Torts Multiple Choice Exam 2025
Questions and Answers
The manager of a department store noticed that Paula was carrying a scarf with
her as she examined various items in the blouse department. The manager
recognized the scarf as an expensive one carried by the store. Paula was trying to
find a blouse that matched a color in the scarf, and, after a while, found one. The
manager then saw Paula put the scarf into her purse, pay for the blouse, and head
for the door. The manager, who was eight inches taller than Paula, blocked Paula's
way to the door and asked to see the scarf in Paula's purse. Paula produced the
scarf, as well as a receipt for it, showing that it had been purchased from the store
on the previous day. The manager then told Paula there was no problem and
stepped out of her way.
If Paula brings a claim against the store based on false imprisonment, the store's
best defense would be that: - --Answer --the manager had a reasonable belief
that Paula was shoplifting and detained her only briefly for a reasonable
investigation of the facts. (Based on shopkeeper's privilege)
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,Defendant left her car parked on the side of a hill. Two minutes later, the car rolled
down the hill and struck and injured Plaintiff. In Plaintiff's negligence action
against Defendant, Plaintiff introduced into evidence the facts stated above, which
are undisputed.
Defendant testified that, when she parked her car, she turned the front wheels into
the curb and put on her emergency brakes, which were in good working order. She
also introduced evidence that, in the weeks before this incident, juveniles had been
seen tampering with cars in the neighborhood. The jury returned a verdict in favor
of Defendant, and Plaintiff moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Plaintiff's motion should be: - --Answer --denied, because, given
Defendant's evidence, the jury was not required to draw an inference of negligence
from the circumstances of the accident. (This is a disputed set of facts in evidence
and a reasonable jury could find for Defendant. That means a JNOV is not
appropriate)
Perry suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game
at a public park. The injury occurred when Perry and Dever, on opposing teams,
each tried to obtain possession of the ball when it rebounded from the backboard
after a missed shot at the basket. During that encounter, Perry was struck and
injured by Dever's elbow. Perry now seeks compensation from Dever.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
,At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been
rough from the beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to
discourage interference by opposing players, and that Perry had been one of those
making liberal use of such tactics.
In this action, will Perry prevail? - --Answer --No, unless Dever intentionally
used force that exceeded the players' consent. (This is one where extra
facts/assumptions are kind of placed into the answer itself. You probably can't
know the correct answer until you have those facts, since consent is a defense to
battery - but exceeding the scope of consent can be battery)
Company designed and built a processing plant for the manufacture of an
explosive chemical. Engineer was retained by Company to design a filter system
for the processing plant. She prepared an application for a permit to build the
plant's filter system and submitted it to the state's Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP). As required by DEP regulations, Engineer submitted a
blueprint to the DEP with the application for permit. The blueprint showed the
entire facility and was signed and sealed by her as a licensed professional engineer.
After the project was completed, a portion of the processing plant exploded,
injuring Plaintiff. During discovery in an action by Plaintiff against Engineer, it was
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
, established that the explosion was caused by a design defect in the processing plant
that was unrelated to the filter system designed by Engineer.
In that action, will Plaintiff prevail? - --Answer --No, because Engineer
owed no duty to Plaintiff to prevent the particular risk of harm. (Duty only
typically extends to foreseeable plaintiffs for foreseeable harms, and there can be
no liability if no duty)
Peter and Donald were in the habit of playing practical jokes on each other on
their respective birthdays. On Peter's birthday, Donald sent Peter a cake containing
an ingredient that he knew had, in the past, made Peter very ill. After Peter had
eaten a piece of the cake, he suffered severe stomach pains and had to be taken to
the hospital by ambulance. On the way to the hospital, the ambulance driver
suffered a heart attack, which caused the ambulance to swerve from the road and
hit a tree. As a result of the collision, Peter suffered a broken leg.
In a suit by Peter against Donald to recover damages for Peter's broken leg, Peter
will: - --Answer --prevail, because Donald knew that the cake would be
harmful or offensive to Peter. (Committing an intentional tort foreseeably means
that medical care must be administered and within the range of administering care
it's not per se unforeseeable that an ambulance might crash (for a range of
reasons))
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 4
Questions and Answers
The manager of a department store noticed that Paula was carrying a scarf with
her as she examined various items in the blouse department. The manager
recognized the scarf as an expensive one carried by the store. Paula was trying to
find a blouse that matched a color in the scarf, and, after a while, found one. The
manager then saw Paula put the scarf into her purse, pay for the blouse, and head
for the door. The manager, who was eight inches taller than Paula, blocked Paula's
way to the door and asked to see the scarf in Paula's purse. Paula produced the
scarf, as well as a receipt for it, showing that it had been purchased from the store
on the previous day. The manager then told Paula there was no problem and
stepped out of her way.
If Paula brings a claim against the store based on false imprisonment, the store's
best defense would be that: - --Answer --the manager had a reasonable belief
that Paula was shoplifting and detained her only briefly for a reasonable
investigation of the facts. (Based on shopkeeper's privilege)
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,Defendant left her car parked on the side of a hill. Two minutes later, the car rolled
down the hill and struck and injured Plaintiff. In Plaintiff's negligence action
against Defendant, Plaintiff introduced into evidence the facts stated above, which
are undisputed.
Defendant testified that, when she parked her car, she turned the front wheels into
the curb and put on her emergency brakes, which were in good working order. She
also introduced evidence that, in the weeks before this incident, juveniles had been
seen tampering with cars in the neighborhood. The jury returned a verdict in favor
of Defendant, and Plaintiff moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Plaintiff's motion should be: - --Answer --denied, because, given
Defendant's evidence, the jury was not required to draw an inference of negligence
from the circumstances of the accident. (This is a disputed set of facts in evidence
and a reasonable jury could find for Defendant. That means a JNOV is not
appropriate)
Perry suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game
at a public park. The injury occurred when Perry and Dever, on opposing teams,
each tried to obtain possession of the ball when it rebounded from the backboard
after a missed shot at the basket. During that encounter, Perry was struck and
injured by Dever's elbow. Perry now seeks compensation from Dever.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
,At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been
rough from the beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to
discourage interference by opposing players, and that Perry had been one of those
making liberal use of such tactics.
In this action, will Perry prevail? - --Answer --No, unless Dever intentionally
used force that exceeded the players' consent. (This is one where extra
facts/assumptions are kind of placed into the answer itself. You probably can't
know the correct answer until you have those facts, since consent is a defense to
battery - but exceeding the scope of consent can be battery)
Company designed and built a processing plant for the manufacture of an
explosive chemical. Engineer was retained by Company to design a filter system
for the processing plant. She prepared an application for a permit to build the
plant's filter system and submitted it to the state's Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP). As required by DEP regulations, Engineer submitted a
blueprint to the DEP with the application for permit. The blueprint showed the
entire facility and was signed and sealed by her as a licensed professional engineer.
After the project was completed, a portion of the processing plant exploded,
injuring Plaintiff. During discovery in an action by Plaintiff against Engineer, it was
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
, established that the explosion was caused by a design defect in the processing plant
that was unrelated to the filter system designed by Engineer.
In that action, will Plaintiff prevail? - --Answer --No, because Engineer
owed no duty to Plaintiff to prevent the particular risk of harm. (Duty only
typically extends to foreseeable plaintiffs for foreseeable harms, and there can be
no liability if no duty)
Peter and Donald were in the habit of playing practical jokes on each other on
their respective birthdays. On Peter's birthday, Donald sent Peter a cake containing
an ingredient that he knew had, in the past, made Peter very ill. After Peter had
eaten a piece of the cake, he suffered severe stomach pains and had to be taken to
the hospital by ambulance. On the way to the hospital, the ambulance driver
suffered a heart attack, which caused the ambulance to swerve from the road and
hit a tree. As a result of the collision, Peter suffered a broken leg.
In a suit by Peter against Donald to recover damages for Peter's broken leg, Peter
will: - --Answer --prevail, because Donald knew that the cake would be
harmful or offensive to Peter. (Committing an intentional tort foreseeably means
that medical care must be administered and within the range of administering care
it's not per se unforeseeable that an ambulance might crash (for a range of
reasons))
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 4
