025 Exam
Questions and Answers
intentional torts - --Answer --Battery, Assault, trespass, conversion
Act (within intentional torts_ - --Answer --a voluntary physical movement
Assault prima facie - --Answer --Act, intent to cause apprehension of
harmful or offensive contact, causation
Battery prima facie - --Answer --Act, intent to touch, harmful/offensive
touch, causation
is injury an element of battery? - --Answer --no injury is not required to
establish battery
Assault and battery example - --Answer --A intentionally causes B
reasonably to apprehend that he is about to be shot, and A actually shoots B
single intent - --Answer --Intend just the touching P must show that D
subjectively intended to cause contact [or acted with substantial certainty that
contact would occur]
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,dual intent - --Answer --Intend the touching + intend harm P is generally
not required to show that D's purpose/motive was to harm/offend.
unlawful intent - --Answer --The act was considered wrongful therefore the
intention is wrongful
eggshell plaintiff - --Answer --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) - --Answer ---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) - --Answer ---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 - --Answer --L FOR BATTERY, CANNOT USE
INSANITY AS DEFENSE. Russ was having a schizophrenic episode; thought his
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
,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 - --Answer --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
Keel v. Hainline - --Answer --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.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
, Causation in Fact - --Answer --- 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 - --Answer --- Alternative liability (prob
identifying D)
- Multiple sufficient causes
"But For" Causation Test - --Answer --- "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 - --Answer --- 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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 4
Questions and Answers
intentional torts - --Answer --Battery, Assault, trespass, conversion
Act (within intentional torts_ - --Answer --a voluntary physical movement
Assault prima facie - --Answer --Act, intent to cause apprehension of
harmful or offensive contact, causation
Battery prima facie - --Answer --Act, intent to touch, harmful/offensive
touch, causation
is injury an element of battery? - --Answer --no injury is not required to
establish battery
Assault and battery example - --Answer --A intentionally causes B
reasonably to apprehend that he is about to be shot, and A actually shoots B
single intent - --Answer --Intend just the touching P must show that D
subjectively intended to cause contact [or acted with substantial certainty that
contact would occur]
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,dual intent - --Answer --Intend the touching + intend harm P is generally
not required to show that D's purpose/motive was to harm/offend.
unlawful intent - --Answer --The act was considered wrongful therefore the
intention is wrongful
eggshell plaintiff - --Answer --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) - --Answer ---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) - --Answer ---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 - --Answer --L FOR BATTERY, CANNOT USE
INSANITY AS DEFENSE. Russ was having a schizophrenic episode; thought his
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
,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 - --Answer --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
Keel v. Hainline - --Answer --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.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
, Causation in Fact - --Answer --- 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 - --Answer --- Alternative liability (prob
identifying D)
- Multiple sufficient causes
"But For" Causation Test - --Answer --- "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 - --Answer --- 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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 4
