Quiz on Torts

1. Andrea was an employee of AMDA Inc. Josie, the president of ABC, had reasonable grounds to believe that Andrea had stolen money from the company, and fired her. One month later, Andrea applied for employment at BEST Inc. The vice president for Human Relations at BEST contacted Josie and asked about Andrea’s performance at AMDA. Josie responded, “I believe that Andrea stole money while working here.” BEST declined to hire Andrea, who later discovered what Josie had said, and is now suing Josie for defamation. What is the likely outcome of this case? 

  Josie will win because she had a conditional privilege to make that statement. 

  Josie will win because she had an absolute privilege to comment on a former employee’s performance.

  Andrea will win because Josie did not have absolute proof that Andrea had stolen money. 

  Andrea will win because Josie’s statement injured Andrea’s reputation.
 

2. “Books are Us” (BU) is a bookstore. BU is being sued for defamation after it sold a book containing false, defamatory statements about the plaintiff. BU’s best defense to this lawsuit is that: 

  BU did not violate any criminal law or regulation in selling the book.

  BU is not the publisher of the book.

BU is not the distributor of the book.

BU did not want to harm the plaintiff. 
 

3. Which of the following is least likely to involve liability for violating the so-called “right of publicity”? In each case, assume that the plaintiff’s name and likeness were appropriated without the plaintiff’s permission. 

  Using the work of an unknown artist to illustrate the T-shirts one makes and sells. 

Using Madonna’s name to sell women’s apparel.

Using a picture of a famous and recognizable race car driven by a famous race car driver to sell chewing tobacco. 

Using basketball star Charles Barkley’s picture to sell beer.
 

4. Assault and battery are two different torts.  Which of the following is/are true?

  Assault requires apprehension of an imminent battery. 

Battery requires a harmful or offensive touching.

Intent is an element of both torts.

  All of the above. 
 

5. Ann is troubled with the noise of the old generator set up by her neighbor Jose at his residence.  He uses it every day to work in his garage between the hours of 6pm and midnight. The noise the generator makes is unbearable.  Even with her doors and windows closed, Ann cannot hear her television or carry on a conversation when the generator is running. Ann sues Jose for nuisance. Will she succeed? 

  Yes, if the noise is a substantial and unreasonable interference with plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of land.

No, because Jose has not trespassed on Ann’s property.

No, because the generator is not on her property.

No, because she cannot interfere with Jose’s activities on his property.
 

6. Jack had taken his girlfriend Jenny on a long drive. While driving on the highway, he suddenly had a severe headache and lost control of the car. They got hit by a passing car. The doctor had earlier warned Jack that he has a brain tumor, due to which he will suffer occasional pains. Jenny sued Jack for negligence. Will she succeed? 

  Yes, because Jack caused the accident.

No, because she should have sued the driver of the passing car which hit them.

No, because Jack didn’t foresee that he would have that pain while driving and cause an accident.

Yes, because Jack could reasonably foresee that he could have severe pain any time and may cause an accident. 
 

7. Doris locks Phil in a first floor room. Phil sues Doris for false imprisonment. Which of the following is true? 

  Doris would escape liability if she let Phil out of the room after one hour.

 According to some courts, Doris would escape liability if Phil slept through the entire period that the door was locked and thus was unaware that he was being detained.

  Doris would not be liable if Phil could have escaped by traveling two miles through a narrow, filthy, rat-infested sewer line that periodically floods with water. 

Even if Phil could easily have escaped through an open window, Doris still is liable. 
 

8. Annalisa and Jess were each driving their own cars and were involved in an automobile crash. Annalisa’s car, worth $10,000 was destroyed. Jess suffered no personal injuries or property damage. The case went to the court and a jury determined that Annalisa was 30% at fault and Jess was 70% at fault. Under what legal theory would Annalisa be able to recover $7,000 from Jess? 

  Res ipsa loquitur

Negligence per se

Contributory negligence

  Comparative negligence 
 

9 Phil decided to rescue Bobo the Dancing Bear from a traveling circus that was closing its business. Although Bobo was a well-behaved grizzly bear, Phil took great caution to make sure that Bobo would not escape from his yard by reinforcing the yard’s fence with steel and padlocking the gate. One day, without notice, Bobo rushed the fence, knocked the padlock off the gate, and escaped from Phil’s yard. Bobo lunged at a young child in the neighborhood, injuring him. Based on these facts: 

  Phil will be liable if the harm that resulted to the child was foreseeable to Phil. 

Phil will most likely not be liable.

  Phil will be liable, regardless of the steps that he took to secure the yard.

Phil will be liable, only if he breached a duty of due care owed to the child.