1.Daisy hired Hammer Inc. to construct a garden shed in her yard. Hammer had to blast away bedrock to pour the foundation for the shed. As required by a city ordinance, Hammer published notices of the proposed blast date in the local paper. Hammer notified residents within a half mile radius of the site, blocked off the nearby streets during the blasting, and used heavy chain netting to cover the blasting area. Despite all of this a rock was propelled from the blasting area through the wall of a neighbor's garage. The neighbor made a claim against Daisy and Hammer for the cost to repair the garage and ended up filing suit when they both refused to pay for the damage. The neighbor should:

A.Prevail, because the ultrahazardous operations doctrine applies.

B.Prevail, because the dangerous instrumentality doctrine applies.

C.Not prevail, because the property owner and the contractor were not negligent.

D.Not prevail, because the property owner and the contractor used reasonable care in conducting the blasting.Select oneABCD2.Manny had four large apple trees in his yard, one of which had a huge limb that hung over Connie's fence. A tropical storm blew that tree limb down and it crushed four sections of Connie's fence. Connie filed suit against Manny in small claims court for $550, the cost to replace the four sections of fence. Manny argued that he was not liable because the tree had no visible rot, was healthy, and was not a danger. Manny introduced photographs into evidence that showed that the tree looked perfectly healthy before the storm. Who should prevail in Connie's claim against Manny?

A.Manny, because Connie assumed the risk of harm.

B.Manny, because the accident was an unforeseeable Act of God.

C.Connie, because it was foreseeable that the limb would fall.

D.Connie, because Manny breached a duty of care owed to her.Select oneABCD3.Jim and Kayla, 14-year-old students, had started dating at the beginning of the school year. Jim broke up with Kayla a few months later and started going out with another classmate, Gina. Kayla was insanely jealous and wanted Jim back, so she decided to scare off Gina by creating a Facebook page she used to bully Gina. Kayla's parents received a visit from Gina's parents, who demanded that Kayla take down the Facebook page. Kayla's parents instructed her to remove the Facebook page but, even though they had control of Kayla's computer and Internet access, did nothing more to block her from using the Internet or to monitor her online usage. Kayla told her parents she took the page down, when in reality she hadn't removed it and had upped her cyberbullying campaign against Gina. Kayla used Photoshop to create embarrassing photos of Gina and posted them to the Facebook page, which she shared with all of Gina's classmates. Kayla's animosity toward Gina increased the more Gina begged her to stop the harassment. Ultimately, as per her psychiatrist, Gina broke down under the pressure of Kayla's abuse and committed suicide. Gina's parents can prove, through the testimony of a psychiatrist, that the bullying caused Gina to commit suicide due to a complete mental breakdown which prevented her from resisting her suicidal impulse. Gina's parents wrongful death cause of action against Kayla's parents is likely to:

A.Fail, because the parents did not ratify the minor child's tortious conduct.

B.Fail, because Gina's suicide was an intervening superseding event that Kayla and her parents could not be expected to foresee.

C.Succeed, because the parents knew about the cyberbullying and failed to reasonably supervise their minor child.

D.Succeed, because the parent child relationship imposes liability on the parents for the minor child's tortious conduct.Select oneABCD4.Guillermo was speeding on his way to drop off his son, Adam, at soccer practice and lost control on a curve in the road. Guillermo's car spun out and ended up on the grass median, out of the flow of traffic. No one was injured, but Guillermo's car was stuck on the median. Edwin, a passing motorist, stopped to help Guillermo. After confirming there were no injuries, Edwin suggested that he use his truck to push Guillermo's car off the median. Edwin put his truck in four wheel drive and pulled behind Guillermo's car. Edwin then got out of his truck and went to check that his truck's bumper aligned with the bumper of Guillermo's car. As he was bending down to check the height of the two bumpers, his foot slipped on the grass and he wrenched his ankle. Edwin got in his truck and left to have a doctor look at his ankle without pushing Guillermo's car off the median. Edwin sued Guillermo for the injuries he sustained trying to rescue Guillermo and Adam. Edwin should:

A.Not prevail, because his rescue attempt was unsuccessful.

B.Not prevail, because the victims were not in imminent danger.

C.Prevail, because it was foreseeable that he would come to the motorist's aid.

D.Prevail, because a tortfeasor is liable for a rescuer's injuries if sustained in a rescue attempt.Select oneABCD5.Jenna checked into the Shifty Motel late one night. Shifty is located in a neighborhood with a high rate of violent crime, but is a popular place to stay because it has cheap rates. Harold was able to break into Jenna's room in the early morning hours because of the inferior locks Shifty had installed on the room doors. After breaking into her room, Harold sexually assaulted Jenna. Shifty had received numerous prior reports of criminals breaking into guest rooms and assaulting guests. Despite this notice of prior criminal activity at the premises the only person working at the motel was a 19-year-old high school drop out who did nothing but play video games while working the front desk. In addition, the motel was poorly lit and had no security cameras. In her suit against Shifty for its negligence, Jenna should:

A.Not recover damages, because the criminal's act was the superseding cause of the guest's harm.

B.Not recover damages, because a landowner has no duty to control the criminal acts of third parties.

C.Recover damages, because landowners are liable for criminal acts committed by third parties against invitees.

D.Recover damages, because the assault was foreseeable.Select oneABCD6.Mario and his girlfriend Deidre were driving home after going out to dinner. Mario was driving and Deidre was in the front passenger seat. Mario and Deidre had argued over dinner and the argument continued during the car ride home. Mario couldn't wait for the ride to be over and was driving 20 miles per hour over the speed limit. Deidre got so angry that she insisted Mario pull over and let her out. When Mario didn't pull over, Deidre abruptly grabbed the steering wheel of the car and yanked it to the right. The car swerved off the road and through a fence before coming to a stop. The property owner sued both Mario and Deidre, but Mario argued that he was not liable for the damage to the fence because he did not cause the accident. Mario's argument should be:

A.Successful, because the passenger is liable for the property owner's damages.

B.Successful, because the passenger's conduct of grabbing the steering wheel was unforeseeable.

C.Unsuccessful, because he was driving the car that struck the fence.

D.Unsuccessful, because he was driving over the speed limit.Select oneABCD7.Joe, Mick, and Stella were all watching a little league baseball game. Joe had never cared for Mick and the two of them got into an argument about a close call in the game that culminated with Joe threatening Mick and throwing a punch at him. Mick avoided the punch by ducking to the side, but the punch caught Stella in the back causing a kidney injury. Stella was unaware of the fight until she was hit with the punch. Stella filed suit alleging assault and battery against Joe. Stella's suit will likely:

A.Fail on the claims for assault or battery, because Joe did not intend to harm Stella.

B.Fail on the claims for assault or battery, because Joe can raise provocation as a defense.

C.Succeed on the assault claim, because Mick's fear of Joe's attack will be transferred to Stella.

D.Succeed on the battery claim, because Joe's intent to harm Mick will be transferred to Stella.Select oneABCD8.Carmine filed a claim with his insurer after his diner was destroyed by fire. Based on an eyewitness account the police suspected that Carmine was involved with setting the fire. A few weeks later the claims professional handling Carmine's claim discovered that criminal arson charges were pending against Carmine. The adjuster subsequently stopped by the damaged property on his way home from work and said to Carmine, "Burning your diner down was not a good idea. I would drop the claim if I were you." Carmine's friend was there but he did not hear the conversation. The prosecutor, however, dropped the arson charges when it was determined that the eyewitness was unreliable. Carmine's defamation claim against the adjuster will be:

A.Successful, because the adjuster made a defamatory statement.

B.Successful, because the arson charges against the insured were dropped.

C.Unsuccessful, because the adjuster thought what he said was true.

D.Unsuccessful, because the insured cannot prove all of the elements of defamation.Select oneABCD9.Jake was awarded workers' compensation benefits after he injured his lower back at work. Two years later Jake was involved in a minor auto accident caused by Claire. The accident aggravated Jake's back injury, which necessitated extensive surgery. Jake filed a claim against Claire for the aggravation of his lower back injury. Jake's claim will most likely be:

A.Unsuccessful, because it was not foreseeable that a minor accident would necessitate extensive surgery.

B.Unsuccessful, because the back injury was caused by an unrelated work accident for which the claimant already received benefits.

C.Successful, because it is foreseeable that an auto accident could aggravate a preexisting injury.

D.Successful, because the claimant's damages can be apportioned separately.Select oneABCD10 .Felipe took his sailboat to Ark Boat, a partnership dedicated to fine restoration and repair, to have its bilge pump repaired. Noah was the pump expert at Ark, however he was at a boat repair convention. Adam, Noah's partner, decided that he could handle the job and proceeded to repair the pump. When Felipe later took the boat on a cruise, he discovered that the repair was deteriorating and the boat was taking on water. The boat sank, leaving Felipe floating in his life jackets until a passing fishing boat picked him up. In a lawsuit against Noah and Adam, Felipe proved that the repair was improperly done. He can recover from:

A.Both, because Adam was negligent in making the repair and Noah is vicariously liable for Adam's negligence.

B.Neither Adam nor Noah, because only the business itself (Ark) can be held liable.

C.Noah, because he was the pump expert, but not Adam, because he did the best he could.

D.Adam, because he was negligent in repairing the boat, but not Noah, because he did not perform the repair.Select oneABCD11.Kendra didn't think twice about loaning Maxine her car even though she knew that Maxine was drunk. Maxine stopped Kendra's car behind Harry, a motorcyclist, who was waiting at a red light. At that moment, Maxine was struck from behind by a car driven by Wanda. The impact propelled Kendra's car into Harry, injuring him. Harry filed suit against Maxine for negligently driving while intoxicated; Kendra, for negligent entrustment; and Wanda, for negligent operation of her vehicle. Harry should recover damages from:

A.Maxine, Kendra, and Wanda, because they all breached a duty of care.

B.Wanda, but not Maxine and Kendra, because Wanda's negligence was the cause of the accident.

C.Maxine and Kendra, but not Wanda, because Maxine was intoxicated and Kendra knew it.

D.Kendra and Wanda, but not Maxine, because Kendra was negligent in letting Maxine drive.Select oneABCD12.Bella was a manager for Small Bank. None of Bella's job duties required her to travel outside the office. Bella decided to check on her dog during her lunch hour but caused an auto accident on the way home. Another motorist, Steve, was injured in the accident and filed claims against Bella for negligence and against Small based on respondeat superior. Steve will recover from:

A.Bella, because she committed the tort, but not Small, because Bella was not within the scope of her duties at the time of the accident.

B.Bella, because she committed the tort, but not Small, because it did not cause or contribute to the accident.

C.Bella, because she committed the tort and Small because it has the right to control Bella.

D.Bella, because she committed the tort and Small because Bella was employed by Small.Select oneABCD13.Chad stayed at the Full Moon Motel for his daughter's college graduation. Chad returned to the motel after dinner and was pistol-whipped and robbed inside his room. Chad did not see his attacker but security cameras captured Dirk, the hotel's manager, leaving Chad's room at the time of the assault. Dirk confessed to the crime and a police investigation revealed that Dirk had been hired earlier that year and had admitted on his employment application that he had been convicted of a crime but he did not list the type of crime. The Full Moon executive that interviewed Dirk for the job acknowledged that he did not question Dirk about his prior crime and did not perform a background check on Dirk, which would have revealed a string of violent robberies. Chad sued Full Moon for negligent hiring. Chad's claim is:

A.Invalid, because the assault was outside the scope of the agent's employment.

B.Invalid, because the employer cannot be liable for the criminal acts of a third party.

C.Valid, because the employer is vicariously liable.

D.Valid, because the employer is directly liable.Select oneABCD14.Hannah called Tommy, a handyman, to repair a broken gutter. Tommy said that Hannah didn't need to be home for the repair and that he would stop by later in the week when he had a break in his schedule. He also said that the job would be cheaper if Hannah paid cash, which she agreed to do upon completion of the repair. Tommy stopped by and used his ladder to climb up to the roof. He decided to answer a text message while he was on the top rung of the ladder and accidentally dropped his hammer. The hammer struck Nancy, a neighbor, who was stopping by to visit Hannah. Nancy was injured and sued both Hannah and Tommy. Is Hannah liable for Tommy's negligence?

A.No, because Hannah is not liable for negligent acts committed by her agent.

B.No, because Tommy was an independent contractor.

C.Yes, because she hired Tommy and was negligent in failing to supervise him.

D.Yes, because she hired Tommy and is vicariously liable for his negligence.Select oneABCD15.Harold signed up for scuba lessons with Buoy Inc. In order to participate in the course Harold was required to sign an exculpatory agreement in which he agreed that Buoy would not be responsible for damages caused by its ordinary negligence. As Harold walked across the dive boat he slipped and fell on water that splashed over the side of the boat. Harold fractured his ankle as a result of the fall. Harold sued Buoy for gross negligence. A Buoy representative testified that it was common for the deck of dive boats to be wet from sea mist or splashing waves. Harold will likely:

A.Prevail, because Buoy breached a duty of care owed to Harold.

B.Prevail, because Harold can prove more than ordinary negligence and the exculpatory clause will not apply.

C.Not prevail, because Harold cannot prove that Buoy was grossly negligent.

D.Not prevail, because the exculpatory clause bars suits against Buoy.Select oneABCD16.Home Junction is a retail store that sells a variety of lawn care items including fertilizer, lawnmowers, and planters. One of Home Junction's most popular items is Weed Defense, a weed killer manufactured by Innes Co. Weed Defense is marketed as non-toxic, and safe for pets and children. Home Junction received several complaints from customers about pets becoming ill after accidently ingesting grass that was treated with Weed Defense. Home Junction refunded the customers their money, but it did not pull the product from its shelves or post warning signs. Dan purchased a sealed container of Weed Defense and treated his backyard with it. After playing in the backyard Dan's toddler son suffered severe rashes over his entire body and had to be hospitalized for a week. Dan sued Home Junction for negligence. Does Dan have a legitimate cause of action?

A.No, because the product was sold in a sealed container.

B.No, because the manufacturer created the defective product.

C.Yes, because the retailer placed a defective product into the stream of commerce.

D.Yes, because the retailer knew of the danger and failed to warn the customer.Select oneABCD17.Brenda was driving her children to school when a fight broke out over a toy that one of her children was playing with. Brenda turned around to pull the toy out of her daughter's hand and accidently side swiped a parked car. The owner of the parked car sued Brenda for damage to her car. Will Brenda be liable?

A.No, because Brenda's conduct conformed to the standard of reasonable care.

B.No, because Brenda did not intend to cause the damage.

C.Yes, because Brenda is liable regardless of fault.

D.Yes, because Brenda's conduct fell below the standard of reasonable care.Select oneABCD18.Joe, a computer programmer, was attacked and robbed while walking to his car late at night. Joe suffered from severe anxiety and depression because of the incident and he stated that he was unable to return to work. Joe made a claim for disability benefits through his employer-sponsored benefit plan with Yorktown Indemnity. In connection with the claim Joe provided Yorktown with an authorization to obtain his medical records from his psychiatrist. Yorktown paid disability benefits to Joe for nine months and then cut off all payments thereafter. Joe was advised by a Yorktown claims professional that the reason Joe's benefits were terminated was because it had surveillance video indicating that Joe was able to return to work. Yorktown relied on the video surveillance provided by an outside investigator, Kushman, that showed Joe playing basketball, attending craft show, and doing yard work at his house. Joe was outraged by the extensive surveillance and filed a claim against Yorktown and Kushman for intentional interference with his interests in solitude and seclusion. Who will prevail?

A.Joe, because he considered the conduct of the insurer and its investigator highly offensive.

B.Joe, because Yorktown and Kushman publicized a private matter.

C.Yorktown and Kushman, because Joe gave actual consent to the investigation by filing a disability claim.

D.Yorktown and Kushman, because the intrusion was reasonable.Select oneABCD19.Sam operated a tractor trailer that jackknifed around a steep curve and struck Phillip's van. An investigation determined that the accident was caused by Sam's excessive speed. The van was totaled and Phillip was transported to a local hospital and treated for his injuries. The accident caused a traffic build up. Yelena was driving to the airport when she came upon the stopped traffic. Frustrated that she would miss her flight, Yelena got out of her car to see what was going on and was struck by another vehicle. Phillip and Yelena sued Sam for damages. Who will recover against Sam?

A.Phillip, because Sam's negligence was the proximate cause of these damages, but not Yelena's damages because those damages were not foreseeable.

B.Phillip, because Sam's negligence was the cause in fact of these damages, but not Yelena's damages because Sam's negligence was not the cause in fact of those damages.

C.Phillip and Yelena, because Sam's negligence was the proximate cause of all of the damages.

D.Phillip and Yelena, because Sam's negligence was the cause in fact of all of the damages.Select oneABCD20.Brandi, a bookkeeper at an accounting firm, was arrested and charged with eight counts of felony forgery and one count of felony theft. At trial prosecutors told jurors that Brandi wrote more than $10,000 in company checks to herself. Brandi's former coworker, Vlad, testified that he witnessed Brandi take blank company checks and place them in her purse. Brandi's attorney presented credible evidence to dispute the charges and Brandi was acquitted. Brandi sued Vlad for defamation. Is Vlad liable?

A.Yes, because Brandi was found not guilty.

B.Yes, because he made a slanderous statement in the presence of others.

C.No, because the witness's statement was protected by qualified privilege.

D.No, because the witness's statement was protected by absolute privilege.Select oneABCD