Dennis loved animals and owned several dogs and cats. One of his dogs ran out of the door chasing a rabbit that had paused to eat some grass on Dennis' front lawn. Dennis saw his dog run out the door and called the dog to return to the house. The dog did not return immediately even though Dennis had given the dog the proper command to return to the house. The fact that the dog did not immediately obey was very unusual because Dennis had spent a great deal of time training each of his dogs, and this particular dog had never been disobedient before. When Dennis ran out the door to chase after the dog, he found Pedestrian lying on the sidewalk. Pedestrian had been knocked down by the dog as it chased after the rabbit. If Pedestrian brings suit against Dennis seeking damages for injuries sustained in the fall, Pedestrian will

Question 1 options:

a)	Prevail, because his fall was caused by Dennis' dog.

b)	Prevail, because an animal owner is absolutely responsible for all injuries caused by the animal.

c)	Not prevail because a dog is a domestic animal.

d)	Not prevail, because the dog was well-trained and unexpectedly ignored Dennis on this occasion.

Question 2 (2 points)

Alan is an advocate of animal rights. Doctor engages in medical research that uses rabbits and mice for testing to develop medical treatments for human diseases. Alan believes that all uses of any animals for medical testing are unethical and cruel. Alan discovered that Doctor would be collecting a group of animals for use in testing a new cancer drug. Alan believed that many animals would be killed as a result of Doctor's testing procedures. When Alan learned where Doctor's medical lab was located, Alan marched outside holding up signs with pictures of tortured animals with the caption "Doctor is engaged in cruelty to animals!" Doctor saw Alan and the sign. If Doctor brings a suit claiming that Alan's conduct amounts to intentional infliction of emotional distress, which of the following (if proven by Doctor) best supports Doctor's claim?

Question 2 options:

a)	Alan's conduct caused Doctor to suffer emotional distress.

b)	The signs constitute extreme and outrageous behavior.

c)	Alan was trespassing.

d)	Alan was only expressing his opinion rather than a statement of fact.

Question 3 (2 points)

Doris was driving in her car to work with Peter, a co-worker. Doris needed to drop off some clothing at a laundry so she pulled to the curb and got out, leaving Peter in the car with the key in the ignition and the engine running. Due to an increase in car thefts, the state had recently passed a new statute that made it illegal for the driver of an automobile to leave the automobile at any time or for any reason with the key in the ignition. While Doris was in the laundry, a car driven by Harold sped around the corner at an excessive rate of speed and struck Doris' car. The impact caused Doris' car transmission to engage and the car traveled for 50 feet and struck a power pole. Peter was injured when the car hit the power pole. If Peter asserts a claim against Doris to recover damages for his injuries, basing his claim on Doris' violation of the statute, will Peter prevail?

Question 3 options:

a)	No, Peter assumed the risk when he chose to remain in Doris' car with the key in the ignition and the engine running.

b)	No, the purpose of the statute was not to protect against injuries occurring in this manner.

c)	Yes, Doris is liable under the doctrine of negligence per se.

d)	Yes, because Doris has a duty to protect Peter.

Question 4 (2 points)

Purch went to a hardware store owned and operated by Storeco and purchased some paint and supplies Purch needed to paint his kitchen. One of the items purchased was a box of cotton balls manufactured by Paintco that Paintco had chemically treated with odorless paint remover to be used to clean up paint drips or other unintended painting errors. Purch used some of the Paintco cotton balls to remove excess paint and put the remainder back in the box and stored them in the garage. Two weeks later, while Purch was out of town on a business trip, Purch's child (Child) asked Purch's wife (Wife) to help her create a costume for a birthday party she had been invited to. Child wanted to go to the party dressed as "Suzy Snowflake," a popular children's television character. Wife agreed to create the costume and glued some of the Paintco cotton balls to Child's costume to create the appearance of snow. When Child was at the party wearing the costume, the paint removal chemical in the cotton balls ignited when Child stood close to the lit birthday candles. Child was severely burned and Purch brought a lawsuit based on strict liability against Storeco on behalf of Child. Will Purch prevail in this lawsuit?

Question 4 options:

a)	Yes, if neither StoreCo nor Paintco warned Purch of the danger.

b)	Yes, if Storeco failed to use due care in making flammable cotton balls are an abnormally dangerous product.

c)	No, because the cotton balls were not intended to be used in this manner.

d)	No, because Storeco used due care when treating the cotton balls with a flammable chemical.

Question 5 (2 points)

Sam purchased a brand new car from Dealer. The car was manufactured by National Motors. Sam drove the car for two weeks without incident, but he noticed that the car had a tendency to pull to the left when driven at speeds in excess of 65 mph. Unknown to Sam, the car was sold with a defective steering mechanism that could cause the driver to suddenly lose all ability to steer the car. Sam was annoyed by the car pulling to the left, but chose not to bring the car in for an inspection because he rarely drove in excess of the speed limit. Two months later, Sam lost his job and needed to sell the car to obtain money. Sam sold the car to Phil, without informing Phil about the problem with the car's steering mechanism. One month later, Sam received a recall notice from National Motors which had just discovered the defect and sent warnings to Sam and all other owners of the same model car about the steering mechanism defect. The notice told them to stop driving the cars immediately and to have the cars towed in (at National Motor's expense) for inspection and repair. Sam called Phil to warn him, but Phil was not at home. At the time of the call, Phil was driving the car and suffered a severe injury when the steering mechanism defect caused the car to veer into another vehicle. If Phil brings an action based on strict liability against Dealer to recover for injuries he sustained in the accident, Phil will

Question 5 options:

a)	Recover, but only if he can prove that Dealer negligently failed to discover the defect.

b)	Recover, because the car was defective when sold to Sam.

c)	Not recover, because Dealer had no duty to warn Phil since they did not sell the car to him.

d)	Not recover, because Sam's failure to warn Phil was an independent superseding cause of the harm.

Question 6 (2 points)

Original fact pattern: Sam purchased a brand new car from Dealer. The car was manufactured by National Motors. Sam drove the car for two weeks without incident, but he noticed that the car had a tendency to pull to the left when driven at speeds in excess of 65 mph. Unknown to Sam, the car was sold with a defective steering mechanism that could cause the driver to suddenly lose all ability to steer the car. Sam was annoyed by the car pulling to the left, but chose not to bring the car in for an inspection because he rarely drove in excess of the speed limit. Two months later, Sam lost his job and needed to sell the car to obtain money. Sam sold the car to Phil, without informing Phil about the problem with the car's steering mechanism. One month later, Sam received a recall notice from National Motors which had just discovered the defect and sent warnings to Sam and all other owners of the same model car about the steering mechanism defect. The notice told them to stop driving the cars immediately and to have the cars towed in (at National Motor's expense) for inspection and repair. Sam called Phil to warn him, but Phil was not at home. At the time of the call, Phil was driving the car and suffered a severe injury when the steering mechanism defect caused the car to veer into another vehicle. Assume for purposes of this question only that Phil brought an action against National Motors and that the parties both agreed to the following findings of fact: (1) the steering mechanism defect was so apparent, that a normal driver would have discovered the existence of defect; and (2) Phil did not discover the defect. In this action, based on these findings, Phil will

Question 6 options:

a)	Prevail, because Phil did not discover the defect.

b)	Prevail, because assumption of the risk does not apply to a products liability action.

c)	Not prevail, because Phil should reasonably have discovered the defect.

d)	Not prevail, because National Motor efforts to warn all owners of the defective cars show it was not negligent.

Question 7 (2 points)

Original fact pattern: Sam purchased a brand new car from Dealer. The car was manufactured by National Motors. Sam drove the car for two weeks without incident, but he noticed that the car had a tendency to pull to the left when driven at speeds in excess of 65 mph. Unknown to Sam, the car was sold with a defective steering mechanism that could cause the driver to suddenly lose all ability to steer the car. Sam was annoyed by the car pulling to the left, but chose not to bring the car in for an inspection because he rarely drove in excess of the speed limit. Two months later, Sam lost his job and needed to sell the car to obtain money. Sam sold the car to Phil, without informing Phil about the problem with the car's steering mechanism. One month later, Sam received a recall notice from National Motors which had just discovered the defect and sent warnings to Sam and all other owners of the same model car about the steering mechanism defect. The notice told them to stop driving the cars immediately and to have the cars towed in (at National Motor's expense) for inspection and repair. Sam called Phil to warn him, but Phil was not at home. At the time of the call, Phil was driving the car and suffered a severe injury when the steering mechanism defect caused the car to veer into another vehicle. Assume for purposes of this question that Phil brings a strict liability action against Sam. Will Phil prevail?

Question 7 options:

a)	Yes, because Sam had reason to know of the steering defect at the time of the sale and did not adequately warn Phil.

b)	Yes, because the car was dangerously defective when Sam sold it to Phil.

c)	No, because Sam is not a commercial supplier of cars.

d)	No, because Sam attempted to warn Phil about the defect as soon as he learned of its existence.

Question 8 (2 points)

Dave had a medical condition that caused him to have poor blood circulation. As a result he always felt very cold, even in the summer. To remedy this, Dave installed a heater on the outside of his bedroom window to blow warm air into his house. Dave had to run the heater day and night to maintain a comfortable temperature in his home. Pat lived next door to Dave and Pat's bedroom window was only 15 feet away from Dave's heater. Pat is a light sleeper and complained to Dave about the noise generated by the heater. Dave refused to turn off the heater. After several sleepless nights and a resulting decline in his health, Pat brought suit to recover damages for the sleep disturbance and health problems caused by the noise from Dave's heater. Will Pat prevail?

Question 8 options:

a)	No, there was no physical intrusion by Dave onto Pat's land.

b)	No, if the noise generated by the heater is not unreasonable.

c)	Yes, because Pat suffered from sleeplessness and ill health as a consequence of Dave's conduct.

d)	Yes, because Dave was aware of the interference and made no effort to minimize it.

Question 9 (2 points)

SmokeCo operates a chemical refinery near Pleasanton, a small residential community. As a necessary part of its operations, SmokeCo's refinery emits a chemical pollutant into the air. SmokeCo has chosen to use state of the art cleansing screens on the refinery smokestacks to minimize the amount of pollutants that are released into the air. Nevertheless, a measurable quantity of the pollutant drifts into the community of Pleasanton each day. As a result, nearly all of the residents of Pleasanton are forced to wash and repaint the exterior of their homes and businesses every few years to remove the chemical residue caused by SmokeCo's operations, which leaves an unsightly discoloration on their homes and businesses. One such resident is Pell. Can Pell bring an action against SmokeCo seeking damages for public nuisance.

Question 9 options:

a)	Yes, if SmokeCo's operations substantially and unreasonably interfere with Pell's use and enjoyment of his home.

b)	Yes, if Pell also suffered some other injury distinct from the other residents and businesses in Pleasanton.

c)	No, there was no physical intrusion onto Pell's property by SmokeCo.

d)	No, because SmokeCo used the state of the art equipment to minimize the amount of pollution released.

Question 10 (2 points)

Danzig is a dance instructor who provided free one-hour introductory lessons to prospective students in his dance academy. Prancer participated in one of Danzig's free introductory lessons. At the end of the lesson, Danzing told Prancer that "for a beginner, you have excellent grace and style -- with a few lessons, you could be winning some dance competitions." Prancer was so excited that he immediately signed up for Danzig's 100 hour dance instruction program at a cost of $5,000. After about 50 hours of lessons, Prancer signed up for a dance competition and was humiliated when he was the first contestant eliminated by the judges based on his lack of dancing talent and skill. Prancer then brought suit against Danzig for misrepresentation. In this lawsuit, which of the following would present Danzig with his best defense?

Question 10 options:

a)	Prancer was never very strong in competitive endeavors of any kind.

b)	Prancer was going to sign up for the dance instruction and try some competitions even before Danzig made the statements.

c)	The written contract for dance instruction signed by Prancer expressly excluded any prior oral representations.

d)	Danzig had instructed many students who had been successful in dance contests, so he believed he could train Prancer.