1. George is driving eastbound on South Street. He stops at the stop sign, looks and proceeds. He didn't see Eleanor, who was traveling north on West Avenue. A collision occurred, and a lawsuit followed. Eleanor asserted that George had breached his duty and caused her injury. George argued that because Eleanor was traveling eight miles an hour over the speed limit, she was responsible. Who prevails? A. Eleanor. Once George violated his duty and proceeded through the stop sign, he was liable regardless of any negligence of Eleanor. B. Eleanor. While Eleanor's speed may be a cause in fact of the accident, it is not the proximate cause. C. George. If Eleanor had not been traveling at her speed, the cars would have possibly missed one another, and therefore she is the cause of the accident. D. George. Eleanor was violating a specific safety statute, and is negligent per se. 2. Zelda is walking down the sidewalk. As she passes the local pub, a stack of beer barrels collapses and roll into Zelda. Zelda sues the pub, alleging negligence. The pub's defense is that she can't prove the necessary elements of negligence. Who wins? A. Pub. The pub has no obligation to the passing public to stack its barrels carefully. B. Pub. Zelda cannot prove that the barrels were stacked negligently, nor can she prove that the fall of the kegs was caused by an act of the pub. C. Zelda. By stacking the barrels outside, the pub is strictly liable for injury caused by them. D. Zelda. Zelda can prove the pub owned and retained control of the barrels. By invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, Zelda need not prove a specific act of negligence. 3. Bobby and his friends are playing football in the street because the park is closed. Billy is driving his car on the street. He is traveling over the speed limit and joking with his friends in the car. He doesn't notice the football game until it is too late, and is unable to stop his car before he hits Bobby with the car. Billy and Bobby are both under the age of majority. Bobby's parents sue Billy and his parents. Can Bobby's parents recover for Bobby's injuries? A. No. This is an accident. Accidents happen. B. No. Bobby was playing in the street. He assumed a known risk and is, therefore, barred from recovering for his injuries. C. Yes. Bobby may be found to have assumed the risk, but under the doctrine of comparative negligence, he and his parents may recover a proportional share of his injuries based on the proportioning of fault between Bobby and Billy by a jury. D. Yes. Since Billy was operating a motor vehicle and struck a pedestrian, he is liable under the doctrine of negligence per se. 4. Elliot is walking down the street and notices that there is some commotion in a nearby alley. He looks into the alley and sees Sam and Cindy involved in a struggle. They are fighting over the possession of a canvas bag. Assuming that Sam is attempting to take the bag from Cindy, Elliot intervenes by knocking Sam to the ground and giving Cindy the bag. Cindy rushes from the scene. The only problem is that the bag belonged to Sam and Cindy had tried to steal it. The bag contained a valuable gift Sam had just purchased for his wife. Sam sues Elliot for the cost of the gift. Who wins? A. Elliot. Elliot owed no duty to Sam, and, therefore could not be negligent. B. Elliot. Elliot's behavior was well-intentioned and it would be wrong to hold him responsible for Sam's loss. Besides, Sam probably would have lost the bag anyway. C. Sam. Elliot owed Sam a duty once he saw the struggle. He breached that duty by assisting Cindy. D. Sam. While Elliot owed no duty to assist Sam or Cindy. Once he intervened, he owed Sam a duty. He breached that duty by assisting Cindy. 5. Read Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad on page 138 of your text. This case is one of the most important negligence cases ever decided. Why? A. This case created the concept of negligence as a tort. B. This case placed limitations on when a person owed a duty to another by holding that the harm to Palsgraf could not be foreseen as the result of acts of the railroad. The railroad did owe a duty to be reasonably cautious, but did owe a duty prevent all harm, no matter how unlikely. C. It is the only decision Judge Cardozo authored. D. The decision shaped the concept of foreseeability as it applied to causation. 6. Sid is an employee of ABC, Inc.. Sid works from his home. His computer and cell phone for work purposes is provided by ABC. ABC's policies state that the computer and cell phone are to be used for work purposes, but allow for "reasonable personal use". "Reasonable personal use" is not defined in the policy. Sid uses his work computer to track the operation of an illegal pyramiding scheme conducted by him and a group of friends. None of these friends are employed by ABC. ABC seizes Sid's work computer based on an anonymous tip that Sid is storing porn on it. Upon discovering the contents of the computer, ABC fires Sid for improper personal use of the computer. ABC also turns the computer over to the FBI and Sid is charged with the violation of several federal laws. Sid argues that the seizure of his computer by ABC is unlawful and cannot be a basis for his termination. Is Sid correct? A. Yes. Sid has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information in the computer and an anonymous tip does give the company the right to monitor the computer. B. Yes. Once the company allowed Sid to take the computer off-site, it lost all rights to the computer and its contents. C. No. The computer is the property of the company and is subject to reasonable monitoring as long as Sid is aware of the possibility of such monitoring. D. No. Sid has no expectation of privacy in the company-owned computer. 7. Mr. DumBass is a teacher at the local school. His students are thirteen year olds. Mr. D frequently silences talking in his class by throwing an eraser at the offending student. Bobby is joking with Harold during class. Mr. D throws his eraser at Bobby, who ducks. The eraser strikes Anna, who was sleeping, on the top of her head. Unfortunately, Anna has an extraordinarily thin skull and the eraser causes significant injury to Anna. Anna's parents allege that Mr. D has committed the intentional tort of battery on Anna. Are they correct? A. Yes. Mr. D threw the eraser with the intention of hitting Bobby. Even though he missed Bobby, the doctrine of "transferred intent" applies and his act is an intentional tort. B. Yes. The mere fact that Mr. D threw the eraser, even if he intended to hit no one, is an intentional act and is treated as such. C. No. Mr. D did not intend to hit Anna. He has no liability to her. D. No. Mr. D's action are negligence and cannot be an intentional tort. 8. Bad Bob was accused of murder; specifically the state alleged he killed his wife. He was tried for murder. He was acquitted. Eight years later, a second murder charge was brought against Bad Bob. This time the state said Bob killed his half-brother, Happy Harold. Bob said the charge of murdering Harold violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Who wins? A. Bad Bob. The double jeopardy clause prohibits a person from being tried for the same crime twice. This is a second murder charge. B. Bad Bob. Double jeopardy requires the state produce twice as much evidence as is normally required and it can't do that. C. State. The statute of limitations on the double jeopardy clause is five years. It doesn't apply. D. State. Double jeopardy applies to a crime, not to separate crimes. Since the state is charging Bob with the murder of a different person, the double jeopardy clause isn't implicated. 9. Reginald Dwight is attending a song-writers's convention. At the end of the first session, he picks up his briefcase, containing his music and other materials. Upon arriving at his hotel room, he discovers he has taken someone else's briefcase. He decides to find the owner the next day. However, during the ensuing hours, the police arrest him for theft, knowingly exercising control over the property of another without their consent. Reg pleads not guilty and argues it was a mistake. The state says that's too bad. Who wins? A. Reg. The commission of a crime-requires both a guilty act and a criminal intent. Reg had no criminal intent. If Reg had retained the briefcase for an unreasonable period of time, he may have become guilty of some theft-related crime B. Reg. A mistake is a mistake. Since he didn't mean to take it, he could never be guilty of a theft offense. C. State. Reg exercised control over the property of another. His state of mind is irrelevant. D. State. While taking the case was not criminal; retaining it after he knew the truth was. 10. Don is charged with a crime. He presents the following defense. He had been taking illegal drugs and as a result of those, he was unable to control his behavior. A psychiatrist testified that Don had a mental disorder and when he consumed intoxicants his ability to control his behavior diminished and he would do things which he knew to be wrong. The state law uses the M'Naughton test for insanity. Can Don be found not guilty by reason of insanity? A. No. Since the M'Naughton test requires Don to be unable as the result of his mental disease to distinguish between right and wrong, he cannot be found NGRl. B. No. Voluntary intoxication can never excuse or reduce one's liability for criminal activity. C. Yes. Voluntary intoxication can fully excuse one from criminal behavior. D. Yes. Don has a mental disease. The intoxicants diminish his ability to control his acts. Even though he knew what he was doing was wrong, he couldn't stop himself. He is not criminally responsible. 11. You are a member of a jury in a criminal case. The evidence has been presented and both the prosecution and the defense have rested. You are prepared to deliberate with the other jurors. Based on the evidence you have heard, you feel sure that the defendant is guilty; so sure you would nearly stake your life on it. However, you have always followed the belief that if you did not see a thing for yourself you could not positively believe it to be true. How should you vote regarding the outcome of the case? A. Not guilty. You have a doubt as to the guilt of the defendant and therefore cannot. find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. B. Not guilty. Since the standard for conviction is beyond any doubt, you must vote not guilty. C. Guilty. In these matters you should always make your decision based on your gut reaction. D. Guilty. While you may have a doubt about the defendant's guilt, that doubt is not a reasonable one. You believe the defendant to be guilty based on a quantum of evidence that would guide you in making the most important decisions in your life