Tort Multiple Choice Questions

TORT MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS Assume Puckaluck can establish the act, contact, causation, and injury elements of battery. Can Siobhan be liable to Puckaluck's estate for battery? Siobhan, hating Puckaluck and wishing to injure him, had no reason to have confidence in her bomb-building skills. She had flunked high school chemistry. Nevertheless, she found on the Internet a set of directions for making a crude explosive device, and followed them as best as she could to create a letter bomb. She mailed Puckaluck this letter bomb, laughing at herself for attempting such a futile experiment. Against all odds, the letter bomb exploded in Puckaluck's hands, killing him. A) Yes, because Siobhan's purpose is sufficient to establish intent B) No, because Siobhan only wanted to injure, not kill Puckaluck. C) No, because Siobhan lacked substantial certainty that harmful contact would result. D) Yes, because even though Siobhan doubted that the letter bomb would work, she still acted with knowledge to substantial certainty. - a Which of the following statements concerning Bob's battery claim against Scott is accurate: Scott is at the club and sees Bob, who owes Scott money. Scott demands payment, but Bob doesn't have all the money he owes Scott. Scott takes his gun out of his pocket. While holding the gun in his hand, Scott hits Bob on the side of the head. Scott pulls his hand back to again hit Bob, but the gun goes off, shooting Bob in the stomach and injuring him. A) If the jurisdiction follows dual intent, Bob would be unable to establish intent because Scott did not intend to shoot Bob. B) It would likely be easier for Bob to establish intent if the jurisdiction follows dual intent (the minority rule) than if it follows the single intent rule (the majority rule). C) If Scott did not actually want to hit (or shoot) Bob the second time, Bob will likely be unable to establish intent regardless of the rule the jurisdiction follows. D) Bob will likely be able to establish intent regardless of whether the jurisdiction follows single intent (the majority rule) or dual intent (the minority rule). - d Of the following, which constitutes the airline's strongest argument against liability? On board the commercial airline flight, things were going fine until the captain accidentally played for the passengers a pre-recorded announcement stating that the plane was about to crash into the sea. There was no actual emergency, and after a short time, the captain realized the error and announced that all was well and that the first announcement had been a mistake. Daphne, an elderly passenger, suffered a serious anxiety attack as a result of the erroneous announcement. Daphne brings an action against the airline for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A) Daphne was extra sensitive. B) There was no intent. C) The conduct was not extreme and outrageous. D) Daphne did not suffer physical injury. - b Which of the following statements best predicts the outcome of Crane's action and the primary reason for that outcome? District Attorney Doyle was sick and tired of divorced persons who failed to make court-ordered child support payments. To crack down on these "deadbeat parents," Doyle constructed a large billboard in a prominent location. Each month, the billboard featured a photo of the "Deadbeat Parent of the Month," and a statement of how much the person owed for child support. For April, and as an April Fool's joke on her old friend Giles Crane, Doyle posted Crane's photo and a statement that Crane owed more than $20,000 in child support. When Crane learned of the poster, he suffered serious emotional distress, eventually leading to the breakup of his marriage. He became a shut-in, refusing to leave his luxury condo. He brings an action against Doyle for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Assume Doyle is not immune from suit. A) Crane will not prevail because Doyle did not want to cause Crane serious emotional distress. B) Crane will not prevail because Doyle did not act maliciously. C) Crane will not prevail because he did not suffer bodily harm. D) Crane will likely prevail because he can satisfy all elements of the prima facie case and Doyle does not appear to have a valid defense. - d Of the following arguments, which gives Dan the greatest chance of avoiding liability? Laureen agreed to undergo surgery performed by Dan. Dan was HIV-positive, but did not inform Laureen of this fact because he genuinely believed it to be a private matter that posed no risk to her. Dan carefully avoided cutting himself during surgery, and the surgery was successful. Six months after the surgery, however, Laureen learned of Dan's HIV status. She became extremely apprehensive, and took an HIV test which, fortunately, proved to be negative. Nevertheless, the anxiety she suffered was extremely severe, and led to significant weight loss and other physical illness. Laureen has consulted an attorney, who is considering filing a claim for intentional infliction of em