Intentional Torts & Negligence - Elements - Quiz, Flashcards & Trivia

1. What are the elements of battery claim?

1. Voluntary act2. Intent to touch3. Touch results4. No intent to cause harm or offense5. No harm or offense occurs.

1. Intentional act2. No intent to touch3. No touch results4. No intent to cause harm or offense

1. Involuntary act2. Intent to speak3. No touch results

1. Voluntary act2. Intent to touch3. Touch results4. Intent to cause harm or offense5. Harm or offense occurs

In a battery claim, all the elements must be present for the claim to be successful. A voluntary act, intent to touch, touch results, intent to cause harm or offense, and harm or offense occurring are all essential components of proving battery.

Explanation

In a battery claim, all the elements must be present for the claim to be successful. A voluntary act, intent to touch, touch results, intent to cause harm or offense, and harm or offense occurring are all essential components of proving battery.

2. What are the five types of intent in a battery claim?

1. Negligence - Adams v. Lindsell2. Recklessness - Daniels v. Jones3. Strict liability - Smith v. Brown

1. Inferrence based upon actions - Snyder v. Turk2. Knowlege with substantial certainty - Garratt v. Dailey3. Lack of consent - Mullins v. Parkview Hospital4. Purpose to harm or offend - Restatement (throwing stone into a crowd)5. Transferred intent - Stoshak v. East Baton Rouge Parish School

In a battery claim, the intent required is not based on negligence, recklessness, or strict liability as in the incorrect answers. The correct types of intent involve specific scenarios where the individual demonstrates their intent through their actions, knowledge, lack of consent, purpose to harm or offend, or transferred intent.

Explanation

In a battery claim, the intent required is not based on negligence, recklessness, or strict liability as in the incorrect answers. The correct types of intent involve specific scenarios where the individual demonstrates their intent through their actions, knowledge, lack of consent, purpose to harm or offend, or transferred intent.

3. What are the essential elements of an assault claim?

1. Inaction2. Intent to cause harm3. Physical contact4. Future harm

1. Voluntary act2. Intent to cause apprehension (objective standard)3. Apprehension (fear or awareness of battery) results4. of imminent or impending nature5. Apprehension causes harm or offense

1. Involuntary act2. Accidental intent3. Lack of apprehension4. Lack of imminent nature

1. Conscious act2. Negligence3. Fear of actual harm4. Distanced nature

An assault claim requires a voluntary act, intent to cause apprehension, resulting apprehension of imminent nature, and causing harm or offense as a result. Incorrect answers involve elements that do not align with the legal definition of assault in regards to voluntary act, intent, apprehension, imminence, and harm.

Explanation

An assault claim requires a voluntary act, intent to cause apprehension, resulting apprehension of imminent nature, and causing harm or offense as a result. Incorrect answers involve elements that do not align with the legal definition of assault in regards to voluntary act, intent, apprehension, imminence, and harm.

4. Name three cases dealing with assault?

1. Smith v. Johnson - a man accidentally bumps into another person causing them to stumble

2. Anderson v. Thompson - a verbal argument escalates but no physical contact occurs

1. Cullison v. Medley - family breaks into a man's trailor and threatens him with a gun. D later threatens P in a store. 2. Dicken's v. Puryear - a group of men beat and threaten to castrate and kill another man but use conditional language, which negated the imminency requirement of assualt. 3. Raess v. Doescher - man pushes doctor up against a wall and pretends to throw a punch but stops short of impact, then leaves.

3. Stevens v. Roberts - a heated exchange leads to threats but no physical harm is carried out

The incorrect answers provided do not involve cases where assault was clearly demonstrated. Assault requires a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, which is not present in the listed cases.

Explanation

The incorrect answers provided do not involve cases where assault was clearly demonstrated. Assault requires a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, which is not present in the listed cases.

5. What are the elements of a false imprisonment claim?

1. Deliberate2. Isolation3. of an animal

1. Intentional2. Confinement (within a limited area)3. of another4. Without privelege or consent5. For an appreciable time6. Victim concsious of or harmed thereby

1. Accidental2. Freedom3. of oneself

1. Unintentional2. Movement3. of a third party

False imprisonment requires intentional confinement of another without privilege or consent for an appreciable time, where the victim is conscious of or harmed by the confinement within a limited area. Accidental, unintentional, or deliberate actions without the specific elements do not constitute false imprisonment.

Explanation

False imprisonment requires intentional confinement of another without privilege or consent for an appreciable time, where the victim is conscious of or harmed by the confinement within a limited area. Accidental, unintentional, or deliberate actions without the specific elements do not constitute false imprisonment.

6. What are five cases that deal with false imprisonment?

1. McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Lady and her children detained by security under color of law for suspected shoplifting. Her kid was confined for 10 minutes and not allowed to use the restroom. 2. Shen v. Leo A Daly Co. - man prevented from leaving Taiwan, not enough for false imprisonment, which involves a limited range of movement. 3. Thorsen v. Kaufmann's Department Stores - D grabs a woman's pants from a dressing room because he suspects she is attempting to shoplift. The woman wishes to leave a department store but does not want to leave without her pants. Duress of goods is not enough to establish false confinement. 4. Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines Co. - Officers were held liable for false confinement by participating in a practical joke to stage a false arrest of an airline employee. 5. Hunter v. The Buckle, Inc. - D held liable for false confinement for inducing an officer to unlawfully detain another.

3. Green v. ABC Corporation - Employee falsely accused of theft and detained by company security.

2. Brown v. City Police Department - Woman detained overnight at police station without any charges being filed.

1. Smith v. Johnson & Sons - Man detained by security for suspected shoplifting but without probable cause.

7. Which case specifically addresses the duration of the privilege to detain?

State of Texas v. Johnson - A case where a person was detained for two days before proper identification was confirmed.

State of California v. Jones - A man was unlawfully detained for over a week due to mistaken identity.

State of Maryland v. Dett - A woman was arrested on an oustanding warrant and detained for four days before release, even though the officer knew shortly after arrest that the woman held was not the woman that the warrant described.

State of New York v. Smith - An individual held in custody for three days without probable cause.

In the case of State of Maryland v. Dett, the duration of the privilege to detain was specifically addressed when a woman was wrongfully detained for four days before being released, even though the officer knew early on about the mistake.

Explanation

In the case of State of Maryland v. Dett, the duration of the privilege to detain was specifically addressed when a woman was wrongfully detained for four days before being released, even though the officer knew early on about the mistake.

8. What are the elements of trespass to land?

1. Intentional act (single intent - deliberate)2. Entry3. Upon land4. Of Another

1. Accidental act (no intent)

2. Hovering above land without touching it

3. Entry with permission from the landowner

Trespass to land requires intentional act, entry onto land, and it must be another's land. Accidental acts, hovering above land, or entry with permission do not meet the elements of trespass to land.

Explanation

Trespass to land requires intentional act, entry onto land, and it must be another's land. Accidental acts, hovering above land, or entry with permission do not meet the elements of trespass to land.

9. What are the elements required for conversion of chattels?

3. Borrowing the chattels with permission

1. Possession of the chattels for a short period of time

2. Accidental damage to the chattels

1. To establish substantial dominion2. Over the chattels of another3. With intent to convert to "own use"

In order to establish conversion of chattels, the key elements include substantial dominion over the property of another with the intent to permanently convert it to one's own use.

Explanation

In order to establish conversion of chattels, the key elements include substantial dominion over the property of another with the intent to permanently convert it to one's own use.

10. What damages are plaintiffs entitled to in a conversion claim?

Damages for the entire value of the chattels converted.

Damages for half of the value of the chattels converted.

No damages are awarded in conversion claims.

Damages for emotional distress only.

In a conversion claim, plaintiffs are entitled to damages for the entire value of the chattels converted, not half or emotional distress only. It is a legal remedy to restore the plaintiff to their original position before the conversion occurred.

Explanation

In a conversion claim, plaintiffs are entitled to damages for the entire value of the chattels converted, not half or emotional distress only. It is a legal remedy to restore the plaintiff to their original position before the conversion occurred.

11. What factors differentiate between conversion of chattels and trespass to chattels?

1. Extent and duration of control2. D's intent to assert a right to property3. D's good faith4. The harm done to chattels5. Expense or inconvenience caused

1. The color of the chattel

2. The age of the person handling the chattel

3. The weather conditions during the incident

The factors that differentiate between conversion of chattels and trespass to chattels center around the extent and duration of control, the defendant's intent to assert a right to property, good faith, harm done to chattels, and expense or inconvenience caused. Factors like color, age, or weather conditions are not relevant in determining the legal distinction between these two actions.

Explanation

The factors that differentiate between conversion of chattels and trespass to chattels center around the extent and duration of control, the defendant's intent to assert a right to property, good faith, harm done to chattels, and expense or inconvenience caused. Factors like color, age, or weather conditions are not relevant in determining the legal distinction between these two actions.

12. Which case deals specifically with trespass to chattels?

B. United States v. Microsoft Corporation - a case involving antitrust practices

School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz - a former employee caused large volumes of pornographic emails and unsolicited job applications to be sent to P, thereby, severly limiting P's hard disk space and drained processing power. The court held that these facts, if true, would constitute a valid claim for trespass to chattels by harming "a materially valuable interest in the phyical condition, quality, or value of the chattel" or depriving owner of the use thereof for "a substanial time."

A. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. - a case regarding intellectual property infringement

C. Brown v. Board of Education - a case related to the segregation of schools

13. What are the elements of a negligence claim?

1. Intentional conduct2. Contributory negligence3. Statute of frauds

1. Duty of care2. Breach of duty3. Harm results4. Actual cause5. Proximate cause

In a negligence claim, intentional conduct is not considered negligence, contributory negligence is a separate defense, and the statute of frauds pertains to certain contracts, not negligence claims.

Explanation

In a negligence claim, intentional conduct is not considered negligence, contributory negligence is a separate defense, and the statute of frauds pertains to certain contracts, not negligence claims.

14. What is the benefit of negligence per se?

Negligence per se only applies to intentional torts, not negligence claims.

A claim of negligence per se proves the first 2 elements of a negligence claim: duty of care and breach of duty.

Negligence per se increases the burden of proof on the plaintiff.

Negligence per se eliminates the need to prove causation and damages.

Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to establish the first 2 elements of negligence (duty of care and breach of duty) by showing that the defendant violated a statute or regulation designed to protect a specific group of people. It does not eliminate the need to prove causation and damages, increase the burden of proof, or only apply to intentional torts.

Explanation

Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to establish the first 2 elements of negligence (duty of care and breach of duty) by showing that the defendant violated a statute or regulation designed to protect a specific group of people. It does not eliminate the need to prove causation and damages, increase the burden of proof, or only apply to intentional torts.

15. Name three cases dealing with negligence per se.

1. Smith v. Johnson - Employee slips and falls on a wet floor at work, leading to a lawsuit for negligence per se.

1. O'Guin v. Bingham County - children wander into a landfill and die by falling into a pit wall that collapses around them. The court established a test for determing when a common law duty is supplanted by a standard of care in a statute, ordinance or regulation. 2. Impson v. Structural Metals, Inc. - Driver attempted to pass a car within 100 ft. of an intersection in violation of a statute and caused an accident. D held liable, but the court determined a set of excuses to negligence per se. 3. Bauman v. Crawford - Children are not held liable under the negligence per se standard. However, a child's violation of a statute can be used as evidence of negligence.

2. Brown v. White - Two drivers get into an accident due to one running a red light. The court rules out negligence per se.

3. Anderson v. Davis - A doctor prescribes the wrong medication to a patient, resulting in harm. Negligence per se is not applicable in this case.

The incorrect answers provided are fictional scenarios that do not correspond to actual cases dealing with negligence per se. The correct answers listed are real cases that have been legally documented and involved the application of negligence per se principles.

Explanation

The incorrect answers provided are fictional scenarios that do not correspond to actual cases dealing with negligence per se. The correct answers listed are real cases that have been legally documented and involved the application of negligence per se principles.

16. What are the four excuses for the negligence per se standard as identified by the Second Restatement and Impson v. Structural Metals, Inc.?

B. The actor is ignorant of the law and its requirements.

1. The violation is reasonble because of the actor's incapacity (minority, physical disability, or physical incapacitation). 2. The actor neither knows or should know of the need for compliance. 3. The actor is unable to comply after reasonable diligence or care. 4. The actor is confronted with an emergency not due to his own conduct. 5. Compliance would cause greater risk of harm to the actor or to others.

C. The violation occurs due to financial constraints.

A. The violation is intentional and meant to harm others.

The correct answers provided all align with well-established legal principles concerning negligence per se. The incorrect answers A and C are self-explanatory as they do not align with the concept of negligence per se. Incorrect answer B is excluded as it falls under the second correct response provided.

Explanation

The correct answers provided all align with well-established legal principles concerning negligence per se. The incorrect answers A and C are self-explanatory as they do not align with the concept of negligence per se. Incorrect answer B is excluded as it falls under the second correct response provided.

17. Are any of the following legitimate excuses to the negligence per se standard of care?

Yes

It depends

Maybe

No.

Negligence per se holds that individuals who violate a statute or regulation are considered negligent without the plaintiff having to prove the specific standard of care. Ignorance of the law, personal beliefs, or common practice do not excuse negligence per se.

Explanation

Negligence per se holds that individuals who violate a statute or regulation are considered negligent without the plaintiff having to prove the specific standard of care. Ignorance of the law, personal beliefs, or common practice do not excuse negligence per se.

18. What four factors affect the calculus of negligence?

1. Social utility of the act or behavior in question2. All behavior involves some risk3. The degree of reasonableness of the risk4. Whether or not the cost to prevent the risk is less than the probabiliy of risk and the cost of injury. (Hand Formula: B

1. Weather conditions at the time of the incident, 2. The defendant's favorite color, 3. The distance between the plaintiff and defendant at the time of the incident

The factors that affect the calculus of negligence are specifically related to the social utility of the act, the inherent risk involved, the reasonableness of the risk, and the cost-benefit analysis of preventing the risk. Other unrelated factors like weather conditions, personal preferences, or distance between individuals are not directly relevant to the calculus of negligence.

Explanation

The factors that affect the calculus of negligence are specifically related to the social utility of the act, the inherent risk involved, the reasonableness of the risk, and the cost-benefit analysis of preventing the risk. Other unrelated factors like weather conditions, personal preferences, or distance between individuals are not directly relevant to the calculus of negligence.

19. Under what theories may a plaintiff collect for slip and fall injuries at a defendant's place of business?

1. Actual Notice - The defendant created and failed to take reasonable steps to abate the hazard. 2. Constructive Notice - The defendant did not directly create a condition but discovered or should have discovered it and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent injury. 3. Mode or Method of Operation - The Defendant's mode or method of operations made it foreseeable that others would create a dangerous condition leading to injury, and that he failed to take reasonable measures to discover and remove the risk.

1. Strict Liability - The plaintiff slipped and fell on the defendant's premises, so the defendant is automatically liable. 2. Assumption of Risk - The plaintiff knew of the risks involved in visiting the defendant's place of business and voluntarily chose to accept them. 3. Comparative Negligence - The plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the slip and fall accident, reducing or eliminating the defendant's liability.

Incorrect Answer 1 - Strict Liability does not automatically apply to slip and fall cases. Incorrect Answer 2 - Assumption of Risk may not be a valid defense if the defendant failed to uphold their duty of care. Incorrect Answer 3 - Comparative Negligence considers the plaintiff's actions but does not preclude the defendant from liability if their negligence contributed to the accident.

Explanation

Incorrect Answer 1 - Strict Liability does not automatically apply to slip and fall cases. Incorrect Answer 2 - Assumption of Risk may not be a valid defense if the defendant failed to uphold their duty of care. Incorrect Answer 3 - Comparative Negligence considers the plaintiff's actions but does not preclude the defendant from liability if their negligence contributed to the accident.

20. What are six cases establishing exceptions or clarifications to the slip & fall rules?

C. Rodriguez v. Home Depot - Juries are not allowed to determine reasonableness in slip & fall cases.

1. Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Spates - Constructive notice is not established when hazard is present for only brief periods of time (plastic six-pack ring was on the floor for 30-45 seconds). 2. Jones v. Brookshire Grocery Co. - Recent inspections by a storekeeper can thwart a plaintiff's claim based upon constructive notice - wrinkle in a mat probably did not cause Plaintiff's fall because several employees had inspected the area throughout the day. 3. Edenshaw v. Safeway, Inc. - Fact finders may decide whether or not a store keeper was reasonable in maintaining the store's premises by considering all of the circumstances of the case (rules for slip/fall cases thereby become factors). 4. Ortega v. Kmart Corp - what length of time that is deemed unreasonable for a hazard to exist and remain unattended by the store owner is for a jury to decide on a case-by-case basis. 5. Lanier v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - burden of proof can shift to store to excupate itself once plaintiff establishes that a fall was caused by a foreign substance. 6. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright - the store's internal handbook detailing practices for clean-up of spills did not establish the standard of care per the law pursuant to negligence.

A. Smith v. Target Co. - Time frame for establishing constructive notice is always considered to be under 5 minutes.

B. Johnson v. Costco Corp - Recent inspections are irrelevant in slip & fall cases.

The six cases mentioned in the correct answer provide a detailed overview of exceptions and clarifications to slip & fall rules, establishing important legal precedents. The incorrect answers provided do not align with established legal principles and do not accurately reflect the nuances of slip & fall cases.

Explanation

The six cases mentioned in the correct answer provide a detailed overview of exceptions and clarifications to slip & fall rules, establishing important legal precedents. The incorrect answers provided do not align with established legal principles and do not accurately reflect the nuances of slip & fall cases.

21. What does res ipsa loquitur mean and what is its significance to negligence law?

It is a term used to describe an out-of-court settlement between parties in a negligence case.

It is a Latin phrase meaning 'innocent until proven guilty' in negligence cases.

"The thing speaks for itself"; it establishes that a defendant was negligence by mere occurence of the act that caused harm, and allows a plaintiff to survive a defendant's motion for directed verdict to get his case to the jury.

It is a legal doctrine that places the burden of proof on the plaintiff instead of the defendant in negligence cases.

Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase that means 'the thing speaks for itself' in the context of negligence law. It allows for an inference of negligence based on the circumstances of the case, without requiring direct evidence of the defendant's negligence. This principle shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove they were not negligent, rather than the plaintiff having to prove negligence. It is a key doctrine in negligence law that helps plaintiffs establish their case and get it before a jury for a decision.

Explanation

Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase that means 'the thing speaks for itself' in the context of negligence law. It allows for an inference of negligence based on the circumstances of the case, without requiring direct evidence of the defendant's negligence. This principle shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove they were not negligent, rather than the plaintiff having to prove negligence. It is a key doctrine in negligence law that helps plaintiffs establish their case and get it before a jury for a decision.

22. What four things must a plaintiff prove to establish res ipsa loquitur?

B. The plaintiff has a prior record of negligence.

D. Negligence can only be inferred if the defendant admits fault.

A. The event causing harm is a common occurrence in daily life.

1. The event causing harm is the kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence. 2. Other possible causes, including conduct by the plaintiff and third parties, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence. 3. The indicated negligence is with the scope of D's duty to P. 4. (Third Restatement Only) Negligence can be inferred based upon D's actions when the action causing harm is ordinarily only the result of negligence of a class of actors of which D is a relevant member.

C. The defendant has a duty to the general public rather than the specific plaintiff.

Res ipsa loquitur requires specific elements to be proven in order for the doctrine to apply in a negligence case. These elements focus on the nature of the event causing harm, the elimination of other possible causes, the scope of duty between the defendant and plaintiff, and the ability to infer negligence based on the defendant's actions.

Explanation

Res ipsa loquitur requires specific elements to be proven in order for the doctrine to apply in a negligence case. These elements focus on the nature of the event causing harm, the elimination of other possible causes, the scope of duty between the defendant and plaintiff, and the ability to infer negligence based on the defendant's actions.