Torts Practice Questions with 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.
- --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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,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 - --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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
, 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 - --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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
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.
- --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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,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 - --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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
, 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 - --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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
