Torts Multiple Choice Exam 2025
Questions and 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.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,4. Randall's purpose was to practice swinging his bat, not to hit Tom. He knew that
Tom's - --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?
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
,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 - --
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.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
, 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. - --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 - --
Answer --1 is correct. Jane can prove all of the elements of false
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 4
Questions and 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.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,4. Randall's purpose was to practice swinging his bat, not to hit Tom. He knew that
Tom's - --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?
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
,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 - --
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.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
, 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. - --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 - --
Answer --1 is correct. Jane can prove all of the elements of false
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 4
